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.
Well done, Mr. Frost. There does seem to be reason for suspecting the admission of DB as a member on TE. For TE to accept DB opens them to accept FP.
Blessings,
Ron
Birks would have been exiled from Calvin's Geneva. The very idea that the IBD view is compatible with Reformed theology is preposterous to the ludicrous extreme. Admitting Birks at “Theology Explained” while excoriating “hyper-preterists” is sheer hypocrisy.
Dave :)
I love this quote, “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.”
Calvin definitely had a way with words.
I hope Birks' embrace by the folks at TE is not the enemy of my enemy is my friend type of thing going on over there. But then, they let GK and RE join. How do you explain that?
Should be interesting to see if they cull the herd over there.
martin
Dave, to me it's all about dividing to conquer. Is this kind of hypocrisy all that surprising? Don't answer that. :)
And I am not referring to Sharon. I respect her immensely and believe she doesn't have a disingenuous bone in her body.
Chuck,
I take it by your comment above, that you're speechless, lol !
martin
Hahaha….I was speechless, too! This is not a little matter that can be brushed aside as “non-essential.” I am sorry, I know WAAAAY too much Reformed theology to let this slip by.
Sam,
Great observations! In my opinion, Birk's like most Partial Preterist are simply trying to hang on to Orthodoxy. Though many will disagree, I do not see why we continue to beg for acceptance from the Orthodox Community. This article well illustrates on reason why I am no longer in the Presb. Reformed camp.
Anyway, great article and blessings to you my brother.
Bryan Lewis
BTW, I referred to Birk's as Partial Preterist, because he has admitted this much.
B :o)
Brian,
It has been perceived that we want their approval or something, or want to join their denomination. This is simply not the case. Christ Covenant Church began in 2002, which Dr. Talbot quoted from. We made it quite plain in recognizing that if a preterist church was going to start, it would have to be independently established as those earliest Reformed churches were (having no recognized authority from the Roman Catholic established churches). It was an “unsettled condition” (Bannerman) in the Church. We are not seeking “recognition” on their terms – we are seeking it on ours. We are Christians, whether they like this or not. We are Christians, and as such, will be more or less aligned with some particular expression. The closest Christian expression I identify with is “Reformed.” And, I shall continue to identify with that and operate within it as much as possible, while at the same time recognizing the supremacy of Preterism over any eschatology the Reformed have produced.
You are correct in saying, “it has been perceived that we want their approval or something.” I am not insinuating that this is true of all Preterist. However, I do continue to see an obsession with Orthodoxy and unwilling to let go of some of the Reformed world's Sacred Cows, even after it has been proved they are wrong. Of course, I am not being specific in this post and am only generalizing. I am also not specifically pointing the finger at you. BTW, Make sure to spell my name “Bryan”. Don't want to be confused with Simmons.
For those of you who have it, see Francis Turretin Insitutio theologiae enlenticae (1696) – Institutes of Elenctic Theology. Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing issued the first English translation of this classic work in 1997- It is a direct succession of Calvin's work. See, Volume III, 2oth Topic, Ninth Question where Turretin defends the “numerical identity” of the body with the glorified body. In the resurrection, one body is involved (numerical identity), not two (IBD).
Turretin also speaks of matters in heaven as too far off to speak about which “neither God has wished us to know” (13.10).
We affirm, theologically speaking, the numerical identity of the person as a member of the Body of Christ, today, and forever with God. We affirm that soul is a substance. The spirit of a man is substance. This substance continues forever. It has already, in ways mysterious to us by that work of the Holy Spirit through the Gospel, been regenerated – raised from its deadness in sin and condemnation – and it communes with God, and shall commune with God forever. The soul or spirit of a man is the the definition of person. We affirm a substance in this regard, and by its infusion with the Spirit of God, being made a literal member of the Body of Christ, where it draws its life from His blood, and His body, is eternal, glorified, sanctified, justified by the work of God.
We deny that the corpse is essential to the substance of the spirit of any man (person), or that anything being derived from the corpse in terms of its tangibility in this world is necessary in order for him or her to be fully considered Man.
We deny that any man receives a new body – or new bodily form – or receives glorification upon the death of his physical body. His life in Christ is so made one with Christ and the Father by the Spirit that such essentials as pertains to this unity are not to be seen as lacking in any way for the believer. To say essentials are added to the believer as it pertains to the Gospel promises when their physical bodies expires takes away, we believe, from what God has fully and entirely accomplished for the explicit purpose of having “all things” apply to our life in this fallen world, so that upon death there is nothing lacking, but only a forward expectation of continued blessings under the Grace and Righteousness of God.
Sam,
WOW, my friend. Yes, hypocrisy is running ramped. All in the name of trying to condemn those who disagree with their theology. Men never learn. The Catholic Church tried to use their theology against the very doctrines of these individuals, and now these very individuals are trying to use their theology to condemn us Preterist. It's a sad state of affairs indeed. Sure hope us Preterist don't continue the unlearned lesson.
-Rich
Here is what you have at that website – Spurgeon wouldn't be able to join (old earther) – they still can not explain Daniel 12 not being the GWT judgment at AD70 – Dr. Gentry gets away with telling EVERYONE to hold to time texts even thought there are time texts tied to the 2nd coming and resurrection (but he doesn't have to answer to that) – and Dr. Birks can join even though he denies a future 2nd coming and a bodily resurrection (same body). THIS IS GREAT STUFF =)
Oh ya – and let's not forget that DDW is a member also – sure the Historical reformed councils confessions etc. NEVER addressed Arminian theology and had anything to say on that – RIGHT ?!?!?
DDW
Profile Information: What is your theological position? Arminian Evangelical
This was an interesting post Sam. However, I think that we can all see that debate and even most dialogue really just entrenches us in the view we already hold. Most people can make two theological “jumps” in their life. They latch onto the first thing they study for themselves or are taught (thus jumping from the view they may have been brought up in), then later they also sit down and really try to be objective in examining all views, and they either jump to their final conclusion or remain in the one they already hold to. That being said, I think all this “exposing, name dropping, and sarcasm (even if not done in a malicious way)” just doesn't further the kingdom or bring God much glory. I used to love Reign of Christ when I came on here just to read Sam, Mike, and Jason expounding on the word of God and teaching what you feel is God's truth. I'm not pointing fingers here and I'm not trying to be holier than thou cause I do struggle in this area too. As people that believe in the sovereignty of God, I say we just preach His Word, and let Him sort out individuals' hearts and minds and all the drama that takes place on the internet in the name of theology. Unless directly engaged, I say we ignore, for the glory of God. Sam, I'm not implying that you were attempting to disparage Dr. Birks in any way, in fact, I know that you weren't. Also, I know you have had and will have to defend yourself from malicious attacks when it deals with your reputation and personal life. That being said, this is just a suggestion, a challenge maybe, that whether its the passion of Christ, creation, or eschatology, WE PREACH THE WORD, and let God sort out the rest. In Christ,
chris winn
Chris,
I agree with you regarding RCM but the equation has changed. Now they're allowing posts of those who have consistently attacked us. Before it was a little more of a segregated community where where the majority of folks, even those those who disagreed, were respectful.
So I guess we can just ignore the world around us (which I'm not saying is a bad thing) and keep dissenting posts to a minimum or we can engage the outside community. I don't like the acrimony either but sometimes hypocrisy needs to be exposed.
At any rate, I appreciate your heart on this matter.
Chris,
I totally understand where you are coming from. And, I appreciate you giving me the benefit of a doubt as regards my motivations. Thanks. This was a theological piece. Birks just happened to be in it. The point of it is to expose hypocrisy. What is it that they “allow” within the parameters, but disallow, and why? I have not heard from Dr. Talbot on this, and so I left the article open in terms of my suspicions that they do not regard IBD as within the parameters of “orthodoxy.” If they do, then this is a cause for great celebration. If they don't, then we are in the same situation as before with them. There is no way around it. That was my main reason for posting it.
It is a tough line here. Do you just keep taking it, day in and day out? The lies, slander, the constant daily articles? The name calling, calling me a cult leader, a dangerous man, in public, and I am just to sit back, let it go, don't say nothing, don't do anything? It's hard. I pray a lot about it. What should I do. It's one thing ignoring RE and Tom (Gatekeeper), that's relatively easy, but you have to keep in mind that I also am a family man, an neighbor, and a business man in the community, with several employees and clients. I am constantly on the alert in that respect. Google my name….
There has to be a line, then, at some point. A balance between defending and letting it go. Answering a fool, and answering a legitimate concern. I know that this was your point, too. Keep me in your prayers. I watched Gods and Generals again today…..great film…..inspirational, a tear jerker…..if you have not seen it….get it!
thanks for the response sam, and like I said in my post, I know that you have had quite a burden put on you and have endured a lot of malice from supposed “christians.” I also readily admit that your situation is totally different than mine. I also thought your article was well written and was right on. I didn't even necessarily just mean your article, but all the following comments sort of “chiding” Birks and whatnot… I'm not saying there was any sin involved, maybe maybe not, I'm just tried to stay away from names unless absolutely necessary such as some of your situations when you have to defend yourself from sinful attacks. Anyways, I appreciate you brother and will be praying for you and your family. I”ve read a lot of scholarship in my day, reformed, dispy, etc..and yours is right up there in quality and readability. Even if full preterism is truly incorrect, like I said, a lot of the work you do is just as scholarly as a lot of these “bigwigs.” Keep preaching the Word brother,
chris
thanks for the response sam, and like I said in my post, I know that you have had quite a burden put on you and have endured a lot of malice from supposed “christians.” I also readily admit that your situation is totally different than mine. I also thought your article was well written and was right on. I didn't even necessarily just mean your article, but all the following comments sort of “chiding” Birks and whatnot… I'm not saying there was any sin involved, maybe maybe not, I'm just tried to stay away from names unless absolutely necessary such as some of your situations when you have to defend yourself from sinful attacks. Anyways, I appreciate you brother and will be praying for you and your family. I”ve read a lot of scholarship in my day, reformed, dispy, etc..and yours is right up there in quality and readability. Even if full preterism is truly incorrect, like I said, a lot of the work you do is just as scholarly as a lot of these “bigwigs.” Keep preaching the Word brother,
chris