All Over-Realized Eschatologies Are Attempts to Change the Rules of the Game
Written by R. Scott Clark |
Wednesday, February 23, 2022
We are to be what we are: mere Christians redeemed and sanctified by grace alone, through faith alone, and seeking to live according to God’s moral law, in union with Christ, out of gratitude for God’s free favor in Christ—not in order to be justified and saved but because we have been justified and saved.
Some years ago, while explaining Heidelberg Catechism 114, on the moral law, I wrote, “Paul was not a Gnostic, a Valentinian, an Anabaptist, a Familist, nor an Antinomian. He was a sinner saved and justified freely through faith alone, a Christian living in union and communion with Christ, seeking to bring his life into conformity to all of God’s holy moral law.”
A reader wrote to ask what this paragraph means. It is a loaded with historical references that would take some time to explain but each of these represents some kind of over-realized eschatology. By that I mean someone who thinks that he has or can have heaven on earth right now. In order to have it each of these groups changed the rules of the game. In one way or another they got rid of God’s moral law, God’s grace, or God’s church.
The Gnostics (including the Valentinians) did by getting rid of God himself and by making themselves into gods. This is probably the dominant theology of our age. The Anabaptists certainly had an over-realized eschatology. They were not content to be mere Christians. They wanted to make themselves into apostles and fancied that they were super-spiritual—perhaps they were the Super Apostles of the sixteenth century?—who both mastered the law and were free from it. They did not need justification and salvation by grace alone, through faith alone and the basis of the imputed righteousness of Christ alone—the first generation of the Anabaptists rejected the Reformation solas. They fancied that they had the apostolic gifts and powers including tongues, being slain in the Spirit, and continuing revelation. They were the true precursors of American evangelicalism from 1800 to today. The Familists was a movement founded in the 1540s, in Emden. They were precursors to the early Pietist movement of Jakob Boehme (1575–1624). They were radical subjectivists who rejected the sacraments. Their views were adopted by the Quakers. Again, this is a manifestation of an over-realized eschatology.
You Might also like
-
Westminster Civil Ethics vs R2K Natural Law on Kidnapping
Plain and simple, the Confession does not teach that the civil law “can not be made applicable to any nation today…” Rather, it teaches the very opposite! It teaches that nations are obliged to implement the civil law as the general equity may require. R2K types misread Westminster Confession 19.4 by saying that the preservation of the general equity of the OT civil code now applies solely to church discipline.
Christians and non-Christians alike have grieved this past week while also trying to process ethical questions regarding longtime convicted kidnapper Cleotha Abston who is being charged with abducting and murdering Eliza Fletcher.
Many ethical questions are at hand and convictions run passionately deep regarding how those questions might best be answered through a Reformed Christian world and life view. As strange as this might sound to many, some Reformed Christians have little regard for “worldview type” answers to ethical questions that intrude upon the sphere of civil government. Among the leading critics of a confessionally Reformed view of civil government are those who subscribe to what is called “Reformed 2 Kingdom” (R2K).
R2K is a position that posits that Christians are citizens of the spiritual kingdom of God along with inhabiting the earthly kingdom of this world, which includes as fellow members all people without distinction. R2K has been opposed by those who would define it not as a species of a distinctly Reformed 2 Kingdom model but instead an offspring of a Radical 2 Kingdom paradigm because of a non-Reformed balance between Scripture and Natural Law. Although R2K rightly appreciates that there is a law of nature that is revealed to all humans in conscience without distinction, the R2K movement is increasingly radicalized by denying Scripture its rightful place of influence in the civil kingdom, which too falls under the governing domain of God. Consider one leading proponent of R2K:
“Scripture is the sacred text given to God’s covenant people whom he has redeemed from sin. . . . Given its character, therefore, Scripture is not given as a common moral standard that provides ethical imperatives to all people regardless of their religious standing.” Professor at a Reformed Seminary
R2K proponents, with their Natural Law paradigm, deny that Abston ought to have been executed according to Exodus 21:16 for his first kidnapping. In theory, R2Kers could advocate for capital punishment for kidnapping, just as long as they don’t justify the penalty on the authoritative word of God.
The task at hand:
Questions before all nations include…Which sins ought to be considered crimes?
What should be the punishment for criminal acts?
How might we best justify our answers?Civil magistrates are governing authorities established by God for the punishing of wrongdoers. In light of this awesome God ordained responsibility, Natural Law proponents tell us that the Scriptures are neither necessary nor permitted to inform civil magistrates on the details of how to govern society in a manner pleasing to God. (Noodle that one around in your head for a moment.)
For the R2K crowd, God requires civil magistrates to govern society according to the “Book of Nature” alone. It would be displeasing to God for Christians to desire and pray that the general equity of OT civil law be implemented today because capital punishment finds its NT fulfillment in excommunication. (More on that later.)
Because there are no theocracies today, we’re told that civil magistrates may not glean from Old Testament law which sins should be deemed crimes. Nor may civil magistrates seek to determine suitable punishment for criminal acts by searching the Scriptures. Natural Law is exclusively sufficient for the task.
Natural Law and fallen autonomous reasoning:
Natural Law informs us that the least of all sins deserves God’s wrath. Yet R2K proponents also maintain that civil magistrates should not punish some sins at all and all sins should not be punished equally severely. Accordingly, God’s preceptive will is for civil magistrates to determine by the light of fallen nature alone whether bestiality, homosexual acts and abortion (just to name a few sins) are to be considered purely sins, criminal acts too, or simply amoral. (Even if nature were to inform us that these sins should also be illegal, how successful and unified have the nations been over time on deriving a “Natural Theology” of sin, crime and penology to that effect?)
First principles:
Natural Law began with creation and was operative during the time of Moses through today. Natural Law could not have contradicted Israel’s civil sanctions lest God could deny himself. Furthermore, neighboring nations would not have violated the “Book of Nature” by executing kidnappers according to the God of Israel’s wisdom during the Mosaic era. Accordingly, there’s no reason to believe that Natural Law in any way forbids putting a kidnapper to death today, (lest the cross of Christ has altered Natural Law). Therefore, why think that non-theocratic nations today ought not govern in a way that would have been more exemplary for non-theocratic nations during the Mosaic era? Should we believe that God would be angrier with non-theocratic nations today if they turned to Scripture to try to determine which sins should be considered crimes? Would God be angrier with non-theocratic nations if they were to execute kidnappers according to Special Revelation rather than justifying the loosing of kidnappers after limited incarceration based upon Natural Law inference?
At the very least, if Natural Law has not changed over time and God’s two forms of revelation are complementary and never antithetical, then why should we accept the claim that God would not have the nations adhere to the general equity of Old Testament civil law, which is fundamentally the moral law applied to orderly government in the civil realm?
Various reasons have been given why we are not to govern society according to OT equity.
“In other words, the Old Covenant, Mosaic death sanctions typify and anticipate the eschatological manifestation of God’s righteous judgment against his enemies.” Reformed Theologian and Author
Much can be said. First off, the death penalty preceded Moses. Did the death penalty that preceded Moses typify and anticipate the same eschatological manifestation? Secondly, what about the non-capital offenses that were not sanctioned by death? For instance, I can possibly see how OT restitution might typify eschatological judgment in a Roman Catholic sense, but how in a Reformed sense in which there’s no doctrine of purgatory that would be typified by a defined path to pay back in full after death?
Finally, since the death penalty preceded Moses and was instituted for violations against God’s image bearers, why should we suppose there is no lasting and intrinsic temporal value for such civil sanctions? Why, in other words, should laws that were so useful for governing OT societies be considered secondary to typology, or so devalued by the cross of Christ that they lose all their societal value? After all, if every transgression or disobedience received just retribution, then mustn’t civil sanctions still serve a functional social purpose simply by virtue of all nations requiring governance before and under God? In a word, is biblical typology all that antithetical to biblical penology?
“The civil codes have lost their context now that salvation is in Christ, in a spiritual kingdom, and not in Israel, a temporal nation.” Reformed Pastor and Professor
Aside from a false disjunction that would implicitly presuppose that Israel’s civil code and spiritual kingdom are somehow mutually exclusive concepts – the Reformed tradition has always maintained that salvation was always spiritual; hence not all Israel was Israel. Secondly, why should we believe that God’s wisdom and righteous judgment loses practical applicability upon King Jesus’ commissioning of the church to disciple the nations under the whole counsel of God? How does the cross make foolish and passé the wisdom and general equity of civil laws that were intrinsic to a nation that would seek God’s wisdom in civil justice? Is the Son of God no less King over the nations than Lord over the church?
“I’ll say it again, since Paul spent so much time addressing the differences between Jews and Gentiles, and also said that Gentile were not bound by Israelite norms, then his instruction in Rom 13 is hardly a reaffirmation of OT civil laws.” Professor and Historian
We cannot logically deduce that which is not deducible. Nor is it wise to require God to provide answers in the exact places we might hope to find them. That is to come dangerously close to putting God to the test.
Scripture is replete with examples of Jesus not providing answers in the context in which people often sought them. Accordingly, citing Romans 13 in an effort to refute Westminster civil ethics through the employment of a fallacious argument from silence is on par with concluding that (a) Jesus was not a teacher sent from God; (b) Jesus was not good and, therefore, not God; (c) Jesus intended to establish Israel as a political power but failed with the passing of John. (Mark 10:17-18; Acts 1:6,7; John 21:20-22)*
“The Westminster Confession describes them as “sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the state of that people; not obliging any other now, further than the general equity thereof may require” (XIX. 4).” In other words, these laws were for regulating the nation of Israel, which was then but no longer is the particular people of God. While there is an undisputed wisdom contained in this civil law it can not be made applicable to any nation today, since there are no biblically sanctioned theocracies now.” Reformed Pastor and Professor
How can “undisputed wisdom… not be made applicable…”? Wisdom not relevant? Something seems intuitively doubtful about such claims. Are the Proverbs no longer applicable because there are no theocracies today? What about the Ten Commandments? Aren’t civil laws the application of moral laws in the civil sphere, after all?
Plain and simple, the Confession does not teach that the civil law “can not be made applicable to any nation today…” Rather, it teaches the very opposite! It teaches that nations are obliged to implement the civil law as the general equity may require.
R2K types misread Westminster Confession 19.4 by saying that the preservation of the general equity of the OT civil code now applies solely to church discipline.
“They are transformed into the judicious application of church discipline.” Reformed Pastor and Professor
By this miscalculation, when the Divines advocated for the preservation of the general equity of Israel’s civil law, they weren’t allowing for anything like maintaining an equity of civil justice. Nor were they establishing biblical principles of accommodation by affording freedom to rearrange and substitute non-essential aspects of the law such as stoning for hangings (or today lethal injection, and DNA for the principle of two or three witnesses.). Rather, we’re asked to believe that the Divines were actually teaching the preserving of the general equity of capital punishment by applying the death penalty to ecclesiastical excommunication!
Read More
Related Posts: -
PCA GA 50: Summary of 20 Key Events & Highlights
Overture 29: Passed Presbyteries 79-1. An Officer’s view of Indwelling Sin, Actual Sin, and Sanctification matter. This is the language that was approved to BCO 16.4: “Officers in the Presbyterian Church in America must be above reproach in their walk and Christlike in their character. While office bearers will see spiritual perfection only in glory, they will continue in this life to confess and to mortify remaining sins in light of God’s work of progressive sanctification. Therefore, to be qualified for office, they must affirm the sinfulness of fallen desires, the reality and hope of progressive sanctification, and be committed to the pursuit of Spirit-empowered victory over their sinful temptations, inclinations, and actions.”
The Presbyterian Church in America just completed its Jubilee Assembly in Memphis, TN! This 50th General Assembly on this 50th Anniversary year was a God-Glorifying, Christ-Exalting, Body-Edifying Time to say the least. It was a week full of the joy of the Lord in our worship and work. The week flew by as we reconnected with old friends and made new ones. We’d say that this GA was a statement on Transparency and Accountability as many of these items will show.
Here are the Top 20 Key Actions or Impressions of the 50th PCA GA (loosely in the order they came to the Assembly). Go here to read the same list again with all the details and links that are needed to understand and research the items.
1) TE Fred Greco was Nominated Moderator
Implication: Fred lived up to his reputation. He ran the Assembly with precision, wit, humor, and gravitas. The assembly ended earlier on Thursday than others in recent history. A motion was made to make Fred the Permanent
2) Abuse Victim Protection Provisions (last year’s Overture)Passed Presbyteries: 77-3, Passed GA near unanimously
Implication: Victims of Abuse don’t have to testify in the presence of their abuser.3) Qualifications for Church Office (last year’s Overture)
Passed Presbyteries 79-1, Passed GA near unanimously
Implication: An Officer’s view of Indwelling Sin, Actual Sin, and Sanctification matter4) Ordination Requirements and Procedures (last year’s Overture)
Passed Presbyteries 77-3, Passed GA near unanimously
Implication: Candidates view of Indwelling Sin, Actual Sin, and Sanctification matter5) Overture 7 – Improved Reporting Requirements for Agencies and Committees
Passed 1271-88, Goes into effect immediately
Effects MNA, MTW, RUF, Covenant College, Covenant Seminary, etc.
Implication: There will be more transparency and accountability for the PCA’s Agencies and Committees. This helps ensure they are operating according to the desires of the Assembly.6) Metro NY Presbytery Referred to the SJC for allowing a Woman to Preach
This came out of the RPR Report
Implication: Our System Works. Women Preachers are not allowed at Worship Services.7) NW Georgia Presbytery Referred to the SJC for Congregational Meeting Delinquencies
This came out of the RPR Report
Implication: Our System Works. Following the process of Congregational meetings matters.8) RUF Affiliation Agreement was flagged because it was not approved by the Assembly
Reformed University Fellowship will need to rework the Contract for approval next year.
Implication: Agencies and Permanent Committees need GA Approval on Major Policy changes.9) Nominating Committee Recommendations – All Were Approved by the Assembly
Great Men were added to the SJC, MNA, MTW, RUF, Covenant College and Covenant Seminary, and other Agency Boards and Permanent Committees.
Implication: PCA Agencies and Permanent Committees will have good guidance and oversight.10) Overture 23 – Requiring Officers Conformity to Biblical Standards of Sexuality
Passed (1673-223). This must now pass 2/3 of the Presbyteries this year.
Implication: Church officers must communicate their sin struggle according to the Biblical standard for chastity and sexual purity.11) Overture 26 – Titles for Officers must Not be Used for Unordained People
Passed (1427-481). This must now pass 2/3 of the Presbyteries this year.
Implication: This clarifies how terms for our church offices are used and restricts them to only those who have been ordained according to Scripture as described in our Standards.12) Overture 12 – Condemning Practice of Surgical & Medical Gender Reassignment Statement
Passed (1089-793). This takes effect immediately. Will be mailed to Federal & State Governments.
Implication: This will put the PCA on public record as taking a stance against transgender reassignment surgeries. Having a denominational stance on this issue can potentially benefit Christians in the public sphere when they may be required to take a stance against this evil.13) Overture 28 – Reaffirm the “Message to All Churches” from 1973
Passed (1158-143), takes effect immediately
Implication: This statemen reaffirms the PCA’s 1973 so-called Declaration of Independence, showing our resolve to be faithful to our foundational principle and call our mother denomination, the PC(USA), to repentance.14) Overture 14 –Attempt that will Hinder PCA Members who are Lawyers from Aiding in PCA Courts
Voted down by the Assembly (unanimous as part of larger vote)
Implication: This preserves that professional lawyers can participate in the church courts without undue restrictions. The language of the proposal would have severely restricted the ability of those members and elders in the legal profession from aiding members in Church Discipline cases. Language in BCO already prohibits paid counsel.15) Overture 13 – Attempt to Allow atheists to testify in the Church courts
Voted down by the Assembly (1091-751)
Implication: This maintains the current BCO language which requires a belief in “the existence God or a future state of rewards and punishments” in order to testify in the Church courts16) Overture 15 – Attempt to Codify that Women Cannot Preach to Assembled Christians in the PCA
Voted by the Assembly to refer back to the Overture’s authors (1725-139)
Implication: The decision to “refer back’ indicates the Assembly’s desire to address the subject of women preaching, but they would like the authors to refine and clarify the language before resubmitting the overture.17) Wonderful Worship Services, Sermons, and Exhortations for our 50th Year
Ligon Duncan’s Call to “Stand Strong in the Lord or You will Fear Man” During His Sermon
O. Palmer Robertson’s Call to Be Ministers who Stand on and Preach the Word of God from the Bible and to Present Christ’s Bride Sanctified before Christ.18) The Gospel Reformation Network Luncheon & its Honoring of the Late Dr. Harry Reeder
Over 700 people were present. This represents approx. 1/3 of the whole Assembly.
Shows a Commitment to the GRN Vision “To Cultivate Healthy Reformed Churches in the Presbyterian Church in America.”19) The Administrative Committee and Host Committee Did a Wonderful Job!
Thank you to all involved in making PCA GA 50 a Christ-honoring success in Memphis, TN!
20) All indications lead us to believe that the PCA is heading in the right direction.
The last 3 General Assemblies have shown that Transparency, Accountability, and Faithfulness are increasing.
Our Membership, Pastors, RUF Chapters, Church Plants, and Missionaries are all growing in #.
May we remain Faithful to the Scriptures, True to the Reformed Faith, and Obedient to the Great Commission.________________________________________
GO HERE TO READ THE SUPPORTING DETAILS ON EACH OF THE ABOVE # ITEMSRelated Posts:
-
The Historical Adam – Part 6: Truth vs. Truth-in-Story
Written by Dr. Lisle |
Thursday, January 6, 2022
The events of Genesis 1-11 are recorded in the same historical narrative style as Genesis 12-50 with its straightforward prose, its attention to detail in names and ages, and the content of the first eleven chapters flowing seamlessly into the remaining chapters. Genesis is not written as a parable, poem, myth, or fictional story. Thus, to assert that Genesis is myth (or mytho-historical) is a violation of exegetical principles. Moreover, there is no evidence that any biblical author thought of Genesis 1-11 as anything other than straightforward history.We begin with a brief review of our analysis of William Lane Craig’s claims regarding Genesis 1-11 from his recent article on the historical Adam. We have seen that Genesis 1-11 has all the markers of historical narrative. Namely, it is written in the same literary style as the other historical books with long chains of the Hebrew waw-consecutive. It lists details that are not germane to the point of the narrative, such as specific names and ages of persons (even those not involved in the main events) and highly detailed chronologies. These indicate history and would bog down a fictional/mythical story. Furthermore, these chronologies flow seamlessly into the historical figures mentioned in Genesis 12-50 – a section of Scripture that even Craig admits is straightforward history. In contrast, myths like the Epic of Gilgamesh are usually written in poetic form; yet Genesis lacks the key characteristics of Hebrew poetry. Clearly, Genesis 1-11 matches the literary form and style of Genesis 12-50.
And what about the content? Contrary to Craig’s claims, the content of the creation account in Genesis is starkly different from the content of Ancient Near Eastern origins myths. Pagan origins stories generally involve a very old universe that exists in a state of chaos, until a chaos monster is slain which brings about the good world of today. Genesis starts with God who speaks the universe into existence in six days, each step being good until the final result is “very good.” Humans introduce death into the world by sinning against God. The events are recorded with none of the obvious symbolism or analogies present in parables, but rather as literal events. All other references in Scripture to Genesis 1-11 take the narrative as literally historical. Furthermore, the Bible states that the events in Genesis 1-11 have repercussions in the world today – something that is only possible if such events literally happened. And so, if we are going to be rational and take the text as written, we must admit that Genesis 1-11 is straightforward history.
This of course contrasts with the secular claim that the universe began in a big bang billions of years ago, and that life came about as a result of evolution. Many Christians have been duped into believing that such secular speculations are “science” or at least supported by science. Nothing could be further from the truth since science is predicated upon the literal historicity of the Bible including biblical creation as we have explored previously. Therefore, Christians who have mindlessly accepted evolution but still profess to believe the Bible must somehow deal with the fact that Genesis contradicts the secular origins stories. Rather than admitting that they don’t believe Genesis 1-11, the usual tactic is to say, “I believe it, just not literally. I don’t interpret the text the way you do.” This of course could be done with any portion of Scripture that a person doesn’t want to accept. A person could equally well declare “I do believe that Jesus rose from the dead – just not literally. The Gospels are written in the form of myth.” However, the Bible does not give us permission to interpret the text any way we like. We must interpret it according to its context. And we have seen that Genesis 1-11 lists the events that happened in the world in straightforward, non-poetic narrative, just like Genesis 12-50. Thus, we must interpret them accordingly.
All other books of the Bible that refer back to Genesis do so as if the events recorded therein actually happened as written. Yet, William Lane Craig has stated that he believes that Genesis 1-11 is not to be taken as straightforward history. So, how does he attempt to reconcile the biblical references to the history in Genesis with his belief that Genesis 1-11 is not straightforward history? We continue to analyze his recent article on The Historical Adam.
Craig: When we turn to the New Testament, we find the figure of Adam widely deployed, most importantly by Paul.
Lisle: It is clear that Paul understood Adam and Eve to be real people, and the events of Genesis 1-11 to be real history with real consequences in the world today. See for example, Romans 5:14-15; 1 Corinthians 15:22-23; 2 Corinthians 11:3; 1 Timothy 2:13-14.
Craig: Many scholars have attempted to distinguish between the literary Adam and the historical Adam. The literary Adam is a character in a story, specifically the stories of Genesis 2–3. The historical Adam is the person, if such there be, who actually existed—the actual individual whom the stories are allegedly about.
Lisle: It seems that Craig is going to suggest that New Testament references to Adam are not necessarily always asserting the historical reality of the person (the historical Adam), but possibly references to a character in a fictional, allegorical, or embellished story (the literary Adam).
Craig: By way of analogy, the Pompey of Plutarch’s Lives is the literary Pompey, whereas the Roman general who actually lived was the historical Pompey. What we want to know is how closely the literary Pompey of the Lives resembles the historical Pompey. Similarly, we want to know how closely the literary Adam of Genesis 2–3 resembles the historical Adam, if such there be—or more precisely, whether New Testament authors assert that the literary Adam of Genesis 2–3 closely resembles the historical Adam.
Lisle: Is there any evidence in the New Testament that the authors thought of Adam as merely a literary character in a story rather than a historical person? Is there any evidence in Scripture that any of its authors thought that the events recorded in Genesis were not real history, but merely a mythical story with useful illustrations?
Quite the opposite. Most of the biblical references to the events of Genesis would make no sense unless Genesis is real history. For example, a fictional story cannot have real-world consequences – something that Craig himself concedes later in his article.
Read More