Mobile Site

Tuesday, October 31, 2006 

Happy Reformation Day
Topic: Events

Reading: Kerux
Enjoying: hallowe'en
Listening: Dr. Clark's lecture (mp3 here)

A very happy reformation day to all the readers, bloggers, and graceless-unloving-twits who haunt these virtual halls. As we're sure you know, today marks the day when that Augustinian monk, Martin Luther, posted four score and fifteen reasons why it was uncool to be a Papist. All anachronisms and sloppy historiography aside, this a season for small "c" catholic Christians to thank God for the biblical truths of sola gratia, solus Christus, sola fide, sola Scriptura, and soli Deo gloria.

Labels: , ,

|

Friday, October 27, 2006 

Levinas on Remorse
Topic: Philosophy

Levinas and the Inner Demons: Guilt and Atonement

Having already begun the article here and here, we continue here with Levinas dealing with remorse.


Remorse

Remorse has a much less varied relationship to guilt than shame did, as we shall see. Steven Tudor shows that in Levinas, remorse is characterized as the suffering acknowledgement of one’s having wronged the Other. Remorse is the realization of my involvement in the Other’s suffering. This sounds practically exactly the same thing as guilt. Nonetheless, guilt is more in the sense of the self offending or trespassing against the authority of the Other over the self.[1] Remorse, when distinguished from guilt, is the passive act; the sudden dawning of consciousness that all that is wrong is partially my fault. In contrast, guilt is now the active, flagrant violating of the Other that is my pre-meditated, carried out violence against any other. While this is a helpful distinction, one can see that it is easy to muddy the waters, and for the planes of remorse and guilt to occasionally overlap.

For instance, suppose I quite suddenly realize that my clothing company has put thousands of Third World workers in a factory over the sea “out of their place in the sun and into the cold;” that they are being harshly treated and underpaid. Remorse sets in over my acts, that I have done these things.[2] Unfortunately, due to my wicked greed and other despicable traits, I do not change anything with my company. Indeed, now I act purposefully. This is now guilt. However, where guilt started and remorse ends is not a clear-cut distinction.

Perhaps then, the best distinctive to be used in thinking about remorse and guilt is to distinguish by time. Without one exception, every time remorse is used with guilt in Levinas, it comes before in the mind of the individual. In this sense, we can think of remorse as a priori guilt. With this in mind, it will help us to clarify the usage of remorse in his texts.

So we have seen the immense emphasis guilt has in the works of Levinas, and how guilt’s little sisters, shame and remorse, interact and behave with and apart from guilt. We have seen how guilt is both relational and subjective. This is an aspect of his work that we simply cannot overlook. This is his anthropology. This prevents us from onto-theo-logy. If Levinas were to write a summa, his foundation would be here.
__________________________________
Footnotes

[1]Tudor Compassion and Remorse p. 152. Back

[2]Interestingly, this is probably where it would be good to note the genitive case of shame. Not only does remorse set in, I also now come under the realization that the Other sees me in my transgression, and I cannot escape her gaze on me. Back



Tags
[Levinas] | [remorse]

Labels:

|

Wednesday, October 25, 2006 

Levinas and Shame
Topic: Philosophy

Levinas And the Inner Demons: Guilt and Atonement
We were just wrapping up with Emmanuel Levinas' take on guilt, and here is the section on that close corollary, shame.


So must end our discussion of guilt. The reader may have noted that we have already allowed language such as ‘shame’ to creep into our discussion, and so defining that and other terms, and their relationship to guilt, must now be our subject.


Shame

Perhaps the best way to find our bearings on shame is to understand it in relation to guilt. When asking if shame is, for Levinas, the same as guilt, a unique answer is given. Within Levinas’ project, shame is nearly always the same as guilt. It usually takes on all of the properties described above that were linked to guilt, yet occasionally within his monologues, shame takes on a slightly nuanced understanding that seems somehow different from guilt.

The majority of Levinas’ work reflects a congruency between guilt and shame. Plenty of examples could be cited, but here a few instances will have to suffice. He says, “The event of putting into question is the shame of the I for its naïve spontaneity…”[1] Earlier we saw how being put into question by the Other produces guilt. Or elsewhere, “Responsibility for the other, and not responsibility for being, is the beginning of philosophy. Shame before the other, and not spontaneous reflection or exacerbation or being-toward-death, breaks the subject of its naivete…”[2] As guilt was shown to increase infinitely, here Levinas shows shame to do the same: “The more I answer the more I am responsible; the more I approach the neighbor with whom I am charged the further away I am. This shame which increases is infinity as an infinition of the infinite, as glory.”[3] Often, Levinas will use guilt and shame interchangeably within the same topic.

However, there is an instance that occurs in his project that highlights a special category of shame, the genitive case of shame.[4] This case has to do with the eyes, with sight. Commenting on Levinas’ project, Steven Tudor notes, “A recurring theme in discussions of shame is the sense of one’s being exposed to others. The notion of exposure here connotes more than simply being an object of another’s cognition. Something is ‘exposed’ only if it is preferably covered up or concealed…”[5] Shame highlights a relational activity that has to do with the Other seeing that which the self does not wish to show. Specifically what is seen, that the self does not wish to reveal, is failure. I do not want my own failure, especially that of my Said, to be revealed for what it is. It is natural for Levinas to highlight this aspect from the Old Testament, specifically the story of Adam and Eve. Michael Michau, of Purdue University, comments on feeling the need to escape this shame:
At the moment of discovering the failure of pleasure to escape being, one is left in a state of shame. Levinas here shifts the discussion to a brief exploration of this phenomenon. In the Garden of Gethsemane [sic], Adam and Eve disobey God, and eat from the tree of knowledge. At this point, they discover that they are naked, and thus feel ashamed of their situation. They then choose to hide their nudity. Levinas observes, “Shame arises each time we are unable to make others forget our basic nudity.” Levinas writes, “Shame…depends…on the very being of our being, on its capacity to break from itself.” Because she is faced with herself, she has no option but to take responsibility for herself and her actions.[6]
So there is a sense in which I feel shame that is special to and set apart from guilt. This, perhaps more than guilt, highlights the individual, isolated sense of wrongdoing, more than perhaps guilt does. While guilt can at times be used to talk collectively of our guilt (as Dostoyevsky does), shame, when Levinas uses it in its special sense, is almost always individualized. “[He] says that, whereas shame ‘looks to what I am,’ guilt looks toward ‘an outer world of harm and wrong…towards what has happened to others’.”[7] However, it should be restated that this is the exception, this genitive of shame, and that for most purposes, shame is synonymous with guilt unless otherwise noted.[8]
__________________________________
Footnotes

[1]Levinas BPW p. 17. Back

[2], Richard A. Ethics, Exegesis, and Philosophy (Cambridge University Press, 2001) p. 97. Back

[3]Levinas GDT p. 235. Back

[4]This is only a friendly play on Levinas, who is fond of noting the accusative “to me.” I say genitive, because shame here in this sense is particularly the shame “of mine.” Back

[5]Tudor, Steven Compassion and Remorse: Acknowledging the Suffering Other (Paris: Peeters Publishing, 2001) p. 167. Back

[6]Michau, Michael R. “A Review of Emmanuel Levinas’ On Escape (De L’evasion)” trans. Bettina Bergo (Stanford Press, 2003). Taken from http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~mmichau/On%20Escape%20_review.pdf. December 15, 2003. I’m not sure why the Garden of Gethsemane is listed, though I am sure it is a simple mistake and should read “Garden of Eden.” Back

[7]Tudor Compassion and Remorse p. 176. Back

[8]Some people have read into shame a justification for the self, and an attack on the Other. In looking at my shame, critics say there seems to be forcefulness, an unwanted glance, a rape with the eyes. Since I do not want the Other to see the phenomenon of which they see in me, isn’t this a violation by them? Unfortunately, due to the scope and range of this paper I do not have the time to pursue that question here, but I think the answer is no. I say that at least partly because Levinas would never allow us to justify ourselves and indict the Other, and secondly because part of the shame is that we do not want the Other to see this phenomenon. We are doubly at fault. Back



Tags
[Levinas] | [philosophy] | [shame]

Labels:

|

 

Cost of Grace
Topic: Art & Culture

Cost of Grace (90.0 x 72.5cm)
Makoto Fujimura
Source

Tags
[art] | [Fujimura]

Labels:

|

 

How Not to Blog
Topic: WtTS Stuff

Reading: Hebrew vocab
Enjoying: cheese pizza
Listening: 43 Folders | Productive Talk podcasts - Merlin Mann interviews the David

While the internet abounds with how to blog (so very Web 1.0), we here at What the Thunder Said are really seeking to serve you by showing you how not to blog. I mean really, where can you go to learn that?

Turns out the answer to that question is to not touch your browser. You are already getting high grade blogging drivel right here. Awhile ago, I posted a response to Mr. Darryl Erkel concerning his review of an article on infant baptism by Dr. Michael S. Horton. Mr. Erkel kindly read my review, took the time to write up a rebuttal, and emailed it to me.

He makes his point fairly clearly when he starts off in the title: "A Reply to Brian Lund - or - How Not to Write A Blog." Or maybe when he says, "While I understand that blogger essays are by their nature designed to be succinct and written “in the moment,” they should at least be composed clearly... and accurately. Unfortunately, for Lund, he fails to do so in both instances," maybe he is hinting at something in my blogging quality. Or perhaps when he - after reading my post - heartily commends William Zinsser's On Writing Well and disects my article in 12 scintillating points I'm am supposed to think he is getting to something. Or in his conclusion, referring to the name of this blog, Mr Erkel concludes that, "There’s no thunder here folks; only a whimper," am I supposed to be picking up his drift? Come on, Mr. Erkel! Make your point already!

Ok, so if the shoe fits, I guess I'll wear it. While I can't speak for bothall of my readers, it had never crossed my mind that this blog might be less than Pulitzer standards.

I will post Mr. Erkel's rebuttal for download in the next few days, and then slowly, laboriously, wade through his critique to give you the full flavor of his argument. I'm sure it will prove very entertaining.

On another note, besides leading you through how this blog is awful, I will also be noting the aforementioned Jesus Loves the Little Children and a blow by blow of Justin Taylor and Kelly Kapic's newest Owen republication Overcoming Sin & Temptation. So there will still be some terrific reading. Whimper, indeed.

Tags
[Erkel] | [WtTS]

Labels: ,

|

Tuesday, October 24, 2006 

Last Night's Dinner
Topic: Bio

Reading: Ancient Church lecture notes. Got a midterm tomorrow...
Enjoying: singing the psalms in Hebrew

So last night I so graciously helped to make dinner, which is not uncommon in the Lund household. I spent a good deal of time making meals over campfires with friends and at Shamineau, and most of my meals are an attempt to relive those glory days.

I was of course incredibly helpful last night, like when I went to fill up the sink with hot water to thaw the fish we were going to have and I put the sink plug in upside down. I of course didn't notice until much later, when I couldn't grab a hold of anything on the plug to pull it out. Naturally -naturally- I reached for the pliers and successfully removed the plug, but now that my metal pliers was wet, I thoughtfully decided to use my wife's linen towels to dry off the tool. -naturally- This of course effectively dirtied the towel in rust, ruining it. While my patient wife scurried to try and clean the rusted towel, I busied myself making cranberry juice, which involved me spilling concentrate on the kitchen rug. I also managed to use up most of the tinfoil in covering a pan that still got filthy, burn the asparagus, and keep my wife running the entire time.

See, that is why its so fun to cook with me. I keep everyone on their toes. Never a dull moment here...

Labels:

|

Monday, October 23, 2006 

Levinas on Guilt
Topic: Philosophy

Part of my senior thesis at my alma mater dealt with Levinas and his relation to the Other (autroi). Due to finding myself on the action end of two midterms, term papers and finals, my blogging output will have to be relegated to past writing. In the following days, Levinas on shame, remorse, and substitution will follow in forthcoming posts.

Levinas and the Inner Demons: Guilt and its Alleviation

Exonarare alius et ego ab sons sontis. “Liberate the Other and the self from guiltiness.” In philosophy, few deal with guilt and its effects in such an essential way as does Emmanuel Levinas (1906-95). As pertinent as guilt is to the modern ethos and climate, it is a wonder that more work isn’t done on such a paramount issue. But as is human, we rarely if ever linger with guilt, instead always pushing on looking for release from it. Calculations of American wealth that comes from various forms of coping with guilt are enormous. So for a philosopher who dealt so poignantly with the issue, how did he handle it? Does Levinas have any relief to offer the present day? For this present work to be successful, a careful analysis of guilt in the project of Levinas, as well as its two sisters shame and remorse, will be presented, as well as a look into his work to see if there is any hope of release. After all opinions are considered, it will be shown that Levinas does not give us hope in escaping our guilt, and thinks that instead we are consigned to it forever. Let us now turn to his work, so as to better understand the project.

Guilt

Guilt, in Levinas’ program, is quite different from other notions of the subject that are floating in the spirit of the age. From modern psychology, we get slightly nuanced definitions of the same concepts. For instance, M. Fossum and M. Mason can say that, “While guilt is a painful feeling of regret and responsibility for one’s actions, shame is a painful feeling about oneself as a person.”[1] These two have taken their cue from the father of modern psychology, S. Freud. You can hear them echoing their father in Freud’s own proposal: “But with fear of the super-ego the case is different. Here, instinctual renunciation is not enough, for the wish persists and cannot be concealed from the super-ego. Thus, in spite of the renunciation that has been made, a sense of guilt comes about.”[2] And the list could go on. However, what is important to see here is that all of the definitions presented here could take place in a vacuum; they do not require any Other.

For Levinas, guilt is an entirely relational and subjective experience. Relational, in that guilt stems from my encounter with the Other. “Before the Other, the I is infinitely responsible.”[3] The Other places me in such a position so that the self’s responsibility holds the person guilty. Levinas enjoys Fyodor Dostoyevsky’s line from The Brothers Karamazov, “Each of us is guilty before everyone, for everyone and for every thing, and I more than the others.”[4] The Other’s voice calls me into question. The presence of the Other invalidates my own existence, and shows the corruptness of my own heart. With Blaise Pascal, Levinas affirms that by taking “my place in the sun,” I have pushed the Other out into the cold.[5] If it were possible to conceive of the world with only the self, the self as God, then there is no guilt, no responsibility. For guilt stems from the Other.

Guilt is also, as mentioned, a subjective experience. That is to say, guilt takes place within the self. “…The I is infinitely responsible.” It could be thought that since we are speaking of a relational phenomenon, that the guilt may lie in the between. This, however, cannot be the case. The Other is totally absolved of my guilt. The Other cannot be made guilty for the guilt he or she places on me. This is a form of slavery, of imperialism. If the Other were to share in my guilt, even in a relational sense, than the self knows the guilt of the Other, and this is the Same. By knowing the Other, I attempt to capture, to secure, the Other. This is far too close to conversation, or vile dialogue, for Levinas. The guilt must lie within what the self already knows. “The primordial experience of conscience is the discovery of one’s being guilty of having taken away the other’s possibilities of existence; it is not the mere discovery of my being the ground of ontological negativity…”[6]

We may wonder, then, if there is a chance to escape this guilt. Perhaps, one might reason, that if I simply do not acknowledge or answer the voice of the Other, to not allow her to place me under responsibility and guilt, that the self may slip the noose. However, this is not the case for Levinas’ project, and he offers two reasons for this.

First, we wrongly conclude that we have a choice in the matter. For 21st century Americans, notions of election and destiny rub raw for us. However, we have neither option nor choice in our guilt. By living we have been elected for such a situation as we find ourselves in. “The judgment which declares me responsible precedes any possibility of choice or consent.”[7] Or, later, “The will that is judged in the meeting with the Other does not assume the judgment it welcomes.”[8] Levinas argues strongly that when we were first created that we already had this guilt upon us. There is a choice in the guilt, but it is not ours. The choice of guilt lies in the choice of the Other. If I could assent to the choice of guilt, that would be an acquiring, a taking over. And this, again, is to acquire the Other.

Secondly, for those who argue that this simply cannot be the case, and that we are free, Levinas has a slightly varied objection. He almost grants their demand, which is, that we humans are free, but then shows them the consequences of such freedom. Against Sarte, who claimed that we are condemned to be free, Levinas posits that we are condemned to suffer if we are free. We suffer a guilt, or a shame, in our freedom. Levinas says that, “We are like a knight who has received an investiture, we do not primarily possess a home and land of our own but first of all have received the task of protecting widows and orphans, the poor, and the stanger, i.e., any other in its nakedness and vulnerability.”[9] Freedom, if one ought still to call it as such, bears with it this guilty shame and naked vulnerability. So to those who demand freedom in face of the guilt, Levinas first says that you are not as free as you think, and secondly, that if you really knew the freedom, you may not want it anyway.[10]

With the prognosis so certain, the patient next asks the doctor of the consequences, of how grim the effects. Levinas does not offer much hope. For those who wonder what the effects of the individual are, expositing the following quote may prove the most direct way.
The true judgment is revealed in the eyes of the other, who sees me and speaks to me, although I cannot reduce the other’s epiphany to an image, a concept, a work, or a text. The other’s eyes and voice express – silently and discretely – the true judgment by making me discover my unlimited and incessantly growing responsibility and, thereby, revealing the meaning of my suffering and death. The goodness demanded by this judgment and its accusation of my guilt call me forth to a justice without end beyond the universal justice of a well-ordered world. The more I am just, the more I am guilty, for the nonchosen [sic] responsibility that constitutes me does not diminish but grows by its fulfillment. By revealing my debt, the judgment of the infinite confirms my apologetic position, not in the form of a consolation but as an ongoing transformation of the egoistic fear of my death into a fear of causing the other’s death.[11]
The effects, then, are at least twofold. First, the self is totally and completely overwhelmed, as if by floodwaters, by the guilt and responsibility towards the Other. He says this quite clearly, “unlimited and incessantly growing” and “does not diminish but grows by its fulfillment.” This guilt is like fire, which perpetuates itself the longer it burns, spreading itself farther and wider. One might ask in what sense this occurs in the individual, who, presumably is already “completely” guilty in the face of the Other, and how the guilt can in any sense “incessantly grow.” This is not, however, Levinas’ burden, and he instead seeks to show the all-encompassing sense of the guilt.

Secondly, there is a sense of death and judgment from this guilt. “The goodness demanded by this judgment and its accusation of my guilt call me forth to a justice without end beyond the universal justice of a well-ordered world.” The justice is everlasting, and apparently, beyond anything we here can comprehend.[12] It is a “judgment of the infinite.” Accompanying this judgment is a notion of death, which parries itself between the self and the Other. Of special importance is to note that it is the Other which judges me.

___________________

Next time, we will deal with how Levinas employs shame.

__________________________________
Footnotes

[1]M. Fossum & M. Mason “Facing Shame” Healing the Shame that Binds You ed Bradshaw, John (Deerfield Beach, FL: Health Communications, Inc. 1988). Back

[2]Freud, Sigmund Civilization and Its Discontents trans. J. Strachey, Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works, Vol. XXI (London: The Hogarth Press and the Institute of Psycho-analysis, 1961 [1st German ed. 1930]) p. 124. Back

[3]Levinas, Emmanuel Basic Philosophical Writings ed. A. Peperzak, S. Critchley, R. Bernasconi (Indiana University Press, 1996) p.18. Back

[4]Levinas, BPW p.144. Notice that Dostoyevsky says “before everyone.” It is a social, relational guilt that Dostoyevsky champions here. Back

[5]Peperzak, Adriaan To The Other (Purdue University, 1993) p. 103. Back

[6]Peperzak TTO p. 116 emphasis mine. Back

[7]Ibid p. 117. Back

[8]Ibid Back

[9]Ibid Back

[10]Or, at least, that you are not any better off with it. While these are very much my own words, Levinas says something akin to that in God, Death and Time (Standford, 2000) p. 16-22, 140-144. Back

[11]Peperzak TTO p. 192. Back

[12]Admittedly, Levinas’ terms that pertain to anything of the here after are scant and difficult to understand. Try as I might, I could not find further material dealing with his project on these concepts. This is not necessarily due to lack of information, but perhaps a finitude to my looking. In either case, a theology of the afterlife by his contemporary Jewish peers may provides some insights, which may be found in Contemporary Jewish Theology ed. E. N. Dorff, L. E. Newman (Oxford University Press, 1993). Pp. 190-220. Back



Tags
[philosophy] | [Levinas] | [guilt]

Labels:

|

 

Reflecting on Two Kingdoms Theology
Topic: Theology

Reading: studying for Midterms
Enjoying: Fudge thin mints and coffee
Listening: Godsmack

Head over to De Regnis Duobus, blog by PCA church planter Rev. Stellman, for a scintillating discussion of all things cult and culture, and specifically Two Kingdoms Theology. The discussion is pretty terrific, and make sure you wade into the comments discussion, where Rev. Stellman et al are at their best, and further nuances and clarifications are developed and culled from the discussion. Two Kingdoms theology, developed in primitive form from Augustine's distinction between the City of God and City of Man, reached fruition under Luther and, as is argued at the blog in question, Calvin, and holds that Christians operate in "the awkward position" of living as citizens of the heavenly, cultic, and spiritual Kingdom to come, and live in the earthly, cultural, and temporary kingdom of man at the same time. God, sovereign over both, governs the heavenly Kingdom through special revelation of the Lord Jesus Christ as sovereign over the Church, and He rules the kingdom of Man through common grace and Providence.

This doctrine would be in contradisctinction to the previously mentioned weltanschauung, or "world-and-life-view" espoused by Abraham Kuyper and neo-calvinism.[1] You can quickly imagine that the Two Kingdoms theology (2Kt) has several other theological bridges and ramifications connecting it elsewhere in Christology, amillenial views of eschatology, etc.

While we are very thankful to God for what Rev. Stellman is doing, no doubt he would probably think I still have some transformationalist tendencies to excise. I am ok with that, primarily because I am not completely convinced that 2Kt advocates aren't speaking past exemplary representatives of neocalvinism and other forms of "transformationalism."[2] Hopefully, as I ask more questions and read more of his blogging and the comments, the fog will lift and I will come to more biblical conclusions.

Before I launch into a few questions of my own, it may be helpful to point out one of the better (and lengthier) discussions over at De Regnis Duobus. On dealing with whether or not Christians need to play a role in the city (to my mind a completely moot point for 2Kt) and the voices presented by Pastor Tim Keller of Redeemer Church in NYC, Stellman penned the popular Holy Urbanism Old and New with contributions in the comments by both the esteemed Dr. D. G. Hart and Pastor Keller participating. It seems to safe to consider Pastor Keller a strong and reasonable proponent of the "transformationist" perspective, and the conversation is helpful. For the groundwork of laying the 2Kt, check De Regnis Duobus' archives for more.

But back to the interrogation. While hopefully further queries will be developed as more reflection and conversation develop, here are some initial reactions and questions:

Questions for 2Kt
1. Is there an assumed neutrality at play in 2Kt when dealing with the cultural? For instance, you (JJS and blog) assert that Big Brother should play according to the rules of justice, fairness, etc., as derived by common grace, but whose definition of justice carries the day? One of my assumptions is that the cultural stands on the assumptions of the cult, and to my crackedlimited knowledge there has never been a culture that has not reflected the values and norms of the cult. In keeping the lines between the 2K distinct, the culture will always begin to revert to more and more corrupt conceptions of justice. (In order to even conceive of "corrupt justice" you must have a cultic definition of justice!) The Church is necessary to hold the culture even to pluralistic notions of justice, etc.

2. How does the 2Kt model account for Christ's imperatives (nomos) that affect believers in the kingdom of man? While you argue that the Bible does not give directives on which political party to align with, it does speak to several other transactions - business and otherwise - that must occur in the culture. Issues of spending money, rendering justice and mercy, helping one's neighbor, all take place outside of the cult. Do the principles of the cult get to direct behavior in the culture, and if so, where do we draw the line? Only the baptized? Only when acting in the name of the cult?

3. In accord with #2, will a Christian politician vote and act differently than an upright, moral non-Christian politician? What about an immoral non-Christian politician?

4. Dealing only within the sphere of culture, why is polygamy and marijuana wrong? How is the kingdom of man not ultimately regulated to relativism?

5. You state,
"World" and "life" are about the two broadest categories one can think of, so where does one's "view" of these things come from?

It seems that if the answer is, "From the Bible," then a certain view of the Bible is presupposed which is hard to sustain, namely, that it is meant to furnish the believer with enough information about politics, economics, art, and culture to provide us with the correct world-and-life view and thereby secure "the coherence and integrity that is the basis for a meaningful life."

But is the Bible's view of economics Libertarian or Green? Is the Bible's view of politics Red or Blue? Is art supposed to be descriptive or prescriptive, according to Jesus?

And further, if we maintain that the Bible speaks to every area of life, then in the end mustn't we conclude that it really speaks about nothing at all?[3]
First of all, there is a quantitative difference between not speaking to the subject and not exhausting the issue. The wisdom of God in James 3 is a moral wisdom unavailable in common grace. When you ask where we are to get our categories for "world" and "life" and seemingly reject special revelation ("the Bible"), this seems to call into question a covenant epistemology. At one level, there is only the choice between theonomy and non-theonomy. Finally, when you say, "if we maintain that the Bible speaks to every area of life, then in the end mustn't we conclude that it really speaks about nothing at all?", one response could be, "No, we need not say that. The Bible does speak to everything, and it really isn't all that hard or all that inconceivable." To say that the Bible is only sufficient for matters of faith and practice seems to be a hair's breadth from old nineteenth century liberalism.

6. Is there a category confusion being made between "theocracy" and "exile," in that there is also the category of "exodus?" The condition Israel found herself in while wandering in the desert does not seem to perfectly fit either of the original categories. Interestingly, I think I have heard "transformationalists" like Keller and Pastor Mark Driscoll talk about how the church is in exile a la Israel in Babylon. However, when Dr. Rev. Micahel Horton wishes to speak on the church, he thinks in terms of exodus and "pilgrim."[4] Do you see this distinction, and would you continue to follow the "exile" trajectory, or more the "exodus?"

7. You say, "So to use Keller's example from the comments below, a Christian CEO won't seek to maximize profits if workers' rights are violated (counterculturalism), and his church won't use the Trinity Hymnal if the unbelievers' tastes are violated (contextualization)." Alright, now who is using their paradigm for greatest theological comfort? Hobby horse much? ::wink and grin::

8. Partially mentioned above, but one concern is that 2Kt gives too much credit to unregenerate man. You speak of "common grace wisdom," but I maintain that wisdom is moral in nature and the fool says in his heart that there is no God. How does this 2Kt take into account Van Til's brute facts and the necessary incongruity and borrowed credit of natural man? I am not arguing that Da Vinci or Thomas Paine were in fact idiots, but to credit "common grace wisdom" seems more than I would allow.

9. Finally (for now), is it accurate to say that neocalvinists and 2Kt advocates agree that the benefits of Christ's saving work do indeed need to be applied to all spheres of life, but disagree on the means and the time?

Anyway, these are a few questions I have. No doubt some are poor, some will be revised, and some will be completely shot through with 2Kt pellet. I eagerly await further thought.
__________________________________
Footnotes

[1]Here is more on Abraham Kuper, here is more on neocalvinism, and our musings here and here. Back

[2]"Transformationalism" as it is used in these discussions by 2Kt advocates is derogatory. I use it only descriptively and self-deprecatingly only. Promise. Back

[3]Source Back

[4]Source Back



Tags
[theology] | [neocalvinism] | [kingdom]

Labels:

|

Friday, October 13, 2006 

New Book
Topic: Events

Rev. Mr. Daniel R. Hyde, pastor of Oceanside United Reformed Church has recently published a new book dealing with paedobaptism. Jesus Loves the Little Children: Why We Baptize Children (Reformed Fellowship, 2006), has just recently been put out on stands and can be purchased at Amazon here.
"Well-informed and immensely practical, this is the book that I will
recommend first when parents ask, 'Why should I baptize my child?"
-- Michael Horton

You can visit Rev. Hyde's blog "Pilgrims & Parish" for excellent work on historic liturgy, church life, sermons and biblical meditations, and info on the URC.

Tags
[Hyde] | [book] | [baptism]

Labels: ,

|

 

Surviving Midterms
Topic: WtTS Stuff

Reading: nothing
Enjoying: nada
Listening: --

Finding yourself at the end of the tunnel staring into the bright light that is Friday is a blissful feeling, especially after knocking down the bulk of your midterms for the quarter. Not really knowing what the inside of your eyelids look like for any given stretch of time is a mildly disturbing feeling, but it ranks closely with the feeling you get when you try in vain to remember a single thing you wrote in the two hour essay midterm that you submitted earlier that morning. I'm looking forward to sleep, the weekend, and taking a more balanced approach to life.

On a completely different note, I experienced my first rain fall in California today. I think I saw a total of 26 rain drops, and if it hadn't been cloudy out, I'm not sure I would have believed it was actually raining. Rumor has it that SoCal winters are actually quite wet.

Despite the fact that my midterm week is over, I actually still have two more midterms to be completed before October gets out, so I still have some serious work to do. And three large papers. And finals. But for now, for a few short moments, things are looking good.


Tags
[events]

Labels: ,

|

Friday, October 06, 2006 

KWOTED: Peter Martyr
Topic: Theology

Peter Martyr Vermigli on relationships between salvation, justification, resurrection, and faith.[1]

For seeing that external kingdom is not restored, nor that we ought to look for restitution, we must have respect unto Christ, who reigns in heaven, and in them which are his and shall reign eternally. Concerning his death and resurrection, Christ alleged the types of Jonah the prophet (Mt. 12:39; 16:4); and in many such places, the death and resurrection of Christ was shadowed.

Again, it is to be noted that these things which so went before were only types and shadows of the Lord's death and resurrection; but after a sort had in them the very truth itself of those things. For seeing that those holy men suffered many grievous things, and that in a while, help and deliverence came by God, insomuch as they were the members of Christ and had Christ for their Head, it follows that Christ in them both suffered and was delivered. Wherefore we say that the passion and resurrection of Christ began even from the first times, but that afterward they took place more manifestly in Christ himself, and yet still become more evident unto the church through the present death, which it daily abides in labors and sorrows, expecting the blessed resurrection of the flesh.

Augustine, in his 16th book against Faustus, seems to bring this interpretation - that our faith is chiefly directed unto the resurrection of Christ. That he dies, the Ethniks also grant ("Ethnik" was a term used to refer to the heathen or Gentiles as distinct from Christians - Ed.); but that he rose again, they utterly deny. And therefore, seeing faith is said to be the thing whereby we are justified, Paul would make mention of the thing wherein faith is most conversant. And for confirmation of his saying, he cites a place out of the tenth chapter to the Romans, "If with thy mouth thou confess thy Lord Jesus Christ, and believe in thy heart that he was raised from the dead, thou shalt be saved" (v. 9). By which words it appears that salvation and justification are attributed unto the faith of Christ's resurrection.


__________________________________
Footnotes

[1]Common Places p. 608-9. As noted in Kerux 21/2 (Sept 2006) 35-36 Back



Tags
[theology] | [Peter Martyr Vermigli]

Labels:

|

Monday, October 02, 2006 

A Letter Concerning Premillenialism
Topic: Theology

Reading: Hebrew homework and Vos' Letters
Enjoying: powdered sugar doughnuts. mmmm...
Listening: Anberlin and Cartel. A bit punkish for this late in the evening, but I'm not quite tired yet

In one of his correspondences to J. Gresham Machen, Geerhardus Vos comments on the doctrine known as premillenialism. He notes the severity with which it is held by its supporters, and comments on it. We have noted this doctrine with distaste in the past, and it should be noted there is a historical discrepency to this doctrine. What virtually eveyone today means when they breathe "premillenialism" across their lips is that of the dispensational variety. Dispensationalism is a hitorically recent theological novelty that twists most of what it touches, a sort of cripple King Midas.

The older, purer form of premillenialism is sometimes thought to be the eschatological choice of some of the Apologists and Church Fathers. Usually, this is demarcated from the former by the label "chiliastic" (or chilial) premillenialism, or simply chiliasm. This option is a perfectly orthodox view of the parousia and events directly preceding the conclusion of the Day of the Lord. It differs from dispensational premillenialism in that it typically does not embrace the dispensational hermeneutic, is not filled with endlessly repetitious coming downs and rising ups of various parties between earth and the ethereal heaven, does not reintroduce the Jewish cult to blaspheme Christ's sacrifice on the cross, and force and impossibly complex and foggy numerology.

Unfortunately, it is dispensational premillenialism that Vos is discussing in his letter. You didn't pay good money to hear this author prattle on his own opinions, so without further ado, Geerhardus Vos. (You did pay good money, though, right?)

May 7, 1936
1212 So. Sycamore Street,
Santa Ana, California.

My Dear Mr. Machen:
...Then there is Prichard (a pastor in this region of CA and former Westminster student - Ed.) near Los Angeles, who left his last church in that city because of the ceaseless inculcation by the people of (and insistence on) Premillenialism. This doctrine has spread to such an extent here and so overlaid the essence of the gospel, nay of the very core of religion, that it seems hard to speak or argue about it. The sentiment is so strong and so absolutely focused in that one matter of eschatological chronology, that I sometimes am made to feel that the "Millennium" (sic) has become a god, crowding out even the true God in the imagination and religious interest of the people. If you tell them that you have your doubts about the Millennium they ask very naively whether you do not believe in the second coming of the Lord...
With kind regards to yourself and the other members of your faculty and the assurance that you always have my deep interest and my prayers I remain

Sincerely yours,
Geerhardus Vos[1]
It is interesting that Vos seems to think that doctrines ought to be argued about, which would no doubt be taken with pained expressions in today's milieu. On that note, I would like to point out that Vos was, if anything, overly mild and meek when it came to doctrine and against the relief impressed by Machen, Warfield, et al. In addition to this, I don't think the condition premillenialism enjoyed in Vos' day has sufficiently decreased. We here at What the Thunder Said... pray that it would continue to decline.

In conclusion, whenever mentioning Vos, it would be wrong to not remind you of The Vossed World. Enjoy.
__________________________________
Footnotes

[1]The Letters of Geerhardus Vos ed. J. T. Dennison Jr. (P & R Publishing, 2005) p. 236 - 37.Back



Tags
[Vos] | [theology]

Labels:

|

Transplanted from the artic blight of Minnesota to the sunny paradise of SoCal, I am attending school and learning to say "dude." I like to think of myself as equal parts surf rash, Batman, heavy metal, Levinas, poetic license, and reformational. Other than creating blund blogs, I enjoy reading, sporting, and socializing with serious and funny people.
My profile



Web Blog

About

Email:

FAQ - Author|Site
Upcoming Events |30 Boxes|
blund Frappr Places
Looking for Poem|Eliot information?

Thunder Sites

Thunder Mobile
Thunder Photo Album
Thunder Media
Thunder Frappr Map
Thunder Directory



Popular and Favorite Posts
Liturgical Bingo: BBC
Updated Video Roundup
Levinas and the Inner Demons

Categories

under construction

Recent Posts


Thunder Comments

under construction

Links & Blogs

Websites
CRTA
Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals
WSJ Opinion Journal
The Bethlehem Institute
ModernReformation
Westminster Seminary
Liberty Classical Academy
Monergism
ACR Homes
Heritage Charter School
MN Reformation Society
Mobility Today
Christian Classics Ethereal Library
Desiring God
A Puritan's Mind

Blogs Du Jour
Gospel Driven Blog
Building Old School Churches
PastorHacks.Net
Cranach
Keener Living
Cyrene Ministries: Anthony Carter
League of Reformed Bloggers
Westminster Seminary Blog Ring
WSC & Alumni Blog Ring
Voice of the Martyrs

Friends
Syond of Saints
Chris & Steph
Pilgrim in Progress
Josh Carney
Seeing and Savoring
Through A Mirror Dimly
Robert Recio
The Cameroonian Three
Deus Dixit
Morrow's Words
The Normal Christian Blog
The Fire and the Rose
M. Joel Tuininga
Mayor Loebs
The Griffiths Family Blog
One Day in the Life
יהוה צדקנו•
Off the Wire
Claus' Xanga
Sweetened Christological Syllabus
Molesky Tribe
Shane's Blog
Jesse & Kelly Torgerson
Zach & Sarah

blund web comments

under construction
  • more web comments

  • noteworthy posts


    Archives


    Subscribe













    BlogMailr Enabled
    Get Firefox
    Get Thunderbird



    Subscribe in Rojo
    Add to My Yahoo!
    Subscribe with Bloglines
    Subscribe in NewsGator Online

    Subscribe with Pluck RSS reader
    Add 'What the Thunder Said...' to Newsburst from CNET News.com
    Google Reader
    Add to My AOL
    del.icio.us What the Thunder Said...
    Subscribe with myFeedster
    Furl What the Thunder Said...
    Feed Your Feeds
    Kinja Digest
    Solosub
    MultiRSS
    Rmail
    Rss fwd
    Blogarithm



    Thunder Maps

    Thunder Frappr Map


    ClustrMap Visitor Map Locations of visitors to this page

    Adsense


    Thunder Bookshelf


    by J. R. R. Tolkien


    by Flannery O'Connor


    by Herman Bavinck


    by Peter A. Lillback

    Banners

    For proper use please use
    Get Firefox! Get Thunderbird!



    Purevolume.com

    Weblog Commenting and Trackback by HaloScan.com

    Desiring God

    MN Wild Hockey



    Bethlehem

    30 Boxes

    Oceanside URC

    Send Me A Message

    Mission OPC



    Westminster Seminary, California

    Statcounter.com

    Christ PCA Temecula

    MN Twins Baseball



    Clustrmaps.com






    Powered by Blogger







    How does Rowling and the "Harry Potter" series stack up against Tolkien and "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy?
    Rowling is the new dreamweaver. She is reigniting literature and fantasy as we know it.
    Tolkien is the undisputed favorite. We have not yet seen a match for his philogistic skill.
    This is apples and oranges. You might as well compare ping pong with Halo. Two different animals.
    Rowling wins, but only by one quidditch goal.
    Tolkien still stands, but only barely.
      
    pollcode.com free polls






    Firefox 2