The Gospel Coalition

Here is part 2 of an article written to clarify some of the confusion regarding the thought of Cornelius Van Til. Believe it or not, this reading is both rich and devotional–”mind hammering and heart warming.”

Cornelius Van Til (1895-1987), in my opinion, was one of the most capable theologians of the 20th century. He taught at Westminster Theological Seminary for 43 years as a professor of apologetics. Because he was somewhat of a pioneer in the field of apologetics (coupled with the fact that he was not a clear writer), he is often misunderstood, which is a shame because he has so much to offer in our day.

Here is part 1 of an article entitled Common Misunderstandings of Van Til.  If you are unfamiliar with Van Til, please become familiar with him. No one has taught me how to think more than he.

Michael Wittmer, associate professor of systematic theology at Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, wrote an excellent book entitled Heaven is a Place on Earth. Of this book, J.I. Packer says, “Abraham Kuyper was arguably the supreme pastoral theologian of modern times, and this racy study book on being human in God’s world is a shrewd Kuyperian corrective of popular pietism. As such it is a work of real value, perhaps even a landmark.” I too recommend highly.

Here is a small excerpt: 

Contrary to popular opinion, the Christian hope is not that someday all believers get to die and go to heaven. Indeed, the only reason anyone ever goes to heaven is because of sin. If Adam and Eve had never sinned, they would have continued to live on this planet, enjoying the beauty of creation as they walked in close fellowship with their Creator. However, as we will learn in chapter 9, Adam’s sin brought death into the world. Now all people must die, an event which separates their souls from their bodies. Their bodies immediately begin to decay, but their souls continue to live, either in hell with the damned or in heaven with our Lord Jesus Christ.

But even those of us who make it to heaven have not yet achieved our perfect state. It must be extremely satisfying to join the other saints in heaven who continually stand in the presence of God. Yet even those saints who are there still long for something more. They long to be whole again, to not merely bow before God as a disembodied soul but to praise him as a fully restored person, possessing both a renewed spirit and body.

This is why our temporary stay in heaven, what theologians call the intermediate state, is not the focus of Scripture. There are only a few verses that even allude to it. Scripture is relatively silent on our intermediate state in heaven because it is not the Christian hope. The Christian hope is not merely that our departed souls will rejoice in heaven, but, as explained in 1 Corinthians 15, it is that they will reunite with our resurrected bodies.

And where do bodies live? Not in heaven: that’s more suitable for spiritual beings like angels and human souls. Bodies are meant to live on earth, on this planet. So the Christian hope is not merely that someday we and our loved ones will die and go to be with Jesus. Instead, the Christian hope is that our departure from this world is just the first leg of a journey that is round trip. Rather than stay with God forever in heaven, Scripture tells us that God brings heaven down to us. As John explains his vision in Revelation 21:1-4, he “saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God” to earth, accompanied by the thrilling words, “Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them.” In short, Christians long for the fulfillment of Emmanuel, the divine name which means “God with us.” We don’t hope merely for the day when we go to live with God, but ultimately for that final day when God comes to live with us.

Michelle Beardon, the Tampa Tribune’s religion editor, published this story about me in today’s paper. Please pray that God will use this to draw people to himself. Sadly, it’s not often that stories of God’s amazing grace make it into the secular media. Praise God from whom all blessings flow!

Since God saved me 14 years ago, I have spent much of my intellectual energy thinking about Christ and culture, the church and the world. One of my favorite quotes comes from D.L. Moody who, when asked to describe the role of the church in our world, said, “The place for the ship is in the sea, but God help the ship if the sea gets into it.” In other words, the place for the church is in the world, but God help the church if the world gets into it. Clearly Christians are called to think long and hard about who we are, why we’re here, and where we’re headed. This inevitably forces us to think about all of the issues, both deep and wide, surrounding the church and it’s proper role, purpose, and place in this world. 

With this in mind, I have been posting portions of my ongoing conversation with my friend and former professor, John Frame. Dr. Frame and I have had numerous conversations about this issue over the years and I am grateful to him for his willingness to help me think through the issues.

Once again, yesterday, I had to ask him a couple of questions and he was kind enough to send me his answers. My questions had to do with the two-Kingdom approach to Christ and culture, or what Niebuhr defined as  “the Christ and culture in paradox” position (see my post yesterday for a brief explanation of this position).  As I was reading up on this two-kingdom approach yesterday, I had sent John this note:

How does Augustine’s emphasis on the two cities and this quote from Calvin differ from the two-kingdom approach?

“Therefore, in order that none of us may stumble on that stone [of confusing Christ and culture] let us first consider that there is a two-fold government in man: the one we may call the spiritual kingdom, the other the political kingdom. Now these two, as we have divided them, must always be examined separately; and while one is being considered, we must call away and turn aside the mind from thinking of the other. There are in man, so to speak, two worlds, over which different kings and different laws have authority. (3.19.15)”

It seems that the two-kingdom approach uses this to justify their position. In other words, they say they are simply building on Augustine and Calvin in coming to their conclusions. What do you say?

Furthermore, I was reading Michael Horton today (a two-Kingdom guy) and he says, “The proposal I think our forebears would offer us is to adopt a position roughly equivalent to a combination of the “Christ and culture in paradox” and the “Christ transforming culture” paradigms. Adherents of both positions need each other, because this is my father’s world, and yet this world is not my home.” How would you respond to this?

This was his response (again, he gave me permission to post this):

The Calvin quote (and I think similar quotes from Augustine) deals more with “church and state” than with “Christ and culture.” Notice Cal’s reference to “the political  kingdom.” Certainly there are biblical distinctions between the church and state. The civil officer should not rule the church, and the church elders per se have no civil power. The church has no recourse to force (the sword). I would say also that there is a legitimate distinction between church and marketplace, church and art museum, church and theater, etc.

But I still insist that Christ is Lord of all spheres, and that in every sphere we should ultimately seek to serve him. I think sometimes people use the church/state, church/marketplace, etc. distinctions to minimize the Christ/culture relation, as if culture is something neutral, as if we can simply accept secular standards in the arts, sciences, politics, etc. I think that is a confusion.

I’m happy to hear Horton say that we must combine these paradigms. The way I would combine them is by making the distinctions between church and state, etc., within an overall transformationalist framework. But I’m not sure that would be acceptable to Mike and others in this tradition.

This is related to the question of natural law in ethics. Mike’s colleague, Dave Van Drunen, insists that our main ethical revelation is natural law. I think this raises questions re: sola Scriptura. I believe that Scripture is sufficient in all spheres of human life. This doesn’t mean that Scripture contains all the knowledge we need to have (for car repairing, plumbing, art, or even ethics). It does mean that Scripture is sufficient to give us all the divine words that we need for any human activity (including car repairs, plumbing, and ethics).

So the attempt to isolate some spheres of human life as “secular,” and therefore somehow immune to the demands and the grace of Christ, seems to me to be fundamentally mistaken. If people want to make distinctions within the general Lordship of Christ, I won’t necessarily oppose that.

Phew! I hope your mind is informed, your heart is enlarged, and your will is bent as a result of thinking these things through.

It seems that Presidential candidate Mitt Romney is gaining momentum with Evangelicals. Many are coming to the conclusion that he would be a very capable commander-in-chief. After all, they say, we’re not a pulpit committee voting on our next pastor. One Christian historian told me last week that, from a strictly historical standpoint, “the two worst Presidents we’ve had in the last 30 years have been professed Evangelical Christians: Carter and Bush, Jr.” That comment may remind some of Martin Luther’s words: “I’d rather be governed by a wise turk (non-Christian) than a foolish Christian.” Interesting.

Regardless of where you stand concerning Romney, this little article will at least keep you abreast of the current conversation.

Ok, I know I keep pointing to John Frame but the good doctor has something very thoughtful to say on just about everything.

I asked him to please comment on the two-kingdom approach to understanding Christ and culture that came up in the comment section of this blog a couple days ago. For those who may not be familiar with the “two-kingdom” approach, it is basically the idea that God exercises a “double sovereignty.”  He has “two Kingdoms.” He rules one way in the church, and a different way in the world. In the words of Gene Veith, “In the church, God reigns through the work of Christ and the giving of the Holy Spirit, expressing his love and grace through the forgiveness of sins and the life of faith. In the world, God exercises his authority and providential control through natural laws (of physics, chemistry, etc.).”

According to Frame, “Veith also describes these two sovereignties or two kingdoms as Gospel vs. Law and spiritual vs. secular. Luther used the metaphor of the spiritual as God’s “right hand,” and the secular as God’s “left hand.”

Anyway, this was Dr. Frame’s response to me via e-mail regarding two-kingdom thinking (he gave me his permission, by the way, to post this):

This is basically a Lutheran concept, but it has been promoted in Reformed circles by followers of Meredith Kline, Mike Horton, and others. In H. Richard Niebuhr’s Christ and Culture, he distinguishes five views of the Christ/Culture relationship. The fourth of these is the Lutheran two-kingdoms view, the last the “transformationalist” view, that has roots in Calvin and has been the dominant Reformed position since Kuyper. Van Til, for example, was a passionate transformationalist.

I think we need to distinguish church/state from Christ/culture issues. The Bible does warrant a distinction between the sphere of the church and that of the state, though of course there are problems about how to formulate that precisely. On Christ and Culture, however, I think it’s important to emphasize the universal Lordship of Christ, both as controller and as authority. He is King of Kings and Lord of Lords. The Bible doesn’t limit his Lordship to a narrowly “religious” sphere (nor does it even define what such a religious sphere might be). His purpose is not only to redeem the elect, but to remove the curse from the earth. No aspect of human life is exempt from his demands and his redemption (1 Cor. 10:31).

Interesting. “As iron sharpens iron.” Keep thinking everyone, keep thinking!

Read this excellent article and find out.

John Frame was kind enough to send me his thoughts on Christ and culture. As one would expect, Frame adopts the transformational view of Christ and culture. He says:

 I find myself supporting the view that Christians should be seeking to transform culture according to the standards of God’s Word. This simply means that if you are a Christian artist, car repairman, government official, or whatever, you should be seeking to do this work as a Christian, to apply God’s standards to your work. As Paul says, “whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.” Christians have always sought to do this, and in seeking to do this, they have had a huge impact on culture. They haven’t turned earth into heaven, or the world into the church. And sometimes they have made tragic mistakes. But they have also done a great deal of good.

He then adds these five clarifications regarding the transformationalist position: 

(1)   Seeking to transform culture in this way does not mean trying save the world apart from God’s grace. It simply means obeying God as our thankful response to his grace.

 (2)   A transformational approach does not assume an unrealistic optimism about what is possible in fallen society. We know, just as much as the dualists do, that the world is fallen, deeply sinful, totally depraved. But we also have confidence in God’s common grace and his special grace. Real change for the better can occur, and history shows that it has occurred. Not perfection, but real change for the better.

 (3)   To apply Christian standards to art, for example, does not mean that we must turn our artistic works into salvation tracts. The Bible doesn’t require that. I do believe that the gospel of salvation is a fit subject, indeed a glorious subject for artistic treatment. Bach’s Passions and Da Vinci’s Last Supper are proof of that. But art should deal with all aspects of God’s creation.

 (4)   A transformational approach does not mean that every human activity practiced by a Christian (e.g. plumbing, car repair) must be obviously, externally different from the same activities practiced by non-Christians. There is always a difference, but often the difference is that of motive, goal, and standard, rather than anything external. The Christian seeks to change his tires to the glory of God, and the non-Christian does not. But that’s a difference that couldn’t be captured in a photograph. When changing tires, Christian and non-Christian may look very much alike.

 (5)   Critics have often bemoaned the lack of high standards in Christian art, music, and other cultural activity. To some extent, anyway, these critics are right. But the answer to this problem is not to accept secular standards uncritically. (Again, even if we did, which ones should we accept?) The answer is rather to be more faithful to God, both in his special and in his general revelation. We ought to be humble enough to learn what we can from the knowledge in these areas that God has given to unbelievers. But we should always be challenging it on the basis of our knowledge of the true God.

Thoughts?

“There once was in man a true happiness of which now remain to him only the mark and empty trace, which he in vain tries to fill from all his surroundings, seeking from things absent the help he does not obtain in things present. But these are all inadequate, because the infinite abyss can only be filled by an infinite and immutable object, that is to say, only by God himself.”

Blaise Pascal, Pensées