How Can A Tranformationalist Be Pauline?

Published on by D. G. Hart

Family worship this morning took us into the tall grass of 1 Cor 15 where Paul expresses thoughts that should give cultural transformationalists the willies:

But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?” You foolish person! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. And what you sow is not the body that is to be, but a bare kernel, perhaps of wheat or of some other grain. But God gives it a body as he has chosen, and to each kind of seed its own body. For not all flesh is the same, but there is one kind for humans, another for animals, another for birds, and another for fish. There are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is of one kind, and the glory of the earthly is of another. There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory.

So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable. It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual. The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven.
Mystery and Victory

I tell you this, brothers: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. (1 Corinthians 15:35-50, ESV)

There you have it once again, a fundamental distinction between the temporal and the eternal, between earthly and heavenly glory, between what is corruptible and incorruptible. (Breaking Bad is clearly perishable. But my inner Paul forces me to say that The Wire is also perishable.) Paul also makes a clear affirmation that something as mysterious and as powerful as the resurrection is the only way to take something from this world and have it endure into the next.

Sometime ago, Keith Mathison raised questions about Dave VanDrunen’s two-kingdom theology by suggesting that a view that stressed discontinuity between this world and the world to come leaned more in the direction of annihilation of the present world than previous Reformed authors (mainly neo-Calvinist) have:

VanDrunen claims that his view entails “destruction” of the natural order, not its “annihilation” (p. 66). He makes this assertion because he believes, rightly, that “our earthly bodies will be transformed into resurrected bodies.” He continues, “It is precisely this—the resurrection of believers’ bodies—that the created order is now longing for.” What does this mean? “Our earthly bodies are the only part of the present world that Scripture says will be transformed and taken up into the world-to-come” (p. 66). The entire paragraph in which these comments are found is somewhat confusing. Why? The argument between those who advocate annihilation of the present creation and those who advocate renewal is not about our resurrection bodies. It concerns the present creation that was affected by man’s sin. All orthodox Reformed Christians affirm that our present bodies will be transformed and that there is continuity between this present body and the resurrection body (e.g. Belgic Confession, Art. 37; WCF 32:2). Some of these Reformed Christians, however, affirm that the present heavens and earth will be annihilated and that the new heavens and earth are a completely new creation. This is what VanDrunen argues throughout this book, so for him to say that he believes the natural order will be “destroyed” but not “annihilated” only muddies the water because it misses the main point under consideration.

VanDrunen’s preference for destruction over annihilation may not be as clear as is should be. But how can anyone who reads Paul’s letter to the Corinthians possibly argue for continuity between this world and the next? Whether its destruction, annihilation, death, a sown seed, or Walter White, a reader of Paul would be hard pressed to think that cultural accomplishments here can in any way compare with the glory to be revealed.

I understand that such a reading of Paul is not inspiring. It does not lead me to think that each day I am changing the world in my work and recreations. But isn’t that Paul’s point in so many places, like setting our minds on things above?

57 thoughts on “How Can A Tranformationalist Be Pauline?”

  1. hart: But how can anyone who reads Paul’s letter to the Corinthians possibly argue for continuity between this world and the next?

    mark: well, how can anyone who reads Hebrews say that that the old and new covenants are one “the covenant of grace”? How can anyone say that the Mosaic covenant is both part of “the covenant of grace” and also (in a different way) a republication of “the covenant of works”?

    When people need a presumption of continuity, whether they are arguing for infant inclusion in “the covenant” or sabbath (on another day) or Jesus not being a pacifist, they tend to be able to ignore the discontinuity long enough to make their point. Since there has never been but one gospel, we are told, this means that there has never been but one covenant. ( John Murray even conflated the covenant with Adam with “the covenant of grace”).

    For example, the old covenant in Hebrews is not the Abrahamic covenant but the Mosaic covenant, except that the Mosaic covenant is also part of “the covenant of grace” and the Abrahamic covenant also has those “ceremonial” parts about land and conditionality….

    You did ask…but perhaps baptists don’t know the meaning of rhetorical

    Like

  2. But how can it be denied that in some way, the cultural accomplishments here will be echoed in a transformed way in the Resurrection. Many cultural accomplishments are informational. Is information destroyed in the Resurrection? You watched Walter White in the flesh. Will you ‘forget’ that you watched WW? You in your essence is determined by the experiences of culture you participated in (from your language to your class to your education, music you heard). No, your bike won’t be waiting in heaven for you. But if you know how to build a bike, why won’t that knowledge endure?

    What glory will the “seed” of of your mother’s love, watching Walter White, enjoying beethoven, etc be like when they come to full fruition? I have no idea, no more than I have an idea of how Jesus memory of the nails, still marking his hands is glorified for him, or how much more glorious breakfast with Jesus will be when we enjoy it with him in newly resurrected bodies as well.

    The kings of the earth bring their wealth (culture) into the New Jerusalem. That has to factor in somehow. Their wealth is not annihilated.

    Like

  3. But to affirm your point, the older I get the more I look forward to that great transformation to come.

    I Corinthians 15: 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19 If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied.

    52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. 53 For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality.

    Resurrection means that we
    have in our future realities
    which have the bad taste
    to still be visible,
    unique individual
    resurrected blood vessels

    so that between now
    and then is not a difference
    where what matters is not matter

    one day, our own live eyeballs
    new and improved
    eyeballs immortal and “spiritual”
    completely controlled
    by the Holy Spirit of Christ

    advocates of the incorporeal
    talk about a landless land and a timeless time
    up there
    inhabited only by full essences
    a world all clean
    refined and very light
    where time and space
    will not matter

    a matter-less world with no touching
    that helps us
    avoid awkward truths
    such as that conspicuous hole in the earth
    when we’re dead
    and waiting for the resurrection,

    Like

  4. setting our minds on things above?

    By far the most compelling reason to count oneself among the 2kers, IMHO. Plus, one gets the inside scoop on what’s good on TV these days. What’s not to love?

    Like

  5. Paul, just because I can’t answer questions you can’t doesn’t add up to “has to factor in somehow.” So kings will bring wealth (it’s hardly culture — haven’t you seen Margin Call?), that means we baptize New York City as the locale of divine redemption?

    You see my problem.

    Like

  6. Paul, isn’t that the point, that with passages like 1 Corinthians 15 how can it be sustained that “cultural accomplishments here will be echoed in a transformed way in the resurrection”? In fact, if the highest temporal institution–marriage–gets dissolved then why would those accomplishments of an even lower order survive? If the knowledge one has accrued to keep a temporal marriage going will be irrelevant, then what place would bicycle knowledge have?

    But that you have no idea on some of this resonates, as in no eye has seen and no ear has heard and no mind has conceived…

    Like

  7. Mouw’s proof-text is Revelation 21: 24 By its light will the nations walk, and the kings of the earth will bring their glory into it, 25 and its gates will never be shut by day—and there will be no night there. 26 They will bring into it the glory and the honor of the nations. 27 But nothing unclean will ever enter it, nor anyone who does what is detestable or false, but only those who are written in the Lamb’s book of life.

    mark: On Mouw’s reading it cannot be “common grace” which cleans the profane—the kings will come in also.

    Revelation 19:4 And the armies of heaven, arrayed in fine linen, white and pure, were following him on white horses. 15 From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron. He will tread the wine press of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty. 16 On his robe and on his thigh he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords.

    17 Then I saw an angel standing in the sun, and with a loud voice he called to all the birds that fly directly overhead, “Come, gather for the great supper of God, 18 to eat the flesh of kings, the flesh of captains, the flesh of mighty men, the flesh of horses and their riders, and the flesh of all men, both free and slave, both small and great.” 19 And I saw the beast and the kings of the earth with their armies gathered to make war against him who was sitting on the horse and against his army.

    Like

  8. It’s fascinating that the New Testament gives many admonitions to work hard and be productive without promising that the fruits of our labor will continue on into the world to come:

    Colossians 3:

    22 Bondservants obey in everything those who are your earthly masters not by way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but with sincerity of heart, fearing the Lord. 23 Whatever you do, work heartily, as for the Lord and not for men, 24 knowing that from the Lord you will receive the inheritance as your reward. You are serving the Lord Christ.”

    I attribute the transformational mindset to hubris and immaturity more than anything else. “If I’m doing something, it must be a really big deal.” No, not really, but God wants you to learn to serve humbly and be faithful just because He wants to.

    Like

  9. Pingback: D.G. Hart on “How Can a Transformationalist Be Pauline?” | Literate Comments

  10. “The kings of the earth bring their wealth (culture) into the New Jerusalem.”

    Where do you get the idea the wealth symbolizes culture? Rev. itself suggests the wealth is redeemed people.

    Like

  11. “factored in somehow” means its important not to deny it, but instead affirm it.

    Instead of saying “no part of culture will survive the eschatological event” we have to say

    “some parts of culture will survive the eschatological event” even if we can’t articulate which ones will.

    All we need to prove this is to note that language is a cultural achievement/object, and we are specifically told that ‘peoples, nations, tribes, and TONGUES” will survive into the eschaton.

    Like

  12. I just finished preaching through Revelation, and in general, I think it serves as a good example of letting the clearer parts (e.g. I Cor. 15), interpret the less clear (e.g. just about all of Revelation). You don’t in general turn there for systematic theology (though of course it does add to the overall picture). For instance, how literal is bringing “wealth” into Jerusalem? Is that necessarily any different than what Phil. 2 affirms that all will confess Christ as Lord? It’s a symbolic book! On this, see Beale.

    And on “every tongue,” where is language presented as a cultural achievement, scripturally? It may be there, but in Gen. 11, God multiplied tongues to confuse mankind, and in Acts 2, the Gospel is preached in every tongue to bring men back together in the Church. So, I think Rev 7 is just saying is that redemption will be worldwide, and consist of all kinds of people. Nothing about this world’s culture’s carrying into the next, necessarily. Right?

    It also matters that Jesus does not state that He “makes all things new” until Rev. 21; the new heavens and the new earth. So many Transformers want that to begin now. The PCA’s General Assembly even had as their slogan this year, “Making All Things New.” I think a more accurate slogan would have been, “Making Some Things Better,” (but not very inspiring I admit). Or how about just “Saving Souls since 1973.” Yeah, no, too fundy sounding, and we would not want that.

    Like

  16. We’re already dead (as far as what we do, or who we are). Rom. 6

    And we’re also already raised. Declared holy and righteous. Rom. 6
    We have put on Christ..in our Baptisms. Galatians.

    We are to consider ourselves dead to sin…even though we carry around that stinking, rotting corpse of The Old Adam.

    uh…what was the question?

    Like

  18. “Jesus didn’t come to solve the economic, political, and social problems of the world. He came to forgive our sins.” TKNY

    Like

  21. This lady rips Keller:

    Christine Waldersen: Man what an unclear misleading statement to put out there on Facebook. I hope he retracts and explains. Jesus spoke tons on bringing in the Kingdom of God to all areas of society. He lived among the poor and spent time healing them. Speaking to the prostitutes and tax collectors shaming the makers of the law. He came to restore all areas of society and so should we as his followers. Not live our rich privileged lives where we tell everyone struggling they just need Jesus when there are sinful structures oppressing them. He came not just to forgive sin but to take sin away completely!

    Like

  22. You must be referring to the Feb issue? Not seeing it in Jan. Although I see where the Hart’s have a new facility to worship in 😉

    Like

  23. DJ, sure, but the tweet from the day just before was: “There is a direct relationship between a person’s grasp and experience of God’s grace, and his or her heart for justice and the poor.”

    Like

  24. Keller is Platitudinator-in-Chief…all over the place. Next week it will be something else. Wax nosy.

    Like

  25. Zrim, and that’s why I don’t follow Keller’s twitter. Thanks for restoring my confidence to continue not wasting my time with it…

    Like

  28. I think Twitter is a bad idea in general (and yes, I know about the book of Proverbs), but I don’t see how these two tweets by Tim Keller contradict each other. I think they are both accurate summaries of Scriptural truths.

    Same way I want to put two bumperstickers on my car: “Jesus is the Only Way,” and “Coexist.” I believe them both. But it would just confuse people.

    Like

  29. The Wicca symbol in Coexist has always kinda been a turn-off

    Or did that group modernize to a peace symbol for the “o”?
    It’s hard to keep up you know.

    As for Twitter, yeah, it’s complicated. I figure 2k allows me to roam free in Twitter-dom, yo.

    Like

  32. RE: Mark’s link. My wife and I first reconsidered images of Christ only recently, largely when friends lent us a couple “children’s Bibles” (we’re still new to this Reformed stuff) so I won’t comment on the substance of the essay, but that “poem” at the end has a lot of word to do before it earns the title.

    Like

  36. Have I mentioned that (all about) I am completely over Keller’s purring Buddhist monk-Zen master persona? Which persona, by the way, will not be gracing the PCA GA this year. He’ll be speaking at the EPC GA in Knoxville, TN the same week.

    Like

  38. We are not to make an image of God in any way,
    nor to worship him in any other manner
    than he has commanded in his Word.

    97. Q. May we then not make any image at all?

    A. God cannot and may not be visibly portrayed in any way.
    Creatures may be portrayed,
    but God forbids us to make or have any images of them
    in order to worship them or to serve God through them.

    98. Q. But may images not be tolerated in the churches as “books for the laity”

    A. No, for we should not be wiser thanGod.
    He wants his people to be taught not by means of dumb images
    but by the living preaching of his Word.

    Click to access 35.pdf

    Like

  39. Mark, not sure if your latest is directed to me or not, but in case it is, I’ll say that my reconsideration has been only of images of Christ. I think even when my wife and I were fully qualified as evangelicals (who get a pretty bad rap around here) we knew the second commandment. I at least had just never considered that it also applied to images of Jesus.

    I still don’t think I could make a persuasive Biblical argument to a knowledgeable skeptic, but I guess you could say I’m on board with the Reformed understanding.

    Like

  42. CW, hard for me to keep up with all these initials but does EPC = PCA with women’s ordination? Is there any significance to Keller speaking there instead of the PCA GA, ie, is Redeemer pulling out of the PCA? I think I read recently that they are open to planting churches that could be affiliated with non.-PCA denominations. If that is true, how could that work?

    Like

  44. Dan, you’ve asked a mouthful. In brief: EPC is similar to the more progressive/less presbyterian PCA churches plus womens’ ordination. No indication that TKNY is going anywhere or that they will stop being a law unto themselves when it comes to church order, affiliations, and church planting. They/he are too big to fail in most PCA eyes.

    Like

  45. If that is true, how could that work?

    You mean how could this happen to the PCA?

    you SERIOUSLY have to ask that in 2014?

    Like

  46. TKNY’s vision statement; “I do what I want”. Which as far as a personal growth plan, I can really get behind. But to accomplish that on the institutional level is exemplary, even if a bit rote within the american evangelical landscape.

    Like

  48. Chris, one test to Honeycutt’s kind of expansive redemption is whether we may then bring our beloved dogs and cats to church to receive baptism and the Supper. If Jesus really lived and died for ALL OF CREATION then I don’t see what is to stop us. But are those of us who think he lived and died for a particular aspect of creation, i.e. his covenant people alone, being overly restrictive? Maybe we need another sola in the neo-Calvinist age–sola natio.

    Like

  49. Z & C, here’s betting the Redeemerites will be found ere long formally blessing all manner of creatures and things (as liberal Lutherans and Episcopals do) — if they haven’t already started. People are pet crazy now and it would be clever marketing. This is small potatoes. I mean, they already do ashes for lent and take spiritual retreats of silence to Thomas Merton’s old Abbey.

    http://monks.org/

    Like

  50. Chorts, but is it wrong for me to make money off it, if I don’t actually take vows and promise absolution? I could make big money going through the motions of sanctifying people’s pets. I could set up a booth at Petco, just like the barber does at Wal-Mart.

    Like

  51. chris, as one who witnesses only from my vantage point as a lay presby, no, you post out here all you want, whenever you want, no comment is too late. Full stop. We need more men like you.

    You rock, yo.

    Like

  54. “In fact, Scripture points to a cosmic redemption, the scope of which is as broad as the scope of creation.” ….. Dr. Mike Honeycutt

    When pastors and teachers begin to sound like Carl Sagan, it is time to find a new church.

    Like

  55. CW- thanks. I was thinking the EPC had split from the PCA, but apparently not? I guess that is why I thought Keller’s appearance there would be significant.

    Like

  56. Montani – When pastors and teachers begin to sound like Carl Sagan, it is time to find a new church.

    Erik – Good one. Savior was just Jesus’ job five days a week.

    Like

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.