Recently, I came across a shocking statement from Dr. Kelly Birks, which must be quoted in full, given by him on Larry Siegle’s Preterism Debate site (TE stands for Theology Explains, a website created by Sharon Nichols, but approved by Dr. Talbot and a host of other Reformed scholars and pastors (mostly associated with Whitefield Theological Seminary)). What I would like the reader here to note is how Birks “gets around” the charge of heresy for his Immortal Body at Death view, which basically means, that the soul, instead of resuming the body with which it is now clothed, will obtain a new and different body upon death. If Birks’ view gets a stamp of approval from the gentlemen representing Theology Explains, then all of the charges against us on matters of “acceptible orthodoxy” is, in one fell swoop, dismissed. They disappear. They lose any and all force. If, in fact, Dr. Birks’ view is acceptable, then this is a great admission from these men, and a fantastic plus in our favor. And now, Dr. Birks:

“The reason I can be on TE is because my view of the resurrection is within the boundries of reformed opinion because the end result is the same. Whether it’s a body out of the ground or an indivdual body out heaven, the result is that persistency of personality (the saved human spirit) is housed in a Christ like individual body. Being “reformed” does not…does not mean that you must hold to a simple static view of a doctrine. As long as the perameters of the meaning remain the same (in their reuslts) it can be acceptable within reformed constitution. Having been on the inside of reformed parlamentary procedures (The OPC and The PCA) and knowing how conclusions are come to, is something that most here have never had any concrete experience in. That is not a criticism, just a statement of fact relative to the lack of ability for those outside of that process to wrap their thughts around. Would any of us assume to have the knowledge of “how” a surgical operation is performed within all the elements that contrtibute to the outcome of that surgery? Of course not. Only if you have experience in that realm would one presume to understand how a surgery works with everyone participating in order to arrive at the proposed result.”

Notice here that Birks is very, very clear. Whether it is a body out of the ground (Calvin’s view, the Westminster Confession of Faith) or not does not matter. Now, let us read Calvin and let the reader decide if Birks (and those that approve him) can get away with this “side stepping” the issues: Calvin, at length:

“Equally monstrous is the error of those who imagine that the soul, instead of resuming the body with which it is now clothed, will obtain a new and different body. Nothing can be more futile than the reason given by the Manichees, viz., that it were incongruous for impure flesh to rise again: as if there were no impurity in the soul; and yet this does not exclude it from the hope of heavenly life. It is just as if they were to say, that what is infected by the taint of sin cannot be divinely purified; for I now say nothing to the delirious dream that flesh is naturally impure as having been created by the devil. I only maintain, that nothing in us at present, which is unworthy of heaven, is any obstacle to the resurrection.

But, first, Paul enjoins believers to purify themselves from “all filthiness of the flesh and spirit,” (2 Corinthians 7: l;) and then denounces the judgment which is to follow, that every one shall “receive the things done in his body, according to that he has done, whether it be good or bad,” (2 Corinthians 5:10.) With this accords what he says to the Corinthians, “That the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our body,” (2 Corinthians 4:10.) For which reason he elsewhere says, “I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ,” (1 Thessalonians 5:23.) He says “body” as well as “spirit and soul,” and no wonder; for it were most absurd that bodies which God has dedicated to himself as temples should fall into corruption without hope of resurrection. What? are they not also the members of Christ? Does he not pray that God would sanctify every part of them, and enjoin them to celebrate his name with their tongues, lift up pure hands, and offer sacrifices? That part of man, therefore, which the heavenly Judge so highly honors, what madness is it for any mortal man to reduce to dust without hope of revival? In like manner, when Paul exhorts, “glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s,” he certainly does not allow that that which he claims for God as sacred is to be adjudged to eternal corruption. Nor, indeed, on any subject does Scripture furnish clearer explanation than on the resurrection of our flesh. “This corruptible (says Paul) must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality,” (1 Corinthians 15:53.) If God formed new bodies, where would be this change of quality? If it were said that we must be renewed, the ambiguity of the expression might, perhaps, afford room for cavil; but here pointing with the finger to the bodies with which we are clothed, and promising that they shall be incorruptible, he very plainly affirms that no new bodies are to be fabricated. “Nay,” as Tertullian says, “he could not have spoken more expressly, if he had held his skin in his hands,” (Tertull. de Resurrect. Carnis.) Nor can any cavil enable them to evade the force of another passage, in which saying that Christ will be the Judge of the world, he quotes from Isaiah, “As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me,” (Romans 14:11; Isaiah 45:23;) since he openly declares that those whom he was addressing will have to give an account of their lives. This could not be true if new bodies were to be sisted to the tribunal. Moreover, there is no ambiguity in the words of Daniel, “Many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt,” (Daniel 12:2;) since he does not bring new matter from the four elements to compose men, but calls forth the dead from their graves. And the reason which dictates this is plain. For if death, which originated in the fall of man, is adventitious, the renewal produced by Christ must be in the same body which began to be mortal. And, certainly, since the Athenians mocked Paul for asserting the resurrection, (Acts 17:32,) we may infer what his preaching was: their derision is of no small force to confirm our faith. The saying of our Savior also is worthy of observation, “Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell,” (Matthew 10:28.) Here there would be no ground for fear; were not the body which we now have liable to punishment. Nor is another saying of our Savior less obscure, “The hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation,” (John 5:28, 29.) Shall we say that the soul rests in the grave, that it may there hear the voice of Christ, and not rather that the body shall at his command resume the vigor which it had lost? Moreover, if we are to receive new bodies, where will be the conformity of the Head and the members? Christ rose again. Was it by forming for himself a new body? Nay, he had foretold, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up,” (John 2:19.) The mortal body which he had formerly carried he again received; for it would not have availed us much if a new body had been substituted, and that which had been offered in expiatory sacrifice been destroyed. We must, therefore, attend to that connection which the Apostle celebrates, that we rise because Christ rose, (1 Corinthians 15:12;) nothing being less probable than that the flesh in which we bear about the dying of Christ, shall have no share in the resurrection of Christ. This was even manifested by a striking example, when, at the resurrection of Christ, many bodies of the saints came forth from their graves. For it cannot be denied that this was a prelude, or rather earnest, of the final resurrection for which we hope, such as already existed in Enoch and Elijah, whom Tertullian calls candidates for resurrection, because, exempted from corruption, both in body and soul, they were received into the custody of God. 8. I am ashamed to waste so many words on so clear a matter; but my readers will kindly submit to the annoyance, in order that perverse and presumptuous minds may not be able to avail themselves of any flaw to deceive the simple. The volatile spirits with whom I now dispute adduce the fiction of their own brain, that in the resurrection there will be a creation of new bodies. Their only reason for thinking so is, that it seems to them incredible that a dead body, long wasted by corruption, should return to its former state. Therefore, mere unbelief is the parent of their opinion. The Spirit of God, on the contrary, uniformly exhorts us in Scripture to hope for the resurrection of our flesh. For this reason Baptism is, according to Paul, a seal of our future resurrection; and in like manner the holy Supper invites us confidently to expect it, when with our mouths we receive the symbols of spiritual grace. And certainly the whole exhortation of Paul, “Yield ye your members as instruments of righteousness unto God,” (Romans 6:13,) would be frigid, did he not add, as he does in another passage, “He that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies,” (Romans 8:11.) For what would it avail to apply feet, hands, eyes, and tongues, to the service of God, did not these afterwards participate in the benefit and reward? This Paul expressly confirms when he says, “The body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body. And God has both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by his own power,” (1 Corinthians 6:13, 14.) The words which follow are still clearer, “Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ?” “Know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost?” (1 Corinthians 6:15, l9.) Meanwhile, we see how he connects the resurrection with chastity and holiness, as he shortly after includes our bodies in the purchase of redemption. It would be inconsistent with reason, that the body, in which Paul bore the marks of his Savior, and in which he magnificently extolled him, (Galatians 6:17,) should lose the reward of the crown. Hence he glories thus, “Our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body,” (Philippians 3:20, 21.) As it is true, “That we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God,” (Acts 14:22;) so it were unreasonable that this entrance should be denied to the bodies which God exercises under the banner of the cross and adorns with the palm of victory” (Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book III, Chapter 25, section 7, “On the Last Resurrection” – Beveridge translation).

This clear statement from Calvin completely shatters any notion the IBD view supports, which Birks unswervingly holds to. How anyone, after reading Calvin here, can say that the IBD is perfectly in the parameters of the Reformed faith has been proven false.

As stated above, if these men allow this to be acceptible, then Birks has won a major victory for Full Preterism, for it clearly shows that such approval, in light of Calvin’s clear, explicit words, can be received, and that such traditional orthodoxy on this matter can, in fact, be rejected. If they surrender the resurrection of the flesh, as Calvin called it, they have surrendered entirely any appeal to orthodoxy whatsoever as a major hurdle against us. I have my suspicions, though, that such approval was not as it seems, and is not known amongst the men represented on Theology Explains. The IBD view violates not only the traditional definition, but also the traditional exegesis used to support transformation of the body. Two strikes. If this view is passed off as “A ok” in the Reformed orthodoxy book, then, as I said, nothing stands in our way anymore.