I certainly recognize the primary differences between their theology, but when it comes to actually living our lives faithfully in our vocations, what is the practical difference between the two? Not trying to cause a stir, just really curious and trying to understand these positions better. Thanks!
What is the Practical Difference between 2K and Neo-Calvinism?
- Thread starter Myson
- Start date
- Status
TheOldCourse
Puritan Board Sophomore
You'll have to be a bit more specific. There are a lot of flavors of "2K" all the way from a radical version that contends that that the Bible, in the main, doesn't belong in the public sphere and agrees with the modern perspective on church-state separation to the traditional Reformed version that is establishmentarian and insists on the government enforcing both tables of the law. Where you fall on that spectrum as a 2k'er can make things look very different, practically speaking.
The fundamental difference is that all of the versions of 2K maintain a distinction between the sacred and the secular and neo-calvinism tends to blur that distinction.
Are both of those groups separate form what is termed the New Calvinism?
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
Yes. 2 Kingdoms is the historic Reformed position. Radical Two Kingdoms is a deviation in which they believe the church should have no prophetic voice (aside from cheerleading for Congressman Ben Sasse). Neo-Calvinism believes that every area of life should "be redeemed"
I did read some material that stated that the reformers themselves wanted to have all aspects of culture under Lordship of Christ, as influencing art, culture etc.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
In a very limited sense. The Reformers wanted to reform worship. If as a result culture was reformed, well and good.
They also wanted to have God glorified in music/arts/culture it would seem. They did not see the Kingdom of God was totally separated from being part of the town square.
I wish I could, I know so little already I'm basically learning as I go
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
True in the sense of God will be glorified as the knowledge of the Lord spreads over the earth. But at the same time, you don't see the Reformers sponsoring culture-redeeming workshops.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
here are some great articles by Paul Helm
http://paulhelmsdeep.blogspot.com/2010/10/from-hippo-to-escondido-ii.html
http://paulhelmsdeep.blogspot.com/2010/10/from-hippo-to-escondido-i.html
http://paulhelmsdeep.blogspot.com/2010/10/from-hippo-to-escondido-ii.html
http://paulhelmsdeep.blogspot.com/2010/10/from-hippo-to-escondido-i.html
i was thinking more like in the sense that they wanted to have art, and music, and entertainment if talked about today as glorifying Christ.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
That's what neo-cals want today. The Reformers didn't care about that.
Those hold to Theonomy or Post Mil would support that notion though, correct?
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
Not necessarily. Theonomy has nothing to do with it, and the most annoying cries for "reclaiming culture" comes from the Democratic stronghold of Calvin College.
Some postmils do, but the majority haven't. You don't see Jonathan Edwards lobbying for air time on NPR.
You are right about Calvin college, as there very aggressive in promoting transforming the culture, especially arts, for Christ.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
And one of their graduates makes an edgy anti-hero movie about the p0rn industry. Admittedly, it casts it in a negative light, but one wonders if allof that was necessary. That director has since apostasized.
Who was that?
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
Now that was funny.
Now I know him, as he did taxi Driver and raging Bull.
jwright82
Puritan Board Professor
You know I wonder this too. That is a good question, thanks for asking it! I don't know enough about the two to answer but to raise a pragmatic question "if a NeoCalvinist and a 2K guy walked into a coffee shop how would there behavior be different?" You know on a practical level? If the only difference is theoretical, than there's no difference. But if you bring up voting for instance you probably would get two radically different "practical" answers. Good things to think about!
Ask Mr. Religion
Flatly Unflappable
A lot of speaking past each other on this topic I feel; however, the ref2k material I have been exposed to (primarily Kim Riddlebargers lectures) are beneficial in that they really highlight the primacy of conversion, means of grace, and the extent of Christ’s sovereignty over all things for the sake of bringing his people to final glory; all of which are beneficial in clarifying the nature of the Christian’s mission in the world.
NeoCal’s emphasis on cultural transformation seems to bring with it a subtle shift of focus off of the means of grace and the ultimate reality that disciple making is an individual venture; and that Christ is after individuals; not cultures. At worst, it becomes a framework by which it can satisfy worldly longings in the name of Christ, in my opinion. A sort of justification of our idolatry it seems. But I’m not an expert on it by any means; so I might be making some misunderstandings or importing my own weaknesses onto that view.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
NeoCal’s emphasis on cultural transformation seems to bring with it a subtle shift of focus off of the means of grace and the ultimate reality that disciple making is an individual venture; and that Christ is after individuals; not cultures. At worst, it becomes a framework by which it can satisfy worldly longings in the name of Christ, in my opinion. A sort of justification of our idolatry it seems. But I’m not an expert on it by any means; so I might be making some misunderstandings or importing my own weaknesses onto that view.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Does this 2 Kingdom view get some of their belief from citing Jesus and Paul not really addressing social ills like slavery, or not thundering in their eyes against brutal Roman authority, according to how they see the meaning of scripture?
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
Conservative Neo-Calvinists usually end up as theonomists. Liberal Neo-Calvinists end up as socialists on Twitter.
Andrew P.C.
Puritan Board Junior
One should consider the fact that the reformers held to the idea that the magistrate is to uphold the 1st and 2nd tables of the moral Law. Calvin (for example) goes other this in book four of the institutes.
Jo_Was
Puritan Board Freshman
Just speaking in "extremes" of the scenario ("If...the two walk into a bar...). Keep in mind that there is sort of a scale of grey, so this isn't the defining, but maybe some caricature for the sake of illustrating that they can have vastly different practical implications.
R2K extreme - Sharp distinction between the sacred and secular
In practice, this could lead to either inconsistency between what a person might purport theologically, and what they may actually do when faced with social or 'secular' applications. Alternatively, this could also lend to some wishy-washy-ness, especially in matters that are not as clear. In considering how a person should act in their local community or social arenas, how a person should vote (if they should vote), in matters of stark practicality like business or economics, etc--a logically consistent R2K-er is going to have some difficulty in separating the spheres when so much of life--even in these 'secular' matters can involve moral aspects--thus bridging the two spheres (church and state) they're trying to separate!
Neocalvinist extreme - Blurring of the sacred and secular
The opposite end of the spectrum is neocalvinism, which at its worst could boil down to 'if it's all sacred, then none of it is.' This is where you get the caricatures of Christian blog posts redeeming outright-sinful (or in the least highly questionable on the conscience of a Christian) movies, or some of the examples that were given in the thread already (the attempt to "Christianize" people, places, things--you name it. I think this also under-girds more subtly some of the more broader evangelical tropes of making a 'Christian' item--if you slap a verse, a cross, or a fish on it...that being the baby-step version to really 'reforming' the whole system. I think this is a popular thing to grapple onto for younger generations (source: am a younger generation) who are all about changing the world (and all such things that young people dream of), and the way to do that is to be relevant to society....but instead of calling it 'trying to be relevant' we mask it in hyper-Kuyperianism and call it "redeeming." I like this quote that is MIS-attributed to Luther oftentimes: “The Christian shoemaker does his duty not by putting little crosses on the shoes, but by making good shoes, because God is interested in good craftsmanship.”
I like to think that a balanced view falls somewhere in the middle of the two, recognizing that God's redemptive work is powerful enough to encapsulate the whole world--even caring for the lilies and the sparrows (so should we not also care for those things?)! That should move us to work his redeeming love in our lives. However, there are specific, sacred acts that Christ has called us to be a part of--he is a holy God, after all, and so we shouldn't forget that holiness requires a 'setting apart'. That said, Christ's work in our life should be evident in our whole being--from bedside to business (even if we don't stamp on seals of redemption and fishes. Sometimes...a painting of a cat is just a painting of a cat.
R2K extreme - Sharp distinction between the sacred and secular
In practice, this could lead to either inconsistency between what a person might purport theologically, and what they may actually do when faced with social or 'secular' applications. Alternatively, this could also lend to some wishy-washy-ness, especially in matters that are not as clear. In considering how a person should act in their local community or social arenas, how a person should vote (if they should vote), in matters of stark practicality like business or economics, etc--a logically consistent R2K-er is going to have some difficulty in separating the spheres when so much of life--even in these 'secular' matters can involve moral aspects--thus bridging the two spheres (church and state) they're trying to separate!
Neocalvinist extreme - Blurring of the sacred and secular
The opposite end of the spectrum is neocalvinism, which at its worst could boil down to 'if it's all sacred, then none of it is.' This is where you get the caricatures of Christian blog posts redeeming outright-sinful (or in the least highly questionable on the conscience of a Christian) movies, or some of the examples that were given in the thread already (the attempt to "Christianize" people, places, things--you name it. I think this also under-girds more subtly some of the more broader evangelical tropes of making a 'Christian' item--if you slap a verse, a cross, or a fish on it...that being the baby-step version to really 'reforming' the whole system. I think this is a popular thing to grapple onto for younger generations (source: am a younger generation) who are all about changing the world (and all such things that young people dream of), and the way to do that is to be relevant to society....but instead of calling it 'trying to be relevant' we mask it in hyper-Kuyperianism and call it "redeeming." I like this quote that is MIS-attributed to Luther oftentimes: “The Christian shoemaker does his duty not by putting little crosses on the shoes, but by making good shoes, because God is interested in good craftsmanship.”
I like to think that a balanced view falls somewhere in the middle of the two, recognizing that God's redemptive work is powerful enough to encapsulate the whole world--even caring for the lilies and the sparrows (so should we not also care for those things?)! That should move us to work his redeeming love in our lives. However, there are specific, sacred acts that Christ has called us to be a part of--he is a holy God, after all, and so we shouldn't forget that holiness requires a 'setting apart'. That said, Christ's work in our life should be evident in our whole being--from bedside to business (even if we don't stamp on seals of redemption and fishes. Sometimes...a painting of a cat is just a painting of a cat.
ZackF
Puritan Board Doctor
I use to get tied up in knots over this stuff. I've come to a relative peace of it the past few years. This statement is controversial to say the least: There are fine examples in Christian character in each type. Having said that, I don't think there is any difference in practicality because many of the most strident in either of the two camps are quite ready to jettison their theological underpinnings at the earliest convenience. When the rubber hits the road, these folks just change the tires. Countless examples abound from coffee-shop twitter junkies to professors. Just Google.
The number and stature of Christians ebbs and flows in various civilizations. Some individual Christian influences are great and some appear humanly small. What I relish is that God uses small men, tiny nations, a few disciples, weeping women and the like to advance His Will. Big armies, big governments, and huge media conglomerates are puny to the Lord but remain a illustrious prize for men. I think it is a mercy that most of the big levers of power remain out of the hands of the godly.
What gives my middle-age, middle class life meaning is not some 'movement' I'm plugged into that is 'greater than myself' but rather the knowledge of God's sovereignty, power and His perfect choosing of the weak to realize His Will. I've been given a wife as a counselor, help-meet as well as a board of elders for spiritual advice. God has been gracious with PB as well as other avenues of wisdom. 2k, R2K, theonomy, or transformationalism for the individual Christian should be given maybe a little more attention as infralapsarianism and supralapsarianism. Not too much though. Learn the categories and go on with your life. Try not to make folks miserable imposing one on them. We Reformed are a tiny minority and if the Word tells us anything that is not such a bad thing.
The number and stature of Christians ebbs and flows in various civilizations. Some individual Christian influences are great and some appear humanly small. What I relish is that God uses small men, tiny nations, a few disciples, weeping women and the like to advance His Will. Big armies, big governments, and huge media conglomerates are puny to the Lord but remain a illustrious prize for men. I think it is a mercy that most of the big levers of power remain out of the hands of the godly.
What gives my middle-age, middle class life meaning is not some 'movement' I'm plugged into that is 'greater than myself' but rather the knowledge of God's sovereignty, power and His perfect choosing of the weak to realize His Will. I've been given a wife as a counselor, help-meet as well as a board of elders for spiritual advice. God has been gracious with PB as well as other avenues of wisdom. 2k, R2K, theonomy, or transformationalism for the individual Christian should be given maybe a little more attention as infralapsarianism and supralapsarianism. Not too much though. Learn the categories and go on with your life. Try not to make folks miserable imposing one on them. We Reformed are a tiny minority and if the Word tells us anything that is not such a bad thing.
- Status
Similar threads
