I feel as if I must re-introduce my career in theology again in order to make a point. As a graduate of Whitefield Theological Seminary with two M.A. degrees (straight A’s by the way), one thing I do know is Reformed theology. As a Preterist, I have sought to remain within the framework of Reformed thought as much as possible. However, when one considers that we place the end of the Millennial judgment (Rev 20.11-15) and the Second Coming at the conclusion of that “generation” of Christ’s contemporaries (A.D. 70), this, as we have always taught at RCM, significantly changes a few aspects of Reformed soteriology. However, and I wish to stress this, it changes it for the better. Hence, when Preterist theology was seen as something that actually enhanced our salvation in Christ, that motivated me (and several others) to do more work in this area.
I have already presented two lectures at Ward Fenley’s conference on “Sanctification” using Gordon Clark’s book Sanctification as a guide. I also wrote a paper. These lectures and the paper are located on the web (maybe someone can source them). In brief, it was shown in a Reformed understanding that progressive sanctification is unanimously viewed as “heading towards” the Second Coming and glorification in the ordo salutis. Yet, if we place the Second Coming in the past, this must mean that sanctification as a process was temporary and unique in that “transition generation” or, to use Larry Siegle’s term, “transformation generation.” What the Tradition has done is take that process out of its exclusive first century context and made it the context of 2000 years.
Second, there are some who still want progressive sanctification to work after the Second Coming! Not only is this completely novel and unheard of, but it entirely goes against the traditional exegetical framework that is, as I have judged, correct. That is, the framework is: justification, sanctification, resurrection, glorification. The Second Coming, or parousia, is what brings this process to an “end.” All that we have done is take that process and put it into its proper first century context. If one is a Full Preterist, this is what one must do. This, on one hand, gives credence to the traditional framework, and, on the other, recognizes the biblical position of the Second Coming within that generation.
Therefore, I defined sanctification, for us living in the “age to come” now, as that which is entirely complete. In the traditional view, the “age to come” is life in eternity and comes at the end of the world. Surely, “in heaven” and in the “age to come” Christians are not still being sanctified! Here, the traditional view is again, correct. However, since we view the “age to come” as already here, it is perfectly logical to insist that we are not longer, as a Church, as the Wife of the Lamb, no the Bride, are “being sanctified.” We are the Wife. The Marriage has already happened. We have been purified, made clean, and are entirely “spotless and without wrinkle.” The “perfection” of Christ has entirely been applied to the Church. Good news, indeed.
Naturally, coming out of a “progressive sanctification” view, Preterists have wanted to question the relationship between God and the Christian who occasionally struggles with sins. That this fact that we still struggle with sins (not, “the Sin”) means that we must still somehow be under the influence and dominion of sins. This paper is not meant to get into that, and one must see my other lectures or paper. This can be dealt with, though, suffice it to say. In fact, it can be decidedly, logically, and theologically dealt with in a manner that preserves the evil of “sins” and the perfected work of Christ applied to us by the Spirit at the same time. For references to the true understanding of the Reformed doctrine of sanctification, consult Clark, Hodge, Turretin, and Calvin – and the Westminster Confession, which spells it out clearly.
This paper will be my formal, theological treatment of the doctrine, “justification by faith.” I have never written on this before publically in such a manner. Yet, because of the false accusations of some brothers, this paper has become necessary to write. I believe the accusations are misguided, and misinformed. My basic these is this: that there is a connection between justification in Paul and the Final Judgment. They are inseparably linked. If the Final Judgment never happens, whatever our pre-Judgment justification is, is not complete or “full.” Reformed theology is entirely in agreement with this statement. But, like sanctification, we believe that the Judgment has already occurred. And, what is strange, is that the loudest cry of our accusers is from a man that believes that this Judgment has already taken place, too! We find this impossible to do on two fronts: the traditional framework disallows it, and two, Paul explicitly denies it.
Since I consider myself a student of the works of Gordon Clark, devouring everything he has written over the last two decades, I must start with definitions. If we cannot define our terms, then we do not know what we are talking about. If we consult “righteousness” or “justification” in the lexicons and dictionaries, we find, “This is God’s righteousness, into which we are set. It is a conjunction of judgment and grace which God demonstrates by showing righteousness, imparting it as forgiveness, and drawing us into his kingdom, as the last judgment will fully manifest” (Kittel’s – dikaiosune). This shows the connection between the last judgment (Rev 20.11-15). Gottlob Shrenk wrote this entry, and also penned, with Gottfried Quell, a supplement to Kittel’s entitled, Righteousness (Adams and Charles Black: London, 1951, Bible Key Words from Gerhard Kittel’s Theologisches Worterbuch zum Neuen Testament series).
In that work, Shrenk and Quell further wrote that Paul “continued to associate justification with the Last Judgment…the divine absolution of sins, made effectual by the Cross and accepted by faith here and now, is expected to reach its final consummation in acquittal at the Last Judgment” (64). The verse they consider are, “For I know nothing against myself, yet I am not justified by this; but He who judges me is the Lord (I Co 4.4). Justification takes on one’s whole life. “For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified (Rom 2.13)” The future tense here bears this out. “since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith (3.30). Again, note the future tense.
Continuing with their analysis, they wrote, “Hope is an outstanding characteristic of righteousness. The experience of salvation in the present is a pledge of salvation in the future, for justification is grace bridging the gap and inaugurating the world to come….what remains of earthly life is interim….Judaism put justification at the end of the world, and was not sure of it; the Christian actually has it now. History offers it, and faith takes hold of it. Imputed righteousness foreshortens time and points to fulfillment, thus producing hope that is beyond comparison with the vague uncertainty of the Jew. The believer, who has found immediate absolution at the Cross, looks forward to the Last Judgment with confidence” (49).
Here, Gal 5.5 is quoted, “For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.” Further verses are given, “yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified (Gal 2.1); “Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies” (Rom 8.33). No one will bring an accusation at the Final Judgment. None can be brought.
I might add, too, Rom 4.24, “but also on ours, to whom it is about to be reckoned — to us believing on Him who did raise up Jesus our Lord out of the dead…” The Greek reads οἷς μέλλει λογίζεσθαι and if we follow Dana and Mantey, the word μέλλw is followed by the infinitive which makes it “more emphatic in force, and contemplates action as more imminent. Robertson (J.A.T. – me) calls it “a sort of halfway station between the futuristic present and the punctilliar future” (A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, MacMillan, 1955, 191). Righteousness, or “justification” was, in some sense, although already obtained, was “about to be” imputed to those who believed. Hope is mixed with the present reality, but the fact remains, Justification is, in some sense, connected to the Final Judgment.
Turning to more Reformed sources, we start with Herman Hoeksema (Reformed Dogmatics, Reformed Free Publishing Association, 1985). “God does not grant the fullness of salvation in Christ to the sinner in a single act….the process of salvation continues throughout the whole life of the elect sinner” (446). Even justification is connected to the Final Judgment in Hoeksema, “And, finally, we shall be justified publically, before all the world, in the revelation of the righteous judgment of God” by connecting this to Rom 8:23, “And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies” (503). The Final Judgment brings about the “fullness of salvation” and the end to the “process of salvation.” We do not seek to overthrow this framework.
John Murray, esteemed Reformed theologian, wrote the classic, Redemption: Accomplished and Applied (Eerdmans, 1955). There we find that Murray also speaks of the “the whole redemptive process” under “the redemption” quoting Luke 21.28 and Rom 8.23, which end with the “eschatological consummation” (46). Justification inaugurates this process, even though it itself is not a process, but judicial act. Nonetheles, the full benefits of being justified are played out in the Final Consummation. When the “hope of righteousness” is not longer a hope. It’s a full reality.
Recently, in a conversation with Kelly Birks, Dave Green posted these comments from the Reformed scholar, Herman Ridderbos, “”It is incontrovertible . . . that righteousness is spoken of both in a real present and in a real future tense” (Paul: An Outline of His Theology, 165, n. 29).
“Just as the adoption of sons, righteousness can be represented as a benefit already obtained as well as still to be expected [at the Parousia]” (ibid., 166).
” . . . [R]ighteousness is not only a matter that has already been revealed, but is also still to be awaited as a future gift of God [at the Parousia] (Gal. 5:5)” (ibid., 178). The brackets reflect the context. I looked up these references. Ridderbos wrote, “this future righteousness is not another than that which has already been revealed. It is the same thing, but one can speak of it both in the present and in the future sense” (166). Justification is not loosed from sanctification and the coming glorification. It’s is certainly distinguished from those ideas (lest we fall into Romanism). However, the connection between these categories are inseparable. Justification is carried through sanctification (the justified and those who are being sanctified), and glorification (the just ones are those who will be glorified). This is the whole process spoken of above. Justification is not to be confused, ever, with sanctification and glorification. Those things are the outworking of justification – the fact that one is justified will bring him unalterably and assuredly through the sanctifying process unto glorification, when the fullness of righteousness is worked out. They are to be distinguished, but they cannot be radically separated, either. God’s future judgment has already come into the present, for Paul, so that God was already judging his elect in Christ as “righteous” through their faith. But, this assumes that what was already at work in the present, will have its full manifestation secured in the future judgment. Justificaton, then, linked to the Final Judgment. Justification is not a “process”, but sets into motion a “process” that climaxes at the parousia. It is inseparably tied to the process. Justification is by faith alone, but nobody ever stated that “justification alone” saves us. There is more to the process that must be accomplished in terms of the full outworking of what Ridderbos and Murray saw as “salvation.”
Alister E. McGrath wrote the well received Iustitia: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification. He also penned, Christian Theology: An Introduction (Blackwell, 2007). I will quote him at length here:
“In dealing with Paul it is tempting to adopt a simplistic approach to the chronological question [eschatological dimension] just noted. For example, one could attempt to force justification, sanctification, and salvation into a neat past – present – future framework, as follows:
1. Justification: a past event with present implications (sanctification).
2. Sanctification: a present event, dependent upon a past event (justification), which has future implications (salvation).
3. Salvation: a future event already anticipated and partially experienced in the past event of justification, and the present event of sanctification, and dependent upon them.
But this is clearly inadequate. Justification has a future as well as past (Romans 2.13; 8:33; Galatians 5:4-5), and appears to relate both to the beginning of the Christian life and its final consummation. Similarly, sanctification can relate to a past event (I Corinthians 6:11) or a future event (I Thessalonians 5:23). And salvation is an exceptionally complex idea….Justification language in Paul appears with reference to both the inauguration….and its final consummation” (329,330).
We can see here, then, that Justification is clearly linked, at least in these scholars’ minds, to the Final Judgment. It is not a nice, neat little ordo that is found in the Bible, and that has been taught to us in a nice, neat little package. Even some (not all) within the Reformed camp acknowledge this truth. And we agree with them wholeheartedly.
If we turn to the great John Calvin we find him commenting on Gal 5.5: “that is; after embracing the testimony of the Gospel as to free love, we wait till God openly manifest what is now only an object of hope” (Institutes, 3.2.43). He was speaking of “faith” and “hope”, then quoted I Pe 1.5 where “we are kept by the power of God through faith until salvation, ready to be revealed in the last time.” It is the “hope of salvation” (ibid.). We, as Preterists, see the verse in Peter as fulfilled. Salvation has already been revealed in our past history. The fact that Calvin, though, connected Gal 5.5 with this verse is telling. It’s eschatology.
We can also turn to Calvin’s successor in Geneva, the venerable Francis Turretin, who expressed the same sentiments of Hoeksema already quoted, stating that on the Last Day “our justification will be fully declared” (Elenctic Theology, Volume 2, 687). We note the word “fully.” Although before the Parousia the justification of the elect was secured and indeed obtained through the imputation of God in applying the salvation of Christ, there still was a “hope” and a connection to the “full” manifestation of this justification with all rights and privileges obtained entirely, lacking nothing.
With this, then, I conclude that whatever link or connection justification has to the Final Judgment, we believe that it has, in its fullness of salvation, been completed. That Christians are not in a relationship, regardless of their believing that they are, with God that “hopes” for righteousness. They are, upon the apprehension of God, and upon that free gift and ability to trust in God, immediately and entirely justified in the fullest measure of that term possible. They are sanctified in the same measure, and are also glorified by their union with the Glorious Body of Christ. This is how God sees the Church today, post judgment, and how He relates to the Church today. The Gospel and salvation are not realities in which the believer enter into a “struggle” that is in tension between “already” and “not yet.” He does not enter into a relationship with God in which he is being “put to death” and “made alive.” In Christ, upon believing the Gospel, the sinner is immediately and entirely “declared” righteous. He awaits no future standing before God to hear this declaration. He has already heard it. He has passed from death to life. The Church, the Body of Christ, has filled up the measure of His suffering, death and resurrection. We have ascended to the heavenly realm. We have entered into the Holy of Holies, and we, with unveiled faces, have been transformed by the mighty working His power through the accomplished work of Christ in “salvation.” We have not only come to Mount Zion, but we have entered into Mount Zion. And not only this, but the Church has entered into the Temple, into the throne room in Mount Zion, to the Holy of Holies, where He is. Where He is, there we are. We see these truths, these “things unseen” by the “knowledge of the son of God” that has been revealed to us through His Holy Apostles and Prophets. We believe in their message. And by that know we are fully, entirely saved to the uttermost. We lack nothing. We have all things. This, Christ has accomplished, and this is what we proclaim.
Samuel M. Frost, M.A.R.
“The Gospel and salvation are not realities in which the believer enter into a “struggle” that is in tension between “already” and “not yet.” He does not enter into a relationship with God in which he is being “put to death” and “made alive.” In Christ, upon believing the Gospel, the sinner is immediately and entirely “declared” righteous. He awaits no future standing before God to hear this declaration. He has already heard it. He has passed from death to life. “
Brother Sam, I want to thank you for this. Ever since I became a Christian at a Futurist Church (Chuck Smith's of all places), I knew in my renewed and redeemed heart that God had done for me exactly what you clearly stated – I was passed from death into life. After that night, I attended my family's church, a Nazarene church, and even through the years of attending this Nazarene Church with all their delusional “entire sanctification via a second blessing” non-sense that shipwrecked many people, including me for a time, I still had the burn in my heart that God had not let go, that He was bigger than my misunderstandings and lack of insight.
I beat myself up a lot for my “failures” according to the Nazarene “Black Book”. God guided me out of that abyss and later I came into Preterism. I know you know what that does for a soul when the dots connect, when everything your reborn heart has been tellling you for years finally has the Biblical basis to trust. What freedom, what “Good News”.
Understanding the very nature and purpose of the last days and the transformation of the one body from corruption into incorruption, from weakness into power, and that this is what I was born into, complete and full from day one, set me free more than anything else I had been taught. The ability to embrace my freeedom, and to have the sound tools of Scripture to fight successfully to keep it, is what your work and that of other “sound minds” has done for me over the years.
You have done a brilliant and honorable duty to be true to God and to yourself as you have traveled honestly in your journey into the land in which you now stand and in which many of us stand.
The labor is not in vain, and it will continue to bear fruit for many years to come. I encourage you to keep preaching and teaching at every available opportunity. You have friends in San Diego that you do not know, and we pray for you and your family, we pray for your continued release into the churches to teach and preach the truth.
I appreciate you, brother, and your family that supports your important work.
All the best,
Ron
Ron, you wrote, “I still had the burn in my heart that God had not let go, that He was bigger than my misunderstandings and lack of insight.” That, brother, says it all. His grace is bigger than our understanding. Thank you for this encouraging response.
It is quite clear to me that Birks does not in the slightest get what is presented here. Unless he has gone the full tilt to futurism, the last I checked, Birks argues for the resurrection in A.D. 70 and the fulfillment of Revelation 20:11-15. I have argued, quoting several Reformed thinkers, that this is the end, “full manifestation” of salvation, including justification. Birks is under some strange thought that I am quoting these men as supporting a coming in A.D. 70. He did the same thing to Dave Green in the yahoo groups posts.
Apparently, he cannot see the distinction. Reformed theology END the salvation history AT Revelation 20:11-15. They are correct. Full Preterists END the salvation history there as well, but in our view, this is A.D. 70. Therefore, we combine the two thoughts and come out with what I have stated here. Quite simple, actually.
Birks wants the Second Coming, resurrection of the dead and the Judgment in Rev. 20:11-15 to be in A.D. 70 (and, apparently, with his new buddies Paul T. and Roderick, that's okay), but STILL has progressive sanctification and the incomplete realization of Salvation AFTER these events!!!!! Any reader can see how bizarre this is.
What we have done is keep the Reformed order and framework, but apply it to the first century, and to our time (age to come). Simple. None of these men that I quote see any real importance to A.D. 70, and that's clear to anyone. But, Birks and I do see importance in that date. Instead of following the Reformed framework, Birks has reworked the entire framework, cramming a Reformed PRE-SECOND COMING soteriology into his POST SECOND COMING eschatology! This is why the majority of Full Preterists are not buying it. It's confused.
As I have stated, the FRAMEWORK of eschatology within the historical church has more or less been spot on. The idea of the “already/not yet” is entirely correct, and the soteriology of the idea of “progressive sanctification” leading up the “full manifestation” of justification, sanctification and glorification at the Second Coming is dead, spot on. The Dispensationalist program of its emphasis on Israel “according to the flesh” is spot on. There are truths in every one of these systems. Full Preterism does not rework or reinvent the FRAMEWORK. Jesus death, resurrection, session (rule over Israel as King), Parousia, Judgment, Salvation awarded, Age to Come. This Framework is correct.
With Birks we have this: Jesus death, resurrection, session (progressive sanctification leading up to the fullness of glorification) Parousia, Judgment, Age to Come (more progressive sanctification leading up to the fullness of glorification) resurrection (individuals getting new bodies when they die). This should be called “Birksism” because, as far as I can tell, I can't find anything in history that resembles it.
Sam,
I've struggled with the doctrine of sanctification for more years than I can count. I understood that I was justified by Christ, but I didn't understand why I wasn't necessarily becoming more and more holy through the sanctification process.
I've gotten a little wiser over the years, which has helped me to avoid repeating some of the sins that I've committed in the past, but as far as becoming more holy by my own abilities, I haven't come close to that.
I will continue to serve the lord by living in his ways the best I can. I'm relieved to know that I don't have to become sanctified by my own efforts, but rather that I am already sanctified by Christ.
Like Ron, I too want to encourage you to keep up the good fight. You're human like the rest of us and sometimes I'm sure you wonder if it's all worth it. I just want to let you know that it is worth it because people are being helped.
I've been talking to a guy at work about preterism. As you give out information on preterism to us, we then take that information out to others. In other words, your writings are reaching out further than to just the people that read your material.
I hope that you and Jason keep up the good work.
Lincoln,
Seeing what the Bible teaches concerning the Second Coming opens the eyes to what Christ has accomplished. The Church (at least post Reformation) has been preaching, more or less, a completed work, but has this eschatological monkey on its back that tells it “not yet.” It's an eschatological hang-over from the Pre-Reformation time. Hang overs go away, though, eventually.
God created human beings with the ability to “sin.” This did not originate with the Fall. Adam and Eve were drawn away to eat BEFORE they broke the commandment. They were created with this ability to “miss the mark” God set before them. Their sin, though, was “one strike, you're out.” This set up what Paul called “the Sin” – Adam's single sin. This Sin reigned in the power of “the Death” sentence handed to Adam: separation from the Tree of Life (eternal Life in righteousness with God the Father). Christ atoned for “the Sin” and smashed its reign by swallowing up the Death. This, then, opened the door once closed to us: eternal Life.
Yes, I sin. But, is it “one strike and you are out?” No. There are no strikes. There is no “out.” Paul said it better: “therefore, there is now no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus.” The “condemnation” he is referring to here is “the condemnation” that “came from the one man (adam) to all” (same word in Greek, used only twice in Paul, Romans 5, and Romans 8.1). Adam's condemnation has been removed from us.
Now, God still condemns our sins. Each and every one of them. He hates them. It is precisely because He hates them that they need such a covering, such an atonement, such a glorious sacrifice that would require the Cross. He loves “the world” (John 3:16). He hates the “sin”. He must condemn sin. Every one of them. And, He did. He condemned sin in the flesh of His Son. This would allow for two things: reconciling the world to Himself in righteousness so that He could be their Father, Priest and Shepherd and Friend. The offense of our sins are no longer requiring of God to push us away, because God cannot dwell with sin. The problem is solved by placing us “in Christ” and clothing us “in Christ” so that when we do sin, it is the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross that immediately and entirely removes the stain: Paul said it best: “not counting mens sins against them.” They were counted against Christ. All of them. This allows a Holy and Righteous God to be our Father, Friend and God. This allows Him to be one with “the world” that he loved. He can now dwell with us in Holiness through Christ without the constant offense of our sins. He is our God and we are His people, and the dwelling of God is now with men (Rev 21.3). A holy God dwelling with His people who are still able to commit gross sins. Oh the love of God for his people……that He would so come down and humble himself in the form of a servant in Christ (Philp. 3:1-ff). He so loved us, so wanted to dwell with us….but, sin offended Him…..He could not. The solution: the Cross. God's answer. He thought it all up on His own. We never would have thought that one up.
Having this relationship, understanding what it is, and knowing in our hearts that God, indeed, has sanctified us entirely in Christ in all reality and actuality, burns our hearts even more to serve Him in terms of His grace. It burns us even more to speed up the challenges our sins confront us with. It motivates us to say, “today, I will not do that!” And, when we do do that and fail, God's ever complete salvation in Christ in us says, “GET BACK UP! SAY IT AGAIN! YOU CAN!” He's a Father…a little league coach saying to his boys, “get up..run that play again!” Christ has given us this relationship.
Larry Siegle said something profound to me the other night on the phone. “When God banished Adam, who He made, from the Garden, which He made, who was left in the Garden? God. Alone.” Adam didn't reach out to God, and Cain rejected God's counsel and killed his brother. GOD REACHED OUT TO THE WORLD to gather the people he made to Himself, but the Sin of Adam must be made right! The Death of Adam must be revoked. And only the Judge has that power to revoke His own sentence. “For God so loved the world that he sent his only son……..”
Lincoln……thanks, brother……hearing comments like this send me off into orbit……
Hi Sam,
Was there a comment from Birks that was suppressed or something? I assumed that some of this article was in response to his views. However, I have not kept up with any of that lately. Your comment here (after the article) made me wonder if he had replied to this article and maybe I couldn't see it. Your article and comments are clear. It just felt like I was missing a piece or two when it came to this reply about Birks.
Thanks,
Dave
Dave,
Kelly responded on the posts to the article, saying I didn't answer anything. That's for the reader to decide. That's over there at Larry's site preterismdebate.ning.com. I refuse to get into a “tit for tat” post exchange.
This article was orginally researched and written for RCM. It always has been and was never entertained to post anywhere else. Kelly wrote his blog over there and now demands that I respond to it over there, which I said I wouldn't. Larry has no problem with it, either. This way, we can have a good discussion without all the rabble.
Already I have participated in that exchange over there too much, and have decided not to post there on this matter any longer. Kelly is welcome to post here at any time. As far as I am concerned, I have stated my position, and now its time for another project.
Thanks, Dave
Sam,
I think your approach is prudent. Many of us have busy lives. I enjoy polemics and learn from a good debate. However, it seems like there is often so much rhetoric in such exchanges that, frankly, it is wearisome to read and follow.
Thanks for clarifying.
Dave
Sam
Outstanding treatment of Justification, from the standpoint of a fulfilled soteriology. Until believers can get past their insistance on repeating the “transformation” period “generation” over and over again, they will never see, or experience all of God's fullness and blessing. It is an accomplished work. Once for all time. Praise God!
Larry,
Thanks, brother. By seeing what God did in that generation can we appreciate what he is doing in our own generation. Those saints are our brothers and sisters, too, forever!
Sam,
I have to ditto Larry. Excellent job. I think I'll read it again just because it was so good. :)
I think most of Birks' problem rest in his understanding of “progressive sanctification”. This idea that Christians are slowly transformed over time committing less sin is unbiblical. What I have always wondered is why nobody can make this perfection until they physical die? If Christ doesn't transform a Christian until then, then what is the point of even starting in this life? And if Christ is going to start in this life, then why would He make it so it can't be achieve it until death? Seems to me, to have perfectly moral people here on earth now would benefit the whole world. The whole scheme makes no sense at all! I think it just makes Christ's work insufficient in accomplishing what He set out to do.
Most Christians are caught in the sanctification dilemma. They know they are actually one thing but feel as though they should portray themselves as another. Since they believe that God is taking them through a step by step process that eventually brings them to a point of moral perfection, they believe that this superior righteousness should be portrayed for other Christians to see while attending their weekly church service. Christians get caught up in play acting or acting the part of a Christian that has overcome sin, at least for the most part.
This false view of sanctification has pressured many Christians to wear a mask at church that portrays someone other than who they really are. They want to show others that they have progressed in righteousness to a high level. They don't want to be known as one of God's failed projects. In a society where success defines who we are, we certainly don't want to be seen as an unsuccessful Christian.
I believe this is one of the negative effects that the modern day view of sanctification has produced.
Sam,
I'm wondering whether a contributor to this whole Birks thing has to do with hermeneutics?
For example, it is quite difficult for a preterist to persuade a dispy from the scripture because the dispy takes everything literally unless there is some obvious contextual clue that a metaphor is involved. So, Matt 24 is in the future because the sun hasn’t been darkened and there is really nothing you can do at that point because they are committed to their literal hermeneutic.
There are also more subtle hermeneutical differences that exist between the various camps. That Paul preached the Hope of Israel and only what Moses and the Prophets said (Acts 26:22) is a concept I had never heard until I started reading Preston and yet it is, in my opinion, the key to understanding the whole relationship between Israel and the Church. And further, that this implies that the New Testament scriptures do not contain any “New Prophecy” is critical, I think, to understanding doctrines like the resurrection of the dead. For example, where is physical resurrection in the OT?
I seem to remember that Birks doesn’t subscribe to this hermeneutic. I looked for his comments on this at SGP, but it seems that most of his blogs and comments are gone. Somebody correct me if I’m wrong regarding his stance.
I also seem to remember Birks protesting when others on the site would produce verses from other parts of the bible to defend a particular interpretation of the passage under discussion (I think this was a discussion of 1 Cor 15). He seemed to be insisting that the local context of a scripture was sufficient to determine its meaning. Strimple protests along the same lines accusing King of completely ignoring the local context in favor of his covenantal framework (WSTTB 303-4).
In my opinion, it goes without saying that most of the preterist arguments would go out the window without the ability to interpret scripture with scripture. Imagine, for example, what one of Preston’s books would be without all those parallel charts! There is a reason that we need this interpretive tool. The books of the NT are not doctrinal dissertations complete with footnotes. And further, when writing by hand on papyrus there is a whole lot of motivation to be terse. So, its handy to see what Paul told the Romans when trying to understand what he was telling the Corinthians.
I may not have correctly portrayed Birk’s hermeneutic, but I think it must be clear to all that he approaches the scriptures differently than Sam. And that puts this debate at the same impasse as the preterist/dispy debate above. Can there be any resolution without using the same hermeneutic?
Martin
Martin,
I have to say that I am most impressed. You hit the nail right on the head. Birks does not accept Preston's position on hermeneutics (which we discussed in full on our podcast with Preston). He still has a “progressive revelation” going on in the NT. For me, Jesus and Paul used nothing but “the Scriptures” to demonstrate from them their doctrines. Those “Scriptures” are none other than the Hebrew Bible. This doctrine is explicit and clearly taught in the NT writings, particularly Acts where Luke goes out of his way it seems to make this point again and again.
So, yes, our approach is different. Jesus came to fulfill the Scriptures, not re-write them (he didn't write anything). Birks also fails to place the proper emphasis on Israel (again, following the Reformed position that loosens the Promises from Israel and makes them into the Promises for the Church). These are two major factors that contribute to the IBD view and the current view Birks has on justification “alone”. Justification must be understood from the OT view. What did the OT mean by “righteous”? What was Paul's point in bringing up Abraham and David in Romans 4? Did they obtain “righteousness” with God before the restoration of all things?
I came from a strong Reformed background. It was the reason I chose Whitefield and Reformed Theological Seminary to do my work. However, realizing that Reformed theology is worked out entirely with an eye on the “not yet” realized Second Coming, placing the Second Coming in A.D. 70 forces a change on its soteriological issues. To deny this is academic suicide. What I believe Birks is trying to do is keep Reformed soteriology within a Preterist eschatology – and it just doesn't work. Reformed soteriology is based squarely on the “not yet” aspects. Read Charles Hodge on “Sanctification” in his Systematic Theology…..you will see what I mean.
Since the Bible unequivocally affirms that the Second Coming was in that “generation”, then this should honestly force us back through traditional theological categories to see where these changes can be made, and where we can salvage what we can (I salvage the framework). This is exactly what Luther did. He went back and looked for the sacraments in the Bible. Ecclesiology. The use of Councils in matters of faith. The Lord's Table. Issues of Church and State. He looked at issues of Predestination, overturning the Council of Orange (529). Zwingli went further, blasting images, relics, statues in the church, etc. These guys were radical in their day. But, after 500 years, they seem commonplace today in our Protestant churches. That was just 500 years ago!
Martin, when we see through the fog and grab ahold of something that is right there in the Bible, like Paul's insistence that he used nothing but the Law and the Prophets, and that he taught “not to go beyond what is written” (I Cor 4.6), then we see clearly where Christian theology has definitely gone beyond what was written! To what “written” was Paul referring to?
Thanks for the post, Martin.
Sam,
Based on my comments above, I’m not hopeful that Birk’s will ever be persuaded by you. Nevertheless, I urge you to continue to refute his arguments in thoughtful essays like the one above. Why?
A brother at the church I attend loves to debate, both online and on the platform in formal debates. He once told me that a debate is not about persuading one’s opponent. That rarely happens. Instead, it’s about persuading the audience. After reading through and listening to Preston’s various debates, this seems true enough.
So, cyberspace is watching. No pressure there! But seriously, there may indeed be many in this young flock we call preterists that are still a little wobbly on hermeneutics and, therefore, may be drawn away by Birk’s arguments. Don’t all the former prets fall into this wobbly category? Aren’t their hermeneutics all over the map?
I spent 20 years as a mixed up Hal Lindsey dispy. I studied pre, mid, post, and pre-wrath rapture doctrines to try get a handle on what the end times looked like. It was very frustrating because in each case, one had to ignore glaring contradictions to support a particular view. So, like many I became a pan-mil and turned my attention away from eschatology to studying the reformed view of salvation. Thank God for that! Goodbye Arminius, hello Calvin .
As a result of studying the reformers, I became aware of the partial preterist view of eschatology and was exposed to a much better hermeneutic than Hal Lindsey uses. For the first time in my Christian life, the scriptures actually started making sense to me. And then when I found Preston’s materials and hermeneutic (Paul’s Hope of Israel and nothing but Moses and the Prophets), all the pieces fell into place.
I was never sold on dispy anything, but what else was there in the bookstore or on TV? Now, I can say without reservation that I am sold on the preterist view as portrayed in House Divided as well as Preston’s ever growing list of titles.
So, while I know this particular debate is gut-wrenching for you, please stand firm because the audience is watching. You were called to the kingdom for this hour.
Martin
I thought you did a great job in explaining yourself in this article on Justification Sam. Out of my own personal interpretation, I could swear you sound like an IBN Immortal Body Now
“God created human beings with the ability to “sin.” This did not originate with the Fall. Adam and Eve were drawn away to eat BEFORE they broke the commandment. They were created with this ability to “miss the mark” God set before them. Their sin, though, was “one strike, you're out.” This set up what Paul called “the Sin” – Adam's single sin. This Sin reigned in the power of “the Death” sentence handed to Adam: separation from the Tree of Life (eternal Life in righteousness with God the Father). Christ atoned for “the Sin” and smashed its reign by swallowing up the Death. This, then, opened the door once closed to us: eternal Life.”
If only others could COVENANTALLY see this. Seems only those who are Immortal Body Now are able to see the blessing. Yes, sin always was there, yes, it was God who reached down to us not us who reached up to Him and YES we are clothed in Christ's righteousness which makes us 100% right in the eyes of the Father. It makes us all the more motivated, when we see who we ALREADY are, to live our lives for Him because all strength comes from Him ALONE.
Thank You Sam! You Made my day :-)
Good stuff Sam. Keep the interpretation of the Word coming, let God work on the individuals' hearts and minds. Many preterists today are trying to keep 70AD but will contradict themselves often to stay as “reformed” as they can. “reformed” is not a biblical word or idea, I seek to be a Christian, mainline protestantism (reformed churches) can keep its titles and its confessions, they will always be marginalized by their infant baptism, consubstantiation, and roman tendencies, which things are biblically ludicrous.
Good stuff Sam. Keep the interpretation of the Word coming, let God work on the individuals' hearts and minds. Many preterists today are trying to keep 70AD but will contradict themselves often to stay as “reformed” as they can. “reformed” is not a biblical word or idea, I seek to be a Christian, mainline protestantism (reformed churches) can keep its titles and its confessions, they will always be marginalized by their infant baptism, consubstantiation, and roman tendencies, which things are biblically ludicrous.