This week on Theology Simply Profound, Rob and Bob discuss Louis Berkhof’s little book, Summary of Christian Doctrine. On today’s episode, under the larger section, “The Doctrine of the Last Things,” we begin to discuss chapter XXIX, “The Second Coming of Christ.”

Participants: Rob McKenzie, Robert Tarullo

This week on Theology Simply Profound, Rob and Bob discuss Louis Berkhof’s little book, Summary of Christian Doctrine. On today’s episode, before moving forward in this chapter entitled, “The Doctrine of the Last Things,” we engage with what it means to live in these last days. What are the last days anyway?

Participants: Rob McKenzie, Robert Tarullo

This week on Theology Simply Profound, Rob and Bob continue their discussion of a recent address by John MacArthur delivered at the 2023 Shepherd’s Conference. In his address, “Hope for the Remnant,” based on Zechariah 14, MacArthur says that this passage is the “amillennialist’s worst nightmare.”

Participants: Rob McKenzie, Robert Tarullo

This week on Theology Simply Profound, Rob and Bob discuss a recent address by John MacArthur delivered at the 2023 Shepherd’s Conference. In his address, “Hope for the Remnant,” based on Zechariah 14, MacArthur says that this passage is the “amillennialist’s worst nightmare.” In this episode, we make several preliminary observations and comments.

Participants: Rob McKenzie, Robert Tarullo

As a follow-up to his Reformed Academy course, Exploring 2 Peter: The Promise and the Path, Dan Ragusa joins Camden Bucey and Ryan Noha to discuss preterist views of 2 Peter 3 concerning the promise of new heavens and a new earth. After establishing the future orientation of the epistle, Dan provides a sketch of the history of preterist interpretations beginning with John Owen’s “Oriental” reading, noting the influence of Joseph Mede in the context of seventeenth-century Puritanism. He then turns his attention to modern-day exegesis of this chapter from leading partial preterists, exemplified by Peter Leithart’s commentary, The Promise of His Appearing: An Exposition of 2 Peter. Dan responds to Leithart’s “knock down arguments” by applying the eschatological pressure of the letter as a whole, all while directing listeners to the consummate, cosmic hope of the eternal kingdom that cannot be reduced to passing of the old covenant order in 70AD.

Links

• Jeffrey Jue, Heaven Upon Earth: Joseph Mede (1586–1638) and the Legacy of Millenarianism
• Jeffrey Jue, The Eschatological Views of the Westminster Divines (Christ the Center, episode 31)
• Peter Leithart, The Promise of His Appearing: An Exposition of Second Peter
• John Owen, “Sermons X–XII: Providential Changes, An Argument for Universal Holiness,” in The Works of John Owen, vol. 9, Sermons to the Church)
• Douglas Wilson, The New Heavens and the New Earth
• Dan Ragusa, The Day of the Lord (2): New Heavens and a New Earth (2 Pet. 3:8–13)

Chapters

• 00:00:07 Introduction
• 00:03:21 Updates about Reformed Forum
• 00:09:51 Preterism and 2 Peter 3
• 00:19:30 Our Blessed Hope
• 00:22:21 Preterist Interpretations of 2 Peter 3
• 00:31:22 Joseph Meade, John Owen, and the “Oriental Reading”
• 00:43:03 John Owen’s Other Interpretation of 2 Peter 3
• 00:47:46 Peter Leithart’s View
• 00:56:54 Vos’s Definition of Eschatology
• 01:07:32 The Imminent Language about Christ’s Return
• 01:17:11 Conclusion

Participants: Camden Bucey, Dan Ragusa, Ryan Noha

We discuss Geerhardus Vos’s sermon, “Heavenly Mindedness” from his collection Grace and Glory: Sermons Preached at Princeton Seminary. In this sermon, Vos directs the Christian to consider the heavenly realities, where Christ is, as the proper focus and posture for the Christian throughout this present earthly pilgrimage.

Chapters

• 00:00 Introduction
• 03:45 Historical Context of the Sermon
• 08:44 Key Passages on Faith
• 12:54 A Biblical Theology of Faith
• 16:11 Faith and the Foundation of the Christian Life
• 19:58 Vos’s Exegesis and the History of Redemption
• 22:06 Faith and the Vitality of the Christian Life
• 23:44 Supernaturalism and History
• 26:45 Themes Picked up by Kline
• 30:04 Abraham’s Pilgrimage
• 36:27 The Remedy for the Ills of the Modern Life
• 38:40 Heavenly-Mindedness vs Mysticism
• 48:38 The Means of Grace
• 57:59 Conclusion

Participants: Camden Bucey, Danny Olinger, Lane G. Tipton

Danny Olinger delivers an address at the 2021 Reformed Forum Theology Conference. The event was held October 8–9, 2021 at Providence OPC in Pflugerville, Texas.

The conference theme was, “The Promise of Life: God’s Plan for His People in the Covenant of Works.” In contrast to Roman Catholic, modernist, and evangelical approaches, we explored a thoroughly Reformed understanding of God’s relationship to Adam as he was created. We learned how Jesus Christ ultimately brings us to the glorious future which God originally offered to Adam in the garden of Eden.

Danny Olinger is General Secretary for the Committee on Christian Education of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. He is the author of Geerhardus Vos: Reformed Biblical Theologian, Confessional Presbyterian and the editor of A Geerhardus Vos Anthology: Biblical and Theological Insights Alphabetically Arranged.

Chapters

00:00:00 Introduction
00:04:46 Geerhardus Vos and the Covenant of Works
00:10:49 Summary in The Eschatology of the Psalter
00:16:20 Adam and Christ in Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15
00:26:06 The Promise of Life in the Covenant of Works
00:41:28 The Nature and Destiny of Man
00:48:43 Reformed and Roman Catholic Theology
00:59:15 Theology from Genesis 2:16–17
01:02:22 The Sabbath Day
01:12:25 Conclusion

Participants: Camden Bucey, Danny Olinger

Ryan Noha poses several questions submitted by our listeners and views. Along with Jeff Waddington and Camden Bucey, the panel discusses Thomas and Van Til on the doctrine of God, how the eternal decree relates to the well-meant offer of eschatological life in the covenant of works, aspects of our union with Christ, and several matters of eschatology.

Participants: Camden Bucey, Jeff Waddington, Ryan Noha

Many different interpretations have been offered regarding the phrase “all Israel shall be saved” in Romans 11. In this episode, we speak about five different interpretations, focusing on the three that are represented in confessionally Reformed and Presbyterian Churches.

Resources

• Cornelis P. Venema, “In This Way All Israel Will be Saved: A Study of Romans 11:26” Mid-America Journal of Theology 22 (2011) 19–40.
• Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., “Theonomy and Eschatology: Reflections on Postmillennialism” in Theonomy: A Reformed Critique, edited by Williams S. Barker and Robert Godfrey

Participants: Camden Bucey, Glen Clary

William Boekestein speaks about eschatology and the life of the Christian. While many limit eschatology merely to the consideration of millennial views, Rev. Boekestein calls all Christians to understand how our view of the future in Christ shapes all of life.

Boekestein is the author of The Future of Everything: Essential Truths about the End Times (Reformation Heritage, 2019).

Participants: Camden Bucey, Jim Cassidy, William Boekestein

Teaching on the eternal state of the world to come may sound from the outset to be speculative and useless for practical living in the present. How can heavenly contemplation help me raise my children or motivate me at work Monday morning or mend my broken relationship with my brother? Yet, Geerhardus Vos was convinced of the very opposite. In fact, he believed that “it becomes the profoundest and most practical of all thought complexes…” (The Pauline Eschatology, 294). He goes on to give a reason for this statement—which may seem at the moment to be an overstatement, but in reality is actually an understatement—but I think before getting there we need to think over a few things he gleaned from the apostle Paul on the eternal state.

Formal Aspects of the Eternal State: Unending and Imperishable

In the final chapter of The Pauline Eschatology, Vos begins his discussion on the eternal state by discussing its two formal aspects: unendingness and imperishableness (pp. 287-92). First, Paul characterizes the eternal state, on the one hand, as precluding any time limitation so that it does not consist of a relative duration as is true of the present age. On the other hand, the inhabitants of the coming eternal age are not deified so that they cease to exist in a mode of duration and time ceases to be divided for them into units of past, present, and future. There continues in the supernal sphere the movement of time and duration. We might then speak of the formal aspect of the eternal state as absolute duration. This stands opposed to the relative duration of the present age, which consummates in what Paul terms the “fullness of time” (Gal. 4:4). Vos understands this phrase not to signify “ripeness,” but “the completion of what was ‘time’ and the succession of it by what is different from time through the mission of the Messiah into the world” (289n3). The eternal state will never arrive at a “fullness of time” as it is perpetual and unending duration. Eternity is not pregnant with other eternities. The second formal aspect pertains to the imperishable nature of the things belonging to the eternal state. “The things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal” (2 Cor. 4:17). While the things of the present age are transitory and corruptible, the things of the eternal state are permanent and incorruptible. Hellenistic thought understood imperishability to be inherent to whatever was invisible. But Paul essentially distinguished himself from this teaching by way of his two-age scheme. For him, imperishability does not pertain to the invisible as such, but to the world to come that is unseen at the present. In Vos’ words, “[H]e has learned to recognize in the things unseen to the present [age] the enduring things of the world to come, a world already in principle present, the contemplation of which can consequently render solace and support in the affliction of the moment” (292). The world to come will not remain unseen forever. Its present invisibility is a matter of the present redemptive-historical situation of God’s people, for today “we pilgrimage through a land of faith, not of sight” (2 Cor. 5:7). So while today the things of the world to come are both invisible and imperishable, when in Christ we enter the eternal state the same things of the world to come will cease to be invisible, but will continue to be imperishable. Paul does not see imperishability and invisibility as requiring each other as was true in Hellenestic thought; the one can cease (invisibility), while the other remains (imperishability).

Substantial Content of the Eternal State: God Himself

We would be deeply mistaken if we thought that it was merely these formal aspects of the eternal state that excited Paul. If this was the case, Paul’s eschatology would be useless, abstract speculation and provide no vital power for the present life. But what stirred Paul’s eschatological longings at their very core and what gave meaning and value to the unendingness and imperishability of the eternal state was nothing less than its central object and substantial content: the Eternal One, God himself (pp. 292-94). The formal aspects of the eternal state were not ultimate in Paul’s thinking; God was. Unendingness and imperishability serve to express the absoluteness of the acme of religion, communion with him. The present redemptive-historical state does not furnish the believer with a sense of fullness or satisfaction, but with intense longing for God. Our souls long, yes, faint for the courts of the Lord (Ps. 84:2). Because God is eternal

there can be no thorough, no adequate reception of Him into our finite consciousness, unless there by some assurance of the unceasingness of our communion with Him. He is not a God of the dead but of the living. All temporal, partial experience of God inevitably leaves a sense of dissatisfaction behind (293).

The Spirit of Christ bearing witness in our hearts moves us to say, Amen. But God has been and will forever remain the Eternal One, while we remain finite creatures of temporal duration. We long for the One, and only one, who is eternal, while ourselves existing as the very opposite. How can this problem be met? According to Vos, it is met by

God’s imparting a reflection of his unique eternal existence to our life as creatures, through admitting us into the realm of the aionion [eternal]. In this He not merely confers a boon [something beneficial] upon man, but at the same time provides a true satisfaction for Himself. Although in the abstract being self-sufficient as God, He has freely chosen to carry his concern with us to the extreme of eternal mutually appurtenance of which the creature is capable (293).

Although Vos does not use the term here, he has in mind the covenant relationship that God has freely and voluntarily entered into with his people (see WCF 7.1). At the heart of this covenant is the promise of shared life: I will be your God and you will be my people. So not only are we supremely satisfied in having God as our God, but (and this is an amazing thought!) God is truly satisfied in having us as his people. This mutual satisfaction is realized in a heightened, eschatological sense in the eternal state. Paul affirms both of these ideas. On the one hand, God is the only immortal Being (1 Tim. 6:16) and, on the other hand, “He has appointed as the eschatological goal of religious fellowship with Himself, among other things, the prize of an incorruption [Rom 2:7], such as is equivalent to eternal life” (293). Vos, however, does not blur the Creator-creature distinction here as if just as God is eternal, so we become eternal in the exact same way. Note in the above quote that it is an “eternal mutually appurtenance of which the creature is capable.” He goes on to utilize the common theological distinction of an archetype and ectype. He affirms that this attribute of eternality exists in God alone in its archetypical form, but exists in the creature “in an ectypical form.” For both God and for man more than mere endless existence is meant. It also includes a content commensurable with its eternity. Again, the formal aspects of eternity, unendingness and imperishableness, are not abstractly considered as empty concepts, but serve the concrete objects indwelling eternity. For this reason Paul does not use the empty term “immortality,” but “chooses as a larger, deeper receptacle the term ‘life’” (293). (While Paul says mortality puts on immortality in 1 Cor. 15:53-54, Vos notes “the very form in which this is expressed is such that it could never have been applied to God, who is the Only One who has immortality [1 Tim. 6:16].”) “Life” is a concrete term that encapsulates the dynamic relationship between the formal aspects (unendingness and imperishableness) and substantial content (God himself) of the eternal state.

The Practicality of the Eternal State

We began with Vos’ statement that teaching on the eternal state is “the profoundest and most practical of all thought complexes.” We can now appreciate the whole sentence:

We find that the [eternity-concept], thus understood, belongs to the acme of religion, serving to express its absoluteness. Eschatology ceases for those who have learned, and in principle experienced this, to be an abstract speculation: it becomes the profoundest and most practical of all thought-complexes because they, like Paul, live and move and have their redemptively-religious treasures in God (294).

For more check out this article on the book of Hebrew’s teaching on the vital connection the believer already has today with the world to come.

In episode 86, Rob and Bob talk about what Paul and others have to say about the last days. Are they behind us or in front of us? Or, are we in them presently? And, in what way would the answer to those questions change our understanding of the Christian life?

Participants: Rob McKenzie, Robert Tarullo

In this episode, we recap our time at the Gospel Coalition 2015 National Conference. The conference was titled Coming Home: New Heaven and New Earth, and the sessions focused on eschatology. To start off, Erica Bucey speaks about several sessions and related books dealing with women’s ministry including Women of the Word by Jen Wilkin and the forthcoming Word-Filled Women’s Ministry edited by Gloria Furman and Kathleen B. Nielson. Jared Oliphint then details one of the conference sessions, which was convened by Westminster Theological Seminary. The session, hosted by RTS Chancellor J. Ligon Duncan, featured Lane Tipton, Greg Beale, and Jeff Jue. In this riveting session, the panelists discussed different facets of Reformed eschatology. While the session should eventually be available through The Gospel Coalition, we thought we’d share some related content. Dr. Jeffrey K. Jue currently serves as Provost of Westminster Theological Seminary and is the Stephen Tong Associate Professor of Reformed Theology at Philadelphia, PA. Dr. Jue joined us on Christ the Center episode 31 to speak about the eschatological views of the Westminster divines. We include a segment from that interview as it touches upon the subject matter of his panel discussion at #TGC15.

Participants: Camden Bucey, Erica Bucey, Jared Oliphint, Jeff Jue

Jim Cassidy reviews Four Views on the Role of Works at the Final Judgment. The book contains contributions from Robert Wilken, James Dunn, Thomas Schreiner, and Michael Barber.

Participants: Camden Bucey, Jim Cassidy

In a chapter titled, “Theonomy and Eschatology” from the book Theonomy: A Reformed Critique, Richard B. Gaffin, Jr. explains how a proper understanding of eschatology can help us in times of suffering: 7 But we have this treasure in jars of clay, to show that the surpassing power belongs to God and not to us. 8 We are afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed, but not driven to despair; 9 persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed; 10 always carrying in the body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be manifested in our bodies. 11 For we who live are always being given over to death for Jesus’ sake, so that the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our mortal flesh. 12 So death is at work in us, but life in you. (2 Corinthians 4:7-12, ESV)

“This treasure in jars of clay” graphically captures the tension at the heart of this statement, and of the apostle’s overall understanding of the nature of Christian existence between the resurrection and return of Christ… Paul intends to say, as long as believers are in “the mortal body,” “the life of Jesus” manifests itself as “the dying of Jesus”; the latter describes the existence mode of the former. Until the resurrection of the body at his return Christ’s resurrection-life finds expression in the church’s sufferings (and, as will become clear presently, nowhere else—so far as the existence and calling of the church are concerned); the locus of Christ’s ascension-power is the suffering church… A key to the intended impact of verse 10 is to recognize that both “and”s (following “Christ” and “resurrection”) are not simply coordinating but explanatory; they do not merely connect, they explicate. In step-wise fashion Paul progressively traces a single, composite notion: Knowing the power of his resurrection is not something in addition to knowing Christ, nor is knowing the fellowship of his sufferings a further addition to both. Rather, the controlling consideration is union with Christ in his death and resurrection such that to “know”/experience Christ is to experience the power of his resurrection and that, in turn, is to experience the fellowship of his sufferings—a total reality that can then be summed up as conformity to Christ’s death. By virtue of union with Christ, Paul is saying, the power of Christ’s resurrection is realized in the sufferings of the believer; sharing in Christ’s sufferings is the way the church manifests his resurrection-power. Again, as in II Corinthians 4:10-11, the locus of eschatological life is Christian suffering; the mark—the indelible, ineradicable impression—left on the existence of the church by the formative power of the resurrection is the cross. And, further, this is not some merely temporary state of affairs incidental to the circumstances of the church in the apostle’s own day but is for all—the whole church in whatever time and place—who aspire to the resurrection of the dead (v. 11)…

18 For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. 19 For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. 23 And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. (Romans 8:18-23, ESV)

Romans 8:18ff especially disclose the breadth of what ought to be our conception of Christian suffering. Suffering has to be seen in the context of the “frustration”/“futility” (mataiotes), the “bondage to decay” to which the entire creation has been subjected, not by the inherent nature of things but because of God’s curse on Adam’s sin (v. 20-21 are, in effect, a Pauline commentary on Gen. 3). Suffering is a function of the futility/decay principle pervasively at work in the creation since the fall; suffering is everything that pertains to creaturely experience of this death-principle… This revelation/liberation of believers (note: along with and inseparable from the liberation of creation as a whole) is the future dimension of their adoption and will take place at the time of the redemption (=resurrection) of the body (v. 23), not before. Until then, at Christ’s return, the suffering/futility/decay principle in creation remains in force, undiminished (but sure to be overcome); it is an enervating factor that cuts across the church’s existence, including its mission, in its entirety. The notion that this frustration factor will be demonstrably reduced, and the church’s suffering service noticeably alleviated and even compensated, in a future era before Christ’s return is not merely foreign to this passage; it trivializes as well as blurs both the present suffering and future hope/glory in view. Until his return, the church remains one step behind its exalted Lord; his exaltation means its (privileged) humiliation, his return (and not before), its exaltation…

Gaffin explains, as Paul did, that our very existence in this unredeemed world, even and especially as believers, carries with it expectations of suffering, regardless of personal circumstance. Our experience is patterned after Christ’s experience: suffering unto glory. How relevant is this to the prosperity gospel, or any other false gospel that promises worldly comforts as reward for following Christ?

Eschatology is a complicated word. Usually, it is associated with apocalyptic events yet to occur in the Middle East. In this episode, we seek to broaden this limited conception of eschatology to include even the present applicability of Christ’s death and resurrection and the inevitable destination of his bride, the Church. Christians have a living hope (1 Peter 1:3) through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, a hope that has a bearing even on the Christian’s present life circumstances.

Participants: Camden Bucey, Jim Cassidy

It is often helpful to employ distinctions in theological discussions. Other times, entire philosophical systems are based on two ultimate and opposing forces. In this episode, the panel parses through several theological distinctions—seeking to show when they may be considered proper dualities, and where they may move beyond the teaching of Scripture. Listen to this fluid conversation that touches on the antithesis, epistemology, two-age eschatology, and heavenly vs. earthly citizenship.

Participants: Camden Bucey, Jeff Waddington, Jim Cassidy

The Christ the Center panel discusses a forthcoming new podcast entitled East of Eden: Discussions in the Biblical and Systematic Theology of Jonathan Edwards, which should appear, Lord willing, this summer. The panel for this podcast will include Rev. Nick Batzig, Rev. David Filson, and Rev. Jeff Waddington, along with an occasional visit from Dr. Craig Biehl. The goal of this new venture is to delve into the sermons as well as the other parts of Edwards’ voluminous literary corpus. Specifically we seek to demonstrate the interrelated nature of Edwards’ biblical and systematic theology, his use of the Puritan plain style sermon form, his development of typology, and his practical application. The CTC panel briefly discusses Edwards’ Trinitarian theology to round out the discussion.

Participants: Camden Bucey, Jeff Waddington, Nick Batzig

One of the most perplexing brands of eschatology is “transformational” eschatology. A broad-brush way to describe this view is that the eschaton or last days will be triggered once Christians (under the sovereignty of God) have progressively transformed the earth into what it was meant to become. Part of the reasoning behind this stems from a definition of “redemption” that includes individual persons, yet also encompasses creation as a whole. After all, doesn’t Romans 8:19-23 indicate that creation itself waits to be “set free from its bondage to corruption” (v. 21)? Paul even contrasts “creation” and “us” in that passage, and uses language of redemption for both!¹ The million dollar question is how and when that redemption will happen and what parts of creation, if any, it will include.

The Reformed have affirmed an inaugurated eschatology where the last days are here already but not yet fully. Paul tells us that Christ is the “firstfruits” of those who, united to Christ in His resurrection, will eventually be resurrected as He is when the “not yet” becomes only the “already” (1 Cor 15:23). So Christ has paved the way and modeled already what it will eventually look like when we are fully and completely redeemed, given new bodies appropriate to the new heavens and new earth. Until then, our bodies decay and experience the effects of the present evil age and its curse.

But that’s us. What about the rest of creation? Is it being redeemed? Did Christ accomplish redemption for the rest of creation when he died and was raised?

For those who believe that all of creation is currently being “redeemed” in the eschatological sense, there’s a very simple test to see whether that is in fact the case. As a friend of mine puts it, you are tasked to find a single atom, molecule, object, anything that has the permanence of the everlasting, eternal new heavens and new earth. Such a thing would be indestructible, and would most likely exhibit characteristics that literally indicate an other-world. That would be quite a find.

Or take the language we sometimes find within evangelical circles of “redeeming the city”, for example. Is this appropriate language given what we know of the biblical use of redemption? That depends. People are redeemed by the Holy Spirit regenerating their hearts, having faith in Christ, repenting of their sins, and receiving Christ and his saving and renovating benefits from his accomplished work in history. Christ did not directly accomplish redemption for buildings, neighborhoods, cities, towns, or any other particular group or entity whatsoever. Christ’s benefits do not apply to a local diner or run-down gym. They do not apply to capitalism, to philosophy, to Wal-Mart, to the Icelandic courts of law, or any other non-human not made in the image of God.

There may be some warrant for a loose definition of redemption that is non-soteric and can be applied to non-individuals by proxy. First, God cursed the ground in Gen 3:16, 17, the result being toil and struggle in our work from that day forward. That curse, however, will not be redeemed until the last days, so there’s no indication that God, and especially not man, will do anything to redeem that curse before the second coming.

Second, imagine a local coffee shop run by a devout atheist openly hostile to Christ, Christianity and Christians. Offensive art and music are the norm and the clientele share the owner’s hostility toward the church. Now imagine that same owner’s heart transformed by the Spirit. He is starting to attend a good church, is convicted to host art and music that is not overtly offensive to the Christian faith, and shares his new faith regularly with the same clientele. In a very qualified, non-technical sense, a kind of redemption happened to that coffee shop where something that once was so hostile to Christ and the church is now not. I could be persuaded that this may be unwise and confusing language, but there may be times when “redemption” is used and is not intended as a transformational comment but rather non-salvific shorthand for a collective group.

Finally, there is a sense in which Scripture does seem to indicate there will be at least some continuity between this age and the final age to come, the least of which will be retaining who we are as unique individuals in the new earth. Christians will, as distinct persons separate from one another in essence, live together in the new heavens and earth. There does seem to be shadowy pointers indicating that, along with us, there will be other manifestations of concepts we experience here in this life, admittedly in an imperfect way. Although the book of Revelation is not meant to be a descriptive tourist map of the new heavens and earth, the book does include descriptions for a reason, pointing to real, albeit symbolic, things that occur and are present during the last days. There obviously seems to be beauty and radiance (Rev 21:11) and even music and song (Rev 5:9) as “the trump shall resound” (Rev 8:6). So while Bach and The Who may not be heard in the new heavens and earth, it’s likely that we will be singing something in praise and worship. Song will continue.

I haven’t wanted to go into millennial debates, but what is said above, I think, fits most properly within an amillennial, inaugurated eschatology. Thinkers much more capable than I have written reams on that topic, of which most readers here are likely familiar. In this modest post I hoped to communicate just a few preliminary ideas to think about regarding the concepts of redemption and culture.

[1] Paul is speaking in this passage about redemption administered in two different ways. God works through redemptive history with an end toward redeeming all of creation in the last days. He works uniquely in redeeming individual persons as His image, using the Holy Spirit and the Son in ways distinct from how the Persons are used to act within history on non-human creation.

“To identify the redemptive kingdom of the God…with the common causes of the city of man is profaning of the holy, a prostitution of the gospel, a diabolical repudiation of the atonement accomplished by Jesus Christ.”

– M.G. Kline, Kingdom Prologue, 286.

“The regeneration of all things must now be a gift before it can become a task.”

– Cornelius Van Til, “Nature and Scripture,” in The Infallible Word, 271

The two above quotations are of inestimable value for our understanding of the relation between the two kingdoms (notice here that we affirm two kingdoms; one non-redemptive, common realm and one redemptive realm manifest here on earth as the church). In this sense, both Kline and Van Til were adherents of a 2K perspective. There must remain an essential and fundamental distinction between the ethics, tasks, and marks of the kingdoms of this world on the one hand, and the Kingdom of God on the other. To confuse them or conflate them is to destroy the true nature of both. In other words, any application of a Van Tilian and Klinean covenant theology to the question of the relation between the two kingdoms must never fall into a theonomic/transformationalist perspective. Likewise, the perspective I outlined in the first post gives no quarter to theonomy or transformationalism. But Kline and Van Til also give no quarter to at least two other notions: First, that there is any place, anywhere, in all of God’s creation to which the unbeliever may retreat and find value-free ground. Second, there is no place in all of God’s creation to which special revelation does not speak, interpret, and illuminate. Van Til makes his point clearly when he says (thanks to Warren Cruz for pointing this one out): “Even in Paradise man had to interpret the general (natural) revelation of God in terms of the covenantal obligations placed upon him by God through special revelation.” (Cornelius Van Til, ‘My Credo,’ 90). But Van Til goes on:  

In paradise…man could not know from nature itself nor from himself in relation to nature that the result of eating from the tree of good and evil would spell his death. Hence we may speak of this revelation as being positive instead of natural. It had to be a direct communication of thought content on the part of God to man. Then too we may speak of this revelation as supernatural in opposition to natural. It was a revelation that man could not obtain by ever so diligent an application of his thought activity to the phenomena of nature.(Introduction to Systematic Theology, 67)

  So, here Van Til expresses his concern over the use of the terminology “natural” as it tends to denote a reality which exists quite independent of “the thought content” of God. Natural revelation, theology or law has often been conceived in the tradition is as an entity which has a life of its own. At best, nature was understood as something which pointed beyond itself to God. But Van Til is here bringing nature and God’s revelation of his Word into a closer relation. In other words, the essence of God’s creation is that it is his Word, and that it can only be properly interpreted by man through God’s special revelation to man. Again, Van Til is particularly insightful:

It is of prime importance to observe that even in paradise man was never meant to study nature by means of observation and experiment without connection with positive super-natural thought communication given to him by God. Nature could not be observed for what it actually is except in relation to history, and history cannot be seen for what it is at any stage except it be viewed in relation to its final end. And only by direct supernatural revelation could man have an adequate notion of this end. (Introduction to Systematic Theology, 68)

So, back to the first point, there is no value-free place in all of creation. The created order is inherently covenantal and thus speaks. It speaks of the creator at every turn. That means that the so-called “common realm” may never be interpreted in an autonomous fashion. It is true, because of common grace, fallen man can still produce much which is good. But even the good that he produces shouts out against him. Therefore, culture is not a “safe place” for man in his rebellion. It is not value-free, neutral territory. 2KT advocates may agree with this, but I wonder how consistent it sits within their system. More on this anon. Second, even in the common realm, the good which can be (and is!) done by the unbeliever must always and everywhere be interpreted in the light of special revelation. That he does not accept special revelation as true in no way gets him off the hook. Nature, culture, etc were never intended to stand alone. If he is not interpreting reality in light of the telos of God’s created order and redemptive plan, then he is malfunctioning in the common realm. That does not mean that he is functioning in a less productive way than the believer. Rather, because of God’s common grace he may in fact be functioning in a more productive way than the believer. But he is, nevertheless, malfunctioning. So, is there anyway in which we can say that the “common kingdom” is “Christian?” This is an important question to answer, and to do so in such a way as to avoid confusing culture with the Kingdom of Christ. I affirm whole heatedly that it is a mistake to seek to “transform” culture, Christianize it, and to think that it is the church’s task to redeem it. Yet, I want to also maintain that even the common realm is not disconnected from God’s revelation (in its unified complex of being in the things that have been made as well as in Scripture). After all “the common kingdom” must not and never can be understood in a compartmentalized fashion – independent from Jesus Christ. So, I propose the affirmation of the following points which seek to relate the common kingdom to God’s revelation and the person of Jesus Christ.

1. The common kingdom is (NB: not “must become”) related to God’s revelation and Christ himself in the sense that it is Christ who rules it by his Word and through his providential power (Col 1:16-17). Nothing happens in the created order without the express will and command of Jesus Christ. Here we stand unabashedly with Abraham Kuyper who rightly affirmed that there is not one square inch of creation about which Christ does not claim “mine!”
2. The common kingdom is related to God’s revelation and Christ himself in the sense that the common realm is covenantal revelation of God. And in particular, it is properly the covenantal revelation of the second person of the Trinity (though in no way divided from the other persons). The foundation of the revelation of God in creation is the “Logos of creation” (Introduction toSystematic Theology, 69).
3. The common kingdom is related to God’s revelation and Christ himself in the sense that its purpose is to serve the redemptive Kingdom, the church. Christ upholds the culture and the common kingdom for the sake of his church. In this way, the Noahic covenant preserves the creation, restricts sin, and maintains order in both space and time in order to be the stage upon which God brings about his redemptive purposes for his people. “It is the fact without which the whole of redemptive revelation would drop to the ground.” (Introduction toSystematic Theology, 68).
4. The common kingdom is related to God’s revelation and Christ himself in that God’s special revelation for his people is the only authoritative interpreter of the common kingdom. The NT may not say much about the common kingdom and cultural pursuits, but it does speak – however general – to the nature of the created, common order (this, some current 2KT advocates affirm). Christ is testifying by his Spirit, through his Word, to his own acts in creation and history. For example, music was made by Jesus and for Jesus. Jesus was the one who ordained and providentially brought about the events of history, both sacred and secular. He not only ordained and brought about the acts of God in redemptive history, but he did so with regard to everything from what you did this morning, to the victory of the Allied forces, and to the earthquake and tsunami off the coast of Japan.

Therefore, we can not agree – without qualification – with Dr. Van Drunen that there are things in the created order which are “simply” universal human obligations, tasks, or events.¹ In other words, baking cookies is never “just baking cookies,” either for the believer or unbeliever (both objectively and subjectively). While the particulars of the “rules” of cookie-baking are the same for both believer and unbeliever, they are both baking in a realm which – though common to both – is bearing testimony onto condemnation for the latter and testimony onto salvation for the former. It is the same creation for both, but that creation is being used for different ends. Furthermore, God’s special revelation applies equally to both believer and unbeliever in terms of understanding the created order. The same special revelation condemns the one but vindicates the other. In other words, dualism are never valid here. Even though we understand that Van Drunen intends to speak of things in creation which both Christians and non-Christian have in common, we believe that his unqualified statement leaves open the door to misunderstanding. For instance, talk of “simply human” can mean a compartment in the created order which is value-free. Van Til calls this brute fact. However, all facts are God’s facts, and therefore are Christ’s facts (we are sure Van Drunen here agrees). In this way, then, all things are related to God’s revelation and Christ himself. In this sense, we can say that the common kingdom is Christian (though we do not make it Christian). After all, Christ came to reconcile all things to himself, whether in heaven or on earth (Col 1:20). That said, however, we do agree with Van Drunen’s strong emphasis on making careful distinctions between which commands in the Bible are proper to the church and which are proper to the common kingdom. Though “common kingdom” remains somewhat problematic for me. I would prefer something along the lines of “The Realm of Christ’s Common Grace in Creation.” 1. David Van Drunen, Living in God’s Two Kingdoms, 168-9. We agree wholeheartedly with Van Drunen’s consistent affirmation that the common kingdom is not “neutral.” See for example the same volume, p. 15. However, the question remains: if there is no neutral territory in all of God’s creation, is it prudent to speak about “simply” or “universal” human obligations or tasks? If by that all he has in view is that both believers and unbelievers engage in them, then that is hardly a point of contention. If however, there is something more in view (i.e., that God’s special revelation is not necessary for the unbeliever in the common realm to function – ethically and epistemologically – rightly), then we must continue to demur.

Christ the Center is pleased to welcome Kim Riddlebarger to the program to discuss amillennialism. Dr. Riddlebarger is senior pastor of Christ Reformed Church in Anaheim, California (www.christreformed.org), visiting professor of systematic theology at Westminster Seminary California, and co-host of The White Horse Inn. In 2003 Dr. Riddlebarger’s book A Case for Amillennialism: Understanding the End Times was published by Baker Books. It has proven to be a tremendous resource for people struggling to make sense of various eschatological positions. Riddlebarger has also written a book titled The Man of Sin: Uncovering the Truth about the Antichrist.

Links

• Riddleblog
• Monergism links to Riddlebarger resources

Participants: Camden Bucey, Jeff Waddington, Kim Riddlebarger, Nick Batzig

This is part four of our series entitled Christ and Culture and marks the end of our first round. Bill Dennison, Darryl Hart, Doug Wilson and Nelson Kloosterman each speak about their views of common grace, natural law, and eschatology. This series of programs strays from the typical Christ the Center format. This project is an asynchronous debate in the vein of the Counterpoints series published by InterVarsity Press. In future episodes each participant will have the opportunity to criticize the other views. post photo by vermin inc

Books and other media from the participants

Bill Dennison

• Paul’s Two-Age Construction and Apologetics
• The Young Bultmann: Context for His Understanding of God, 1884-1925

Darryl Hart

• A Secular Faith: Why Christianity Favors the Separation of Church and State
• Defending the Faith: J. Gresham Machen and the Crisis of Conservative Protestant
• Deconstructing Evangelicalism: Conservative Protestantism in the Age of Billy Graham

Nelson Kloosterman

• The Ten Commandments: Manual for the Christian Life by Joachim Douma (Kloosterman trans.)

Doug Wilson

• Collision: Is Christianity Good for the World?: Christopher Hitchens vs. Douglas Wilson
• Five Cities that Ruled the World: How Jerusalem, Athens, Rome, London, and New York Shaped Global History
• The Deluded Atheist: A Response to Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion

Participants: Bill Dennison, Camden Bucey, Darryl G. Hart, Doug Wilson, Nelson Kloosterman

Panel

• R. Fowler White
• Keith Mathison
• Lane Kiester
• Jim Cassidy
• Jeff Waddington
• Camden Bucey

Bibliography

Participants: Camden Bucey, James Dolezal, Jeff Waddington, Jim Cassidy, Keith Mathison, Lane Keister, R. Fowler White

Panel

• Dave Garner
• Jeff Waddington
• Jim Cassidy
• Nick Batzig
• Camden Bucey

Links

• 2009 Desiring God Pastors Conference
• Together for Adoption

Bibliography

Participants: Camden Bucey, David Garner, Jeff Waddington, Jim Cassidy, Nick Batzig

We had the opportunity to sit down with Jeff Jue, Associate Professor of Church History at Westminster Theological Seminary. Dr. Jue is an expert on the eschatological views of the Westminster Divines and his research is a very stimulating subject. The answer to the question “What were the views of the divines?” may surprise you.

Panel

• Jeff Jue
• Lane Tipton
• Jeff Waddington
• Nick Batzig
• Camden Bucey

Bibliography

Participants: Camden Bucey, Jeff Jue, Jeff Waddington, Lane G. Tipton, Nick Batzig