In a moment of piety this morning (don’t worry, didn’t last long), I read this from Martin Luther in a 1535 sermon on Romans 8:17:
And now he (St. Paul) begins to comfort Christians in such sufferings, and he speaks as a man who has been tried and has become quite certain. And he speaks as though he can see this life only dimly, or through coloured glass, while he sees the other life with clear eyes.
Notice how he turns his back to the world and his eyes toward the revelation which is to come, as though he could perceive no sorrow or affliction anywhere on earth, but only joy. Indeed, he says, when we do have to suffer evil, what is our suffering in comparison with the unspeakable joy and glory which shall be made manifest in us? It is not worthy to be compared with such joy nor even to be called suffering. The only difficulty is that we cannot see with our eyes and touch with our hands that great and exquisite glory for which we must wait, namely, that we shall not die for evermore neither shall we hunger nor thirst, and over and above shall be given a body which cannot ever suffer or sicken, etc. Whoever could grasp the meaning of this in his heart, would be compelled to say: even if I should be burnt or drowned ten times (if that were possible), that would be nothing in comparison with the glory of the life hereafter. For what is this temporal life, however long it may last, in comparison with the life eternal? It is not worthy to be called suffering or though of as a merit.
This is a perspective on this world and the world to come that seldom surfaces among the transformationalists (from Kuyper to Keller). It is supposedly too pessimistic about this world, and overestimates the differences between temporal and eternal existence. But at the same time, it is hard to deny that Luther has missed a large streak of Pauline teaching and outlook. So even if the transformers can dismiss such otherworldliness as Lutheran (as opposed to Calvinism as perpetual change machine), how do they get around Paul? And if they try to get around Paul, how is their effort different from the way that liberal Protestants tried to separate the kernel from the husk of Scripture?
As troubling as these questions may be, I do understand how Luther’s outlook on the temporal world and a Christian’s experience of it would force the revision of countless Christian school mission statements and tempt believers not to look to New York City as the new Jerusalem.
Old Life 
Our adventist expectation is not that we go off to this other world, us with God, but rather that Christ brings heaven to earth, God with us. And this hope does not depend on having a “worldview” or a policy or a plan for getting this world better in the meanwhile.
Luther (Works 54:65, Tabletalk)–“I don’t like to see examples of joyful death. I like to see those who tremble and shake and grow pale when they face death. It was so with many great saints. They were not all glad to die.”
Augustine:”Behold, Jesus Christ was here and he was in heaven. He was here in his flesh, he was here in his divinity, born of a mother, never leaving the Father-Why do you marvel he was both here and in heaven?” (cited in E. W. Hengstenberg, A Commentary on the Gospel of St John [reprint; Minneapolis: Klock & Klock, 1980], I. 178)
The redemption of this world restores rather than eliminates and replaces this world. It’s not all “discontinuity”. God will not blow up this world and start over someplace else.
Does the “future DGH ” have to be “not DGH” in every way in order for the old DGH to have been dead and the “other” (coming) DGH to be new?
If the new earth is not still the earth, how is that redemption?
LikeLike
This reminds me of Bill Baldwin, who said:
“In 1996 I was serving a year-long internship at an OPC in Orange County, CA preparatory to entering the ministry. One day, I drove down to Westminster Seminary to do some research and to see Kline. He and I and Lee Irons chatted in his office for a bit. He asked how my internship was going.
I told him that the pastor overseeing my internship did not care for my preaching. The pastor told me I was not offering the congregation practical solutions to their problems and practical hopes. I was just giving them “pie in the sky when you die.” (That was not my own phrasing but what the pastor actually and repeatedly said.)
Kline smiled a beatific smile and said, ‘Give me more of that pie in the sky.'”
From http://bettercovenant.wordpress.com/2007/04/15/meredith-g-kline-1922-2007/
LikeLike
Marky Mark, it’s always seemed to me that there are two kinds of otherworldliness: the Gnostic world-flighty variety and the Christian world-affirming sort. It’s the latter that resonates with Luther’s words about wanting to see pale countenances when facing death, while the former would rather see joyful dying. Contrariwise, there are two kinds of this-worldliness: the transformational variety and the 2k sort. It’s the former that corresponds to giddiness not only about the next life but also this one, the latter to more sobriety.
LikeLike
Sober giddiness. It’s not a balance and it’s not a tension. It’s when my wife comes in the door and says hello. Here. Now. And her death or my death is the enemy that keeps me sober. Gnostics want us to whistle during the funeral. If not for the joy of the resurrection when Christ comes, we would perish and have no hope.
LikeLike
The solution for some transformationists eg Plantinga is that what we do here and now will transfer over to the next life! He even seems unsure if Heaven will be better than Eden (see Cornelius Plantinga: Engaging God’s World, Eerdmans, 2002, pp.137-139).
I’ll stick with Luther (and Paul!) on this.
LikeLike
I Cor 15:23 But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then kat his coming lthose who belong to Christ. 24 Then comes the end, when he delivers mthe kingdom to God the Father after DESTROYING every rule and every authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death.
mcmark: Destroying? Not reforming and transforming? Where’s the continuity?
LikeLike
Lame and lazy objection, Darryl; and clearly you haven’t read Kuyper’s Near Unto God.
Neocalvinists affirm and live in terms of biblical heavenly-minded “otherworldliness.” Proper (two age; amil) eschatology and (spirituality of the church) ecclesiology are part of neocalvinistic faith and practice and complementary to its broader worldview.
LikeLike
Baus, you’re right. I forgot that you rule the neo-Calvinist world. I’d encourage you to step up your output because the faithful are not thinking the way their ruler is.
LikeLike
Baus nailed it!
Darryl, perhaps the locus of successful neo-Calvinism today is the OPC.
I learned my neo-Calvinism during 18 years in the OPC in Oregon and Michigan under 6 different pastors and one retired Kuyperian OPC pastor (Ray Commeret) and numerous OPC pastors that I experienced at several OPC GA’s that I had the opportunity to be delegated to. And, of course, there was my own study of OPC history (including reading all the GA minutes from 1936 through the 1990’s). I got in trouble once on this blog for doubting the interpretation of the world’s leading OPC historian, but I’ll just say I learned neo-Calvinism from the best of the OPC and Westminster East theologies, and any interpretation that doesn’t give a place for neo-Calvinism in the OPC is hopelessly biased 😉 Gaffin’s WTJ article on how Westminster and the OPC blends the best of Old Princeton and Old Amsterdam was a wonderful piece.
LikeLike
Terry, I appreciate your solidarity and affirmation.
Darryl, it’s a generational project. But you’re definitely underestimating my commitment to an otherworldly definition of success.
LikeLike
Terry, no one said that neo-Calvinism doesn’t exist in the OPC. What many OP’s don’t seem to recognize is that a tension exists between the OPC’s Old School Presbyterian heritage and its Dutch Calvinist aspirations. Sometimes you can’t have your cake and eat it too.
LikeLike
Baus, where exactly does Clouser talk about otherworldliness?
LikeLike
Darryl, hmm… I’m not sure I want to equate New School Presbyterianism with neo-Calvinism. I’ve never heard of neo-Calvinists worrying about smoking or drinking or revivalism–I guess neo-Calvinists probably would have been abolitionists. Perhaps that’s another conflation you all are guilty of: neo-Calvinism is conflated with the transformationism of N.T. Wright, Brian McLaren, with various theonomic views, liberal social gospelism, and now New School Presbyterianism. I’d be against neo-Calvinism as well if I thought it was the same thing as all those others.
I’ll say it again. Conceived of as an activity of Christians in the world, transformationalism is not inconsistent with Old School Presbyterianism or the spirituality of the church. Sphere sovereignty is the key.
How about if Baus and I come under a new label “ortho-neo-Calvinists”? That way we can have “2Ks and ortho-neo-Calvinists together”.
Despite my misgivings about New School Presbyterianism in general, it does seem that there’s something there that the Old School/Old Side/Old Life advocates can’t seem to totally shake off. Perhaps it’s some indication that the Old Life movement is just a wee bit off: Old Side/New Side divide, Old School/New School divide, the OPC/Bible Presbyterian divide, the Van Til/Clark divide, Jack Miller and the New Lifers, the J&R enthusiasts. You lop them off, but it seems like you can’t live long without them, because they keep coming back.
LikeLike
Darryl, for the most part Clouser addresses it indirectly in terms of a philosophy that *is* “according to Christ” (Colossians 2:8). It demonstrates how life of the age to come illuminates the meaning of creation. And you’ve certainly failed to show that what he says, and the approach he represents, in any way contradicts biblical otherworldliness. But criticism is welcome, if it actually applies to the arguments.
LikeLike
Terry, for what it’s worth, Jim Bratt, historian at Calvin and biographer of Kuyper, likens Kuyper more to the New than to the Old School. Also, don’t forget that the neo-Cals condemned dancing, theater and cards in 1924 while affirming common grace.
As for the persistence of the New, it’s the pietistic strand in all of us. We like to think that our experience is more meaningful than what God has done and is doing.
LikeLike
Baus, how exactly does no marriage in the new heavens and new earth inform this age or even creation? Since family and procreation is pretty important both to creation and redemption, I’m hard pressed to see how what we cannot even fathom — streets of gold, and one world government under Christ the king — can actually speak to this world.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: As for the persistence of the New, it’s the pietistic strand in all of us. We like to think that our experience is more meaningful than what God has done and is doing.
RS: But if what our experience is now was purchased at the cross and is the application of what God has done and is presently doing, then the picture changes. Perhaps that pietistic strain in us has to be suppressed if we don’t like it. No one can be born from above unless it was purchased for that person by Christ and applied by the Spirit. Why can’t the fruit of the Spirit (love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control, and enduring shots at pietists) have been purchased by Christ (since all spiritual blessings are in Him)?
I John 4 is so clear in tying what has happened to what is happening now.
12 No one has seen God at any time; if we love one another, God abides in us, and His love is perfected in us. 13 By this we know that we abide in Him and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit. 14 We have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son to be the Savior of the world.
15 Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God.
LikeLike
Richard, at the risk of starting a lengthy string of replies, huh? I am currently working on footnotes for a manuscript. How is God’s abiding in me now by the Spirit so clearly tied to such drudgery (he asked fearing the barrage of biblical quotations to follow)?
LikeLike
No marriage or family in the age to come, DGH? You must not be a Mormon. Don’t you know that faith in the continuity of the family in the next age serves as a foundation for the family in this age? The next thing you know you will be telling us that the significance of the family is different in the new covenant than it was in the Abrahamic or Mosaic covenants! That kind of discontinuity will turn you into a redemptive-historical guy. And who knows where Vos and Ridderbos will take you?
Repeat after me. The Abrahamic covenant is the new covenant. The children of Abraham are the children of the new covenant. Repeat several more times. And do not think of any differences between now and then. Circumcision is water baptism. Water baptism is circumcision..
But we are not Mormons. We don’t baptize by proxy those on the outside. Even if the human race is one big family. Does anybody know what most Mormons think about Darwinianism? I don’t know.
But I do some fathers who have worried more about the evils of Darwin than they have about what’s going wrong in their own families.
LikeLike
Darryl, perhaps you won’t be too surprised to know that I don’t agree with everything Jim Bratt says about Kuyper or CRC history. Also, how did the Old School Presbyterians fare on dancing, movie-going, and card-playing? I suspect it was evidence of the times more than evidence of a truly careful Biblical/theological analysis. Of course, the Kuyperians eventually realized the error of their ways, in part, if you read the reports, due to Kuyperian sentiments–but also in part, I think to modernization, secularization, increased worldliness, etc.–the same factors that have led to Sabbath-breaking and gambling and all sorts of things that you’d think even pagans would think to be against the law.
Bratt was among those who popularized the doctrinalists (docs), pietist (pies), transformationalists (Kuyps) strands in the CRC. In general, I like that analysis and tend to think that orthodoxy and orthopraxy has all three strands in proper balance. Docs without pies tend to look like Old School extremists, pies without docs look like New School revivalists, Kuyps without docs look like liberal social gospelists. In proper balance the three together capture a robust Christian faith that is true to the whole counsel of God.
There’s a pietist strand in all of us because we have become part of the age to come. No doubt the old hangs on and will until Christ comes again or we die. But we have the Spirit dwelling within us and God by that sanctifying spirit is making us new. Thus, we have real urges to know God, to love His word, to pray to Him, to worship Him, to enjoy the company of the saints, to give thanks for His good gifts in Creation and Redemption, to evangelize the lost, to long for and work for the peace and justice of God’s reign to be acknowledged and experienced by the whole world.
I doubt that many would think of me as pietistic. I do go to church a lot, I guess. And, I do read my Bible and pray some. I try to be good and kind to my neighbor–I wish I could do better with my wife. I think that reading this blog is a form of piety. 😉 But most of the time I’m criticizing sermons that focus to much on the Christian life or God’s work in us and push instead for sermons that focus on God’s character, God’s work of salvation in Christ, God’s glory, etc. I also wish that the church would focus more on knowing and applying God’s word and at least tell people that it’s in Christ name that we have a food pantry.
Piety in its placing is a right consequence of God’s regenerating Spirit and a lively faith. We even question the confession of those who don’t show the fruit of the gospel in their lives, especially when they fall into negative piety (sinful lifestyles). (Right? We call that church discipline. We used to practice that in conservative Reformed churches.) So, I think it’s a mistake to think that the pietist urge is us lifting our experience above God’s objective work. And, don’t forget, if sanctification if God’s work, then it’s part of what He’s doing. Yes, it’s a temptation to think it’s all about me. It’s been done. We should draw our attention to Christ and God’s glory rather than our own pietist impulse, but it’s presence there is not the result of our sin, but the presence of the Spirit of God in us.
LikeLike
Terry, re neo-Calvinism and New School Presbyterianism, you seem to be making what’s known as a distinction between things that have little to no difference. If you’re with Baus then you’re with Clouser who wants a Christian View of Everything. But in a starker contrast than you seem able to see, old schoolers are content not to have redemption swallow up creation and so are content with the doctrine of providence, the light of nature, general revelation, and a distinction between the sacred a the secular (the latter of which is spelled with seven letters, not four).
And just to add to Darryl’s point about worldly amusement, my CRC neos think the 1924 neos didn’t go far enough in its fundamentalist impersonation and implore for Reformed take over of Hollywood (loving and winsome take over, of course). What strikes me about this is how indistinguishable it is from my funda-eeeevangelicals who say the same thing. Sorry to sound so bigoted, but even if you can tell a difference, all you guys all look the same to old schoolers.
LikeLike
Darryl, isn’t it possible that no marriage in the age to come tells us something about the priority of family of God vs. biological families and that blood shouldn’t be thicker than the water of baptism?
LikeLike
Zrim, Kuyperianism/Dooyeweerdianism is fully rooted in Creation/Providence/General Revelation. I have no idea what you’re talking about if you say otherwise. Our point mainly is that when one talks about Creational things, there’s no neutrality. It’s God’s Creation. And that fact alone makes it a religious question. When one talks about Providential things, there’s no neutrality. It’s God’s Providence. It’s a religious question.
Just with this last exchange some clarity is coming. Some are looking at all this through the eyes of the history of Presbyterianism. Some are looking at all this through the eyes of the history of the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands and their immigrant heirs. Interesting connections about, but if you say Zrim that to an Old Schooler we all look the same, you are confused. Old Schoolism has to do with the “spirituality of the Church” not the “spirituality of Christians”. The Christian life is lived in its full embodied and Creational form, living life before God 24/7 in all areas of life. Transformationalism is not the work of the church!!!!!! Transformationalism is the work of Christians. If you see this, then you can be an Old Schooler in the Presbyterian sense and a Kuyperian in the Reformed sense with no cognitive dissonance.
Here’s an example, the Presbyterian church in the Civil War era was wrong to take a stance on the slavery question or on the union question. The Gardiner Spring resolution was a New School violation of the spirituality of the church or sphere sovereignty. But Christian politicians of the era could argue based on their Christian principles for one side or the other and the political process (as part of Creation/Providence) would take its course. I’m still not sure that the Bible teaches abolitionism, but maybe the light of God’s nature does. Transformationalism tries to build approaches to these things that are consistent with the Biblical revelation.
LikeLike
side note: Terry, I think Darryl distinguishes piety and pietism… and that might account for his rejection of the latter (it does for mine). I couldn’t tell if this distinction bore on your comments or not.
Darryl, when you talk about otherworldliness, are you only talking about the not-yet consummate realities that are discontinuous with the already? Isn’t the believer able to be otherworldly *now*? What do you think “the life of the age to come” means? Isn’t it something every believer has already?
My claim doesn’t require being able to fathom the new heavens&earth.
As to what no-marriage in the consummation means for marriage now, well, that’s plainly revealed in Scripture (1 Cor 7:29; Eph 5:23).
As to how redemption (ie, “the life of the age to come”) illuminates the meaning of creation, I know you’re hard pressed to understand. Since, other things being equal, a pagan waitress is as capable as a believing waitress to give you correct change (or to pass the salt, etc, etc)… you can’t imagine how redemption could make any difference in understanding what things mean.
My claim isn’t that redemption somehow automatically, for every believer’s understanding, makes a difference (otherwise, no believer would have your difficulty). My claim has been that such a different understanding is possible.
You (or any 2k’er) can take up the examples Clouser offers in his book, and deal with the actual arguments, or not. But avoiding them won’t make them go away.
LikeLike
Terry, if Kuyperianism/Dooyeweerdianism is so firmly rooted in something like the doctrine of providence then why all the talk about a Christian View of Everything?
And if “transformationalism tries to build approaches to these things that are consistent with the Biblical revelation” then it’s not very clear why neos make this arbitrary distinction between the instructional church and the individual believer where the upshot is that the church is disallowed from building approaches that consistent with biblical revelation. If the Bible is abolitionist then why can’t the institutional church be? But for 2k the question is much larger than this: is the Bible political or spiritual? The spirituality of the church answers the latter. The question about the church is related: is the church natural or supernatural? The spirituality of the church answers the latter. And if spiritual and supernatural then she has no business intermeddling with political and natural affairs. But since her members are human beings, and since human beings are both political and spiritual, she can have abolitionists and anti-abolitionists within her.
Even so, it doesn’t seem to help things to transfer the naïve ideology of transformation from the duty of the church to the duty of her members. If transforming the world is the work of individual believers then what do you all do with those of us more inclined to preserving? There’s a big difference between the ethic of transformation and that of preservation, you know.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: Richard, at the risk of starting a lengthy string of replies, huh? I am currently working on footnotes for a manuscript. How is God’s abiding in me now by the Spirit so clearly tied to such drudgery (he asked fearing the barrage of biblical quotations to follow)?
RS: It is tied to drudgery by those who simply don’t understand the biblical priority and teaching of God’s abiding in His people. I suppose you have rejected enough Scripture by standing on your, er, worldview that I now know you are impervious to it at the moment. I will say, however, that to be so solid in believing what God has done in the past and yet virtually deny His activity now is much closer to Deism than you should be comfortable with. Christ prayed for Himself to dwell in His people in John 17:26. Do you believe that His prayer was answered or not?
LikeLike
Terry, Bratt is no fan of New Schoolers, so I suspect it might pain him to link Kuyper to them. But his point is that the kind of transformationalist activism and low view of the church typical of the New School was closer to Kuyper than the Old School
As for pietism, it strikes me that neo-Calvinism is intellectual pietism. They don’t wear t-shirts or listen to Christian rock, but they do make sure that everyone knows they are Christians when it comes to their thoughts. Some Christians wear the piety on their sleeves, some on their minds. Old Lifers, following Christ on praying in your closet and not giving alms visibly, question whether such visible displays of piety are necessary.
LikeLike
Terry, no marriage could say that, but it also raises real questions about our natural bodies. Our sexual organs are not extrinsic to who we are in the Garden or after the fall. The don’t seem to be very important in the age to come. That’s a big discontinuity.
LikeLike
Baus, those texts on marriage are hardly clear, unless you want to go Roman Catholic. I can’t keep up with all the recent literature from the urban celebrity preachers on sex and marriage, but I’m having a hard time thinking they are telling their readers to attend to their wives as if they weren’t married.
As for the way that redemption gives meaning to creation, I think you are claiming that it is more than possible. Since you sometimes appeal to Van Til, I suspect you believe the meaning is required of believers. And what you don’t seem to consider is that a Christian interpretation of Shakespeare or math is only an opinion since the Bible does not reveal that meaning beyond in a very general way. What you also don’t seem to consider is that some non-believers may make better sense of the natural world than believers who overly strain to find meaning through the Bible. Here I’ll put Leon Kass on the human body up against any neo-Calvinist.
LikeLike
Richard, thanks. I’m very glad you’re not my pastor. (But I may understand why the folks in Northampton got rid of Edwards.) To borrow a line from Annie Hall, “I’m due back on planet earth.”
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: Richard, thanks. I’m very glad you’re not my pastor. (But I may understand why the folks in Northampton got rid of Edwards.) To borrow a line from Annie Hall, “I’m due back on planet earth.”
RS: Which is your usual not actually an answer sort of answer. But again, Colossian 1:25 Of this church I was made a minister according to the stewardship from God bestowed on me for your benefit, so that I might fully carry out the preaching of the word of God, 26 that is, the mystery which has been hidden from the past ages and generations, but has now been manifested to His saints, 27 to whom God willed to make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.
This great mystery which is what it takes to fully carrry out the preaching of the word of God which is that great mystery of the ages, you just don’t like. The riches of the glory of this mystery is Christ in you. I am not sure why you simply prefer to think of Christianity as existing in history. As you implied to me once that I may not be able to be a member of your church, I would say this is a teaching that amounts to such importance that one should not be a member of the church and deny or denigrate it.
LikeLike
Richard, I asked how my compiling footnotes was related to God abiding in me. You could have said, it’s a hard question. Maybe even a mystery. But in your good Edwardsean fashion you respond by saying I don’t like God’s revelation in Christ. For the sake of the women and children, I say, psshaw. Just because I don’t buy your ethereal and borderline gnostic view of the gospel doesn’t mean I don’t like the gospel. I do like it very much. I don’t like what you do to it. You, sir, denigrate what is common and the ordinary tasks to which God has called his people. Try reading some Luther. It might get you to say something other than psshaw.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart, old post: Richard, at the risk of starting a lengthy string of replies, huh? I am currently working on footnotes for a manuscript. How is God’s abiding in me now by the Spirit so clearly tied to such drudgery (he asked fearing the barrage of biblical quotations to follow)?
D. G. Hart, newest post at this point:: Richard, I asked how my compiling footnotes was related to God abiding in me. You could have said, it’s a hard question. Maybe even a mystery.
RS: The way I read what you wrote is that of sarcasm. It fits with your comments on pietistic things like the Great Commandment and the indwelling of Christ. In other words, in light of your comments of doing all things to the glory of God and loving God in all you do, your comments here are very fitting with the interpretation of sarcasm. If Christ is dwelling in a person, then the love of God is abiding in that person and that person is aimed toward doing all to the glory of God. That alone can give real meaning to the compiling of footnotes or anything else. If that is the heart of the mystery of the Gospel, then apart from the indwelling of Christ all is drudgery.
D.G. Hart: But in your good Edwardsean fashion you respond by saying I don’t like God’s revelation in Christ. For the sake of the women and children, I say, psshaw.
RS: Edwardsean fashion? I always thought that it was quite Pauline in fashion as well as what Jesus prayed for. After all, that is what the Bible teaches.
D.G. Hart: Just because I don’t buy your ethereal and borderline gnostic view of the gospel doesn’t mean I don’t like the gospel.
RS: But if you think that the indwelling of Christ is borderline gnostic, then what gospel is it that you do like?
D.G. Hart: I do like it very much. I don’t like what you do to it. You, sir, denigrate what is common and the ordinary tasks to which God has called his people.
RS: No, you are the one that denigrates the ordinary tasks to which God has called His people. You seem to think that the ordinary tasks are beneath the life of Christ in the soul and so people cannot carry out the Great Command of loving God with all of our being.
D.G. Hart: Try reading some Luther. It might get you to say something other than psshaw.
RS: Dr. Hart, your words are like a servant carrying dung in silver vases. Is that what you mean? Instead of Luther, how about a few of those dreaded verses?
Titus 2:3 Older women likewise are to be reverent in their behavior, not malicious gossips nor enslaved to much wine, teaching what is good, 4 so that they may encourage the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, 5 to be sensible, pure, workers at home, kind, being subject to their own husbands, so that the word of God will not be dishonored.
Titus 2:9 Urge bondslaves to be subject to their own masters in everything, to be well-pleasing, not argumentative,
10 not pilfering, but showing all good faith so that they will adorn the doctrine of God our Savior in every respect.
11 For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men,
12 instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age,
13 looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus,
14 who gave Himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed, and to purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds.
I Cor 10:31. Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.
Deut 12:18 “You shall rejoice before the LORD your God in all your undertakings.”
Col 3:17 Whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks through Him to God the Father.
Col 3:23 Whatever you do, do your work heartily, as for the Lord rather than for men.
Mat 12:36 But I tell you that every careless word that people speak, they shall give an accounting for it in the day of judgement.
RS: Of course these could be multiplied many times, but just think about it. We are told by Jesus that we will give an accounting for every careless word we speak. Words of gossip? Words that dishonor God? Mean words? Psshaw words? Paul tells us that we are to do our work for the Lord. Jesus told us that we are to love God with all of our heart, mind, soul and strength. Maybe that is borderline gnostic to you, but then again with the verses above, you might want to think over your position again.
Deut 28:47 But because you did not serve the LORD your God with joy and a glad heart…
LikeLike
Darryl, the meaning of those texts might not be clear to you, but they are Paul’s applications and an answer to your question nonetheless. The way you speak sometimes, it seems you have a hard time realizing that your difficulty in grasping what something means really doesn’t imply that its truth is dubious.
Of course, all interpretations are opinions. What’s your point?
Your objection to the idea that redemption can illuminate the meaning of creation shows that you still don’t perceive the neocalvinist arguments. Try considering the arguments if you want to make relevant objections. C’mon. You can do it.
LikeLike
Baus, believe it or not, “read Clouser” is not an argument. Nor are you references to NT passages, saying they are obvious in applying the world to come to present realities of marriage. Neither passage addresses directly the idea of no marriage in heaven.
You don’t have to display your pearls of wisdom here, but please don’t think that you have made your case. Like lots of neo-calvinists, you use the received bumper stickers of truth and don’t show a capacity to argue for them. When challenged, the w-w playbook is to not to reason but get indignant.
LikeLike
Richard, do you know that you do a very good impression of the Hal computer from 2001 A Space Odyssey? Loosen up.
LikeLike
If you had to give an account today of every word, how do you think you would do? Will there be sanctions? Demerits? Extra stuff? If it’s not you but “God in your soul” writing the words, then will the rewards go to God or to your soul?
I sure hope being resurrected on that day (when Jesus Christ comes) doesn’t depend on what you say or write today. I sure hope that final salvation doesn’t depend on you being able to thank God that you are not a sinner with your words.
Now that we don’t have to say anything, what shall we say?
LikeLike
McMark, and don’t forget about those erroneous footnotes.
LikeLike
Richard,
You are misusing Matt 12 against DGH. The context of “every word” in Matt 12: 36&37 is important. This is not speaking of careless words in general, as if you say something lighthearted you will be condemned for it. Peter even denied Christ out of fear, yet he repented and was restored. The careless words that will condemn you are the words you say that reveal whether you are for him or against Christ. The Pharisees in their whispers condemned Christ, and by those words they will be condemned. The context is Christ’s condemnation of the Pharisees.
LikeLike
John Fesko: “On the final day, when Christ returns, the righteous are immediately transformed. Again, without God uttering a single syllable, the righteous will be able to look around them and know immediately who has been declared righteous. There is no future aspect of justification but rather only the revelation of the verdict through the resurrection. Or, we may say that justification is ‘already,’and what remains ‘not yet’ is the revelation of the verdict that has already been passed on the basis of the life, death, and resurrection of Christ, which the believer possesses by faith alone.”
LikeLike
todd: You are misusing Matt 12 against DGH. The context of “every word” in Matt 12: 36&37 is important. This is not speaking of careless words in general, as if you say something lighthearted you will be condemned for it. Peter even denied Christ out of fear, yet he repented and was restored. The careless words that will condemn you are the words you say that reveal whether you are for him or against Christ. The Pharisees in their whispers condemned Christ, and by those words they will be condemned. The context is Christ’s condemnation of the Pharisees.
Matthew 12:32 “Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come. 33 “Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or make the tree bad and its fruit bad; for the tree is known by its fruit. 34 “You brood of vipers, how can you, being evil, speak what is good? For the mouth speaks out of that which fills the heart. 35 “The good man brings out of his good treasure what is good; and the evil man brings out of his evil treasure what is evil. 36 “But I tell you that every careless word that people speak, they shall give an accounting for it in the day of judgment.
RS: Todd, the context is important and he is primarily addressing the Pharsiees. But I don’t see verse 36 as limited just to specific words about Christ and not governed in all ways by verse 32. Verse 32 is about words that one cannot be forgiven for. Verses 33-34 goes to the very nature of the person and so how the Pharisees couldn’t speak what was good. Verse 35 builds on verses 33-34 and tells us that our words (plural) are from our real treasure. Verse 36 starts off with the contrasting word “but.” Whatever the interpretations these man had of the importance of words, Jesus wiped that away for those with ears to hear. It was possible to utter words against the Spirit and commit the unforgiveable sin and what comes out of the mouth (and keyboard) reveals things about the heart. The mouth simply speaks what fills the heart. If Jesus would have been speaking about words about Himself, I don’t think that He would have used the word for “careless” or “idle.” Instead all the words we use will be brought into judgement. The words we use that are for Him, but also the words that are idle and careless. Those reveal the true nature of our heart as well. He goes from the greatest sin (against the Holy Spirit) to what we would think of as the least sin (careless words).
LikeLike
mark mcculley: If you had to give an account today of every word, how do you think you would do? Will there be sanctions? Demerits? Extra stuff? If it’s not you but “God in your soul” writing the words, then will the rewards go to God or to your soul?
I sure hope being resurrected on that day (when Jesus Christ comes) doesn’t depend on what you say or write today. I sure hope that final salvation doesn’t depend on you being able to thank God that you are not a sinner with your words.
Now that we don’t have to say anything, what shall we say?
RS: Whatever you say, but Matthew 12:32-36 does means something. After all, Jesus did not use careless words and we better pay attention to what He said. Justification by grace alone through faith alone should not be used to cancel out the moral obligations of people. Yes, it informs us very clearly that sinners are not saved by what they do and are saved by Christ alone, but that does not do away with moral obligations, but enhances them. Recall the words of Titus 2:14, where it tells us other reasons Christ died for sinners: ” who gave Himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed, and to purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds.” Christ gave HImself to redeem sinners from every lawless deed, but also to purify for Himself a people who are zealous for good deeds.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: Richard, do you know that you do a very good impression of the Hal computer from 2001 A Space Odyssey? Loosen up.
RS: Loosen up? I just mentioned every word previously, but the Word of God says that the thoughts and even the intent of the thoughts are seen and judged. Again, one is declared just by God on the basis of Christ alone. However, that does not do away with the holiness of God and the cry of the heart to be holy as He is holy.
Genesis 6:5 Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
Jeremiah 17:9 “The heart is more deceitful than all else And is desperately sick; Who can understand it?
Jeremiah 4:14 Wash your heart from evil, O Jerusalem, That you may be saved. How long will your wicked thoughts Lodge within you?
Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.
LikeLike
Darryl, it’s really asking too much of you, when you ask me serious questions, to assume 1) you are able to follow a reference to where the argument is made [yes, you’ll have to read it], and 2) that you are able to connect the dots of basic Bible teaching [you can’t see what Paul is saying has to do with marriage in the consummation?] ?
Anyway, I’ve made my views public here: http://honest2blog.blogspot.com/2012/04/sanctifying-common-2.html
LikeLike
Darryl, are you kidding? I listen to Christian rock, and I own and wear a “Benjamin Warfield is my home boy” tee shirt. Warfield is also one of my bearded heroes along with Charles Darwin, Hermann Melville, Karl Marx, Dimitri Mendeleev, and Jerry Garcia. I have a collection of photos on my My Space page (yes, My Space is out, Facebook is in, but old internet buffs like me keep them all).
LikeLike
Terry,
You have a much better sense of humor than Baus and Richard. Anyone who is a friend of Jerry Garcia and Herman Melville is a friend of mine. I often wear a “weak on progressive sanctification” t-shirt. I also appreciate your responding to my Calvin college inquiry. Perhaps David VanDrunen did take the 2K route and course he took because of you- just kidding, mainly!!
LikeLike
I just read the chapter yesterday by Julius Kim in the Scott Clark edited book, COVENANT, JUSTIFICATION AND PASTORAL MINISTRY, entitled “The rise of moralism in 17th century Anglican preaching. John Tillotson and the Latitudinarians sound an awful lot like Richard (although I am sure Richard will deny this). Quoting Kim, “In a sermon entitled ‘Of Justifying Faith,’ false speculation, cant terms and phrases, and obscuring the meaning of the gospel are all associated. Tillotson argues that in their attempt to articulate justifying faith, the “enthusiasts” misuse the “resting” metaphor, thereby leading to antinomian tendencies. Restoration historian Rivers states: ‘For Tillotson (as for Latitudinarians and almost all Anglicans) active repentance and obedience are conditions for justification: the use of popular non-scriptural metaphors such as ‘resting, and relying, and leaning upon CHRIST, apprehending,k and laying hold, and applying CHRIST’ encourages moral passivity. The language of ‘resting, relying, and leaning,’ all come from standard Puritan doctrines found in the Puritan Westminster Confession of Faith (11.1-2). Tillotson’s biographer, Thomas Birch, confirms this by stating that Tillotson disliked the potentially confusing language, ‘as when they taught men to roll upon Christ, and act faith, and the like; the plain sense of which is, to trust in him and believe in him.’ This was the main problem that Tillotson had with Puritan theology: it was too pessimistic about the capacities of fallen humanity and thus necessitated a view of justification that eliminated man’s response to divine grace…..For disillusioned clergyman like Tillotson who had experienced what is believed to be the antinomian consequence of Puritan theology, religious life was essentially moral and was achieved by active human effort in cooperation with divine grace.”
LikeLike
“………….For disillusioned clergyman like Tillotson who had experienced what is believed to be the antinomian consequence of Puritan theology, religious life was essentially moral and was achieved by active human effort in cooperation with divine grace.”
Ring, Ring Ring, “Hello this is Rome, can we help you?!”
LikeLike
John Yeazel: Terry, You have a much better sense of humor than Baus and Richard.
RS: Who gets to decide the standard of what humor is much less what is a better sense of humor?
LikeLike
sean: “………….For disillusioned clergyman like Tillotson who had experienced what is believed to be the antinomian consequence of Puritan theology, religious life was essentially moral and was achieved by active human effort in cooperation with divine grace.”
Ring, Ring Ring, “Hello this is Rome, can we help you?!”
RS: You might want to think that statement through again. There is no antinomian consequence to Puritan theology apart from an antinomian response to grace alone. I would hope that you hold to grace alone.
LikeLike
John Yeazel: “This was the main problem that Tillotson had with Puritan theology: it was too pessimistic about the capacities of fallen humanity and thus necessitated a view of justification that eliminated man’s response to divine grace…..For disillusioned clergyman like Tillotson who had experienced what is believed to be the antinomian consequence of Puritan theology, religious life was essentially moral and was achieved by active human effort in cooperation with divine grace.”
RS: Without having read a lot of Tillotson or of Kim, there is the possibility that Kim has misread Tillotson. I know there are a lot of people today that misread Jonathan Edwards. There are other issues as well, but so many toes to step on. The religious life of the Puritans was not essentially moral in that sense, but essentially love for god. It was achieved by grace in the soul.
LikeLike
Richard, I’d have thought it was obvious the standard for humor – the Word of God.
LikeLike
Baus, you’re not much of an interlocuter. Here we are having a conversation and you say, read my paper. Fine. I skimmed your paper and saw this neo-cal speak:
So are you saying that a regenerate person may act culturally in accordance with God’s norms because of redemption? What does that mean? Does it mean that a Christian may speak English better than non-Christians? And how about Shakespeare? Why he speak English so better?
It sounds to me like you think there are laws out there that are norms for cultural activity. That sounds awfully legalistic. Language is a great example. What works in French may not work in German. So where is the structure/direction norm for language — the most basic element of culture?
LikeLike
Terry, I know. You even sing that stuff and wear that stuff in worship. Ugh.
LikeLike
Richard,
I once heard John Gerstner say something that often comes into my mind and haunts my assurance that God has imputed my sin to Christ and Christ’s righteousness to me. He said something to the effect that Christians should be the hardest working moralists on the face of the earth. He must have picked that sentence up by reading Edwards. I’m not sure what to make of that-maybe you can help me out and tell me what you think about that- not!!!
LikeLike
Mike Horton on the first death. Immortality is a gift not inherent in the human condition. http://d1w4yg6zersvbl.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/18-Bent-and-Broken_-Theological-Origins-of-the-Blues-1.mp3
LikeLike
That Horton talk was superb McMark.
LikeLike
Darryl, of course there are laws of language–that what linguists study. (One of those laws is to never use the quasi-word “Ugh” unless you mean to suggest that your disdain is just a matter of taste.) There is a God-created ordering of reality that those of us called to study and engage a particular aspect of are called to discover and discern. No doubt you believe such about the physical universe and it seems that you think there are norms elsewhere (for example, in music where you suggest that certain styles are more appropriate for worship than others).
But why is this legalism? Legalism is salvation by law-keeping, not law-keeping. Reformed people acknowledge this basic point in contrast to antinomians and dispensationalists and others. If God sets the boundaries of the sea, why doesn’t he set the boundaries of the state or the school or the hospital or the charitable organization or … Is it too outrageous to suggest that it’s the failure to observe God’s Creational law for societal entities that is part of the failure of those institutions (that’s a particular form of sin–and, of course, sin in general leads to these failure). God has left these norms for us to discover (just as scientists discover laws of nature). Unbelievers can help discover these laws as they are objective and empirically determined and God enables by common grace the unbeliever and believer alike to see them. Here again I don’t think we’re really so far apart. The believer has no special insight into these laws other than knowledge of their source and ultimate religious meaning which includes a view of the whole of Creational reality that the unbeliever cannot/does not have.
LikeLike
Terry, actually, to say that salvation is by law keeping is to contradict where God has clearly said it’s by faith alone. But legalism is saying that God has spoken where he has been silent. And so to suggest that God has been vocal about the rules of language is to be legalist. He hasn’t told us there is a Christian way to speak any more than there is a Christian way to eat, drink, vote, drive a car, buy a house, or spend leisure time.
LikeLike
Zrim. I’ll assume that you didn’t read my post very carefully. I never said that salvation was by law keeping, but the exact opposite. Nevertheless, saved people empowered by the Holy Spirit strive to keep the Law. That’s why the 10 Commandments are exposited in the Heidelberg Catechism in the section on gratitude and why in the Westminster Standards the 10 Commandments describe the Christian life.
But I think you miss my point. God has “spoken” in Creation and when we study it we find his speech. That’s what the scientific enterprise is about, whether it be mathematical, physical, biological, psychological, social, economic, political, aesthetic. This speech is less clear than the revealed Word of special revelation, but it’s no less God’s speech. It is binding in a different sort of way than Scripture. But we ignore or violate it at our own peril. Try jumping off a ten story building without the appropriate equipment and you will see.
LikeLike
Terry, I know you’re not saying salvation is by works. What you said was that to say so is legalism. I’m trying to clarify the terms and say that there is contradicting what God has clearly said and then there’s speaking on behalf of God where he has been silent. The latter is legalism, the former is anathema.
Pursuant to that (and your point), if you think we are to peal back creation to find God’s voice then what do you do with Belgic 13:
We do not wish to inquire with undue curiosity into what he does that surpasses human understanding and is beyond our ability to comprehend. But in all humility and reverence we adore the just judgments of God, which are hidden from us, being content to be Christ’s disciples, so as to learn only what he shows us in his Word, without going beyond those limits.
I’m all for creational inquiry, but when you start suggesting we’ll find sacred speech under it, I worry. It’s the doctrine of creaturely limitation embedded in something like BC 13 that I think you guys, in your more intellectually pietistic impulses, gloss over.
LikeLike
Zrim, methinks you’ve taken that passage out of context. It’s talking about God’s decree and execution of that decree in His providence of all things including the actions of wicked men and the origin of evil. BC (along with Calvin) tells us not to pry to deeply or speculatively into this matters that are God’s ways beyond our ways. It has nothing to do with what we’re talking about.
Only the Word of God binds us. It seems you’re talking to some other perhaps misguided transformationalist if you’re hearing someone say that the conclusions of our investigations are binding. The church needs to stay out of these things and let Christian thinkers and practioners duke it out. By the way, in my experience it’s usually the theologians that want to bind the scientists (think young earth creationists) rather than the other way around.
If God made it, then we’re going to find something like sacred speech, although not on par with scripture and certainly not binding. I’m increasingly troubled by you and Darryl’s worry that someone is making you do stuff. Perhaps you just feel marginalized by the Moral Majority or by the Neo-Cal “majority”.
I think your definition of legalism does not accord with the historical use. Of course, sometimes legalists add things to God’s law that aren’t there. Legalists aren’t Christians since they seek to be saved by their own works. Adding to God’s law but not requiring it for salvation is more a violation of Christian liberty. And, yes, this theological debate between 2k and transformationalists is in the realm of Christian liberty. It seems to me that all the essential points of transformationalism are accepted by DVD in Living in God’s Two Kingdoms. I quibble with the eschatology but even here there has been liberty (at least in the OPC, as long as you’re not a dispensationalist). Hopefully, we’re all willing to admit that we’re a little in the dark about the future especially with respect to the details. You all make a big deal about “no marriage” in heaven. I’ve never really been convinced that that is a particularly clear passage with lots of analogy of scripture to back it up. Maybe it’s one of those “baptism for the dead” passages.
LikeLike
Terry, but what if unbelievers have more insight into the laws of language or biology than believers do because the unbeliever studies language and biology more than the believer (who thinks that the Bible reveals the laws and norms of all things)? Don’t you become smarter at math by studying it more? Or do math smarts come by way of word, sacraments and prayer? In my estimation, there has to be something said for spending a lot of time on a particular activity — from hitting a curve ball to figuring out quantum theory.
LikeLike
Terry, “the providence of all things” would seem to include scientific enterprise. So where do you see any limitations of scientific inquiry? It seems like one thing to inquire all the way up to proving heliocentrism over geocentrism, but another to keep going and try to discover God’s speech in all of it, whatever that means. So, yes, neo-Calvinism does seem to be pushing to do something, namely go beyond our human limitations and discover more by way of natural revelation than we were intended to.
It’s also pushy about transforming at the expense of preserving and has even made the very term household. In case you don’t think so, when was the last time you heard anybody describe the church’s mission (organic or institutional) in terms of cultural preservation as opposed to some variation on transformation? Not much because it doesn’t exactly inspire human fantasy and utopian dreams and useful religion. Not that I think that cultural preservation is the church’s mission at all. You’re right, it’s liberty, but when it comes to what the NT exhorts believers to be, quiet and peaceful sure seems to align better with preservation than transformation. So does salt.
LikeLike
Check out my 9:29 am today post. I don’t think the believer has any special advantage, but he/she is still studying God’s world. You see, common quantum mechanics is Christian quantum mechanics even if the unbeliever doesn’t admit it. I never said that the Bible teaches me about quantum mechanics. The Bible teaches me about God, Creation, Providence, salvation, life before God, thanksgiving, being a God-pleaser vs. a mere man-pleaser. Understanding those things is key to understanding the truth about quantum mechanics. Unbelievers can do quantum mechanics, as Van Til says, after a fashion and sufficient to get along in the world, but denying the God-createdness of quantum mechanics, they don’t get one of the most fundamental points.
LikeLike
Zrim, back to your 2:13 4/27 post… Creational law is divine speech. The universe is upheld by the Word of His power. Scientists seek to discover that law. Practitioners practice in accord with that law.
LikeLike
What does W-W mean?
LikeLike
John Yeazel: Richard, I once heard John Gerstner say something that often comes into my mind and haunts my assurance that God has imputed my sin to Christ and Christ’s righteousness to me. He said something to the effect that Christians should be the hardest working moralists on the face of the earth. He must have picked that sentence up by reading Edwards. I’m not sure what to make of that-maybe you can help me out and tell me what you think about that- not!!!
RS: Christians are Christians by grace alone. There is no morality or anything they can possibly do that adds to the grace of God that saves them. Sinners are delivered from the wrath of God by the blood of Christ alone and they are given entrance into heaven based on the imputed righteousness of Christ alone. But that fact that Christ died for sin should not make us careless and so give ourselves to sin, but to give ourselves to Christ. If we really believe that He had to suffer for each or our sins, then each sin we commit would in one sense add to His sufferings, though indeed that has already been accomplished. The fact that sinners are given free entrance into heaven based on the imputed righteousness of Christ should not make them easy on sin, but they should love righteousness. The resurrected Christ lives in His people and works in them to love the glory of God and true holiness. It does seem that true Christians should love holiness more than all others because they alone see and love the holiness of God.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: Richard, I’d have thought it was obvious the standard for humor – the Word of God.
RS: There may be more truth there than your worldview will allow for you to think. If believers are to be holy in all things and if they are to love God with all of their beings, one would think that their humor would have God’s Word as a standard.
LikeLike