• Epistemological – what is the status of the believer’s and unbeliever’s knowledge?
• Eschatological – what has Christ redeemed at this point in redemptive history and what, if anything, will remain from it in the new heavens and the new earth?
• Ecclesiological – what is the proper relationship of the church to non-church culture?

Epistemological

I consider it fortunate that on this site I don’t need to introduce Van Til, so hopefully a few familiar concepts will suffice in pointing out a few Reformed epistemological fundamentals. First and not surprisingly, Rom 1:18f is a great place to start. Unbelievers possess the truth about God clearly described in v. 20 while they also suppress that same truth and behave in the ways described in v. 21f. Which unbelievers is Paul describing? If unrighteousness is the condition (v. 18) for suppression, Paul is describing whoever is unrighteous: all unbelievers. Unbelieving doctors, unbelieving hunters, unbelieving historians, unbelieving homemakers, etc.

Moving from the dynamic of simultaneous knowledge/suppression in Romans 1, Paul elaborates in 1 Cor 1:18-2:16 on the epistemological antithesis between believer and unbeliever. There is no trithesis, only two options: believing knowledge and unbelieving ignorance. What are the “things” of 1 Cor. 2:10 that God has revealed and how are they revealed? God reveals wisdom that is not of this temporary world, and he reveals His wisdom by his Spirit. The natural person of this age cannot understand them because he does not have the Spirit to discern them. So we see that when describing the epistemological situation of “humanity”, it makes all the difference in the world whether we refer in individual cases to a person who has the Spirit to discern or to a person who does not have the Spirit.

This is also why there should be no sharp separation between general revelation and special revelation, but between those who have the Spirit to receive rightly both modes of revelation and those who do not. The issue is not with the clarity of revelation, it is with the condition of those to whom it is revealed. Too often general revelation is defined as something like “that truth at which one arrives by virtue of neutral (perhaps God-given in some cases) reason.” Van Til is exceedingly helpful in clarifying this relationship in his essay “Nature and Scripture” where he elaborates on what the Westminster Confession teaches on revelation and gives us principles for a Reformed philosophy of history.

So how do we account for the achievements of unbelievers (much of which exceed the achievements of believers at times)? Does the epistemological antithesis have no effect? What is said above may be relevant when speaking directly of epistemology or religion, but what about in other spheres like dentistry, computer repair, athletics, bridge engineering, or the office of mayor? Simply because an engineer may never need to think about or articulate the epistemological context in which he finds himself in order to maintain the patterns acceptable within his vocation and field does not mean he has, in fact, no epistemological context. Not only does he take for granted things like order within the creation, ethical norms and practices, etc. but he also does so without affirming the Originator and rightful Owner of those foundations, Christ himself. It should also go without saying that “success” within any vocation is not first measured by whether one’s operations and achievements are acceptable within a given field (although it may include that), but by whether one is consistently living out the Christian faith within his or her vocation (which, admittedly in some vocations, may empirically look identical to an unbeliever who lives out his or her vocation contrary to the Christian faith). The heart is the spring from which thought and behavior flow, and the condition of the heart as either Spiritual or unspiritual will have an effect on thought and behavior, regardless of whether that effect is seen or unseen, visible or invisible.

There may be some who draw a false implication from this that Christians should then legalistically micro-scrutinize every thought and behavior to see whether it passes the test of “Christian” or “unChristian.” That is a test that has already been passed for us. Believers are in Christ and a new creation, redeemed, given a regenerate heart and indwelt by the Spirit. Of course believers still sin, but we are now able not to sin, and this has profound implications for covenant-keepers. The behavioral details in the life of the believer may often come down to an issue of biblical wisdom, and this is where the dynamic between God’s law and Christian liberty must be thought through carefully in individual cases.

Another false implication may be that because of what is said above, we must avoid any secular vocation or field, or perhaps give up any notion of our “success” in a secular field or vocation and merely keep our head down while getting by as a Christian in an unbelieving sphere. Nothing is further from the truth, and perhaps an example would serve well here. Alvin Plantinga, generally undisputed by both believers and unbelievers to be in the very top tier of philosophers in the 20th/21st centuries, writes the following in his “Advice to Christian Philosophers”:

First, it isn’t just in philosophy that we Christians are heavily influenced by the practice and procedures of our non-Christian peers. (Indeed, given the cantankerousness of philosophers and the rampant disagreement in philosophy it is probably easier to be a maverick there than in most other disciplines.) The same holds for nearly any important contemporary intellectual discipline: history, literary and artistic criticism, musicology, and the sciences, both social and natural. In all of these areas there are ways of proceeding, pervasive assumptions about the nature of the discipline (for example, assumptions about the nature of science and its place in our intellectual economy), assumptions about how the discipline should be carried on and what a valuable or worthwhile contribution is like and so on; we imbibe these assumptions, if not with our mother’s milk, at any rate in learning to pursue our disciplines. In all these areas we learn how to pursue our disciplines under the direction and influence of our peers.

But in many cases these assumptions and presumptions do not easily mesh with a Christian or theistic way of looking at the world. This is obvious in many areas: in literary criticism and film theory, where creative anti-realism (see below) runs riot; in sociology and psychology and the other human sciences; in history; and even in a good deal of contemporary (liberal) theology. It is less obvious but nonetheless present in the so-called natural sciences. The Australian philosopher J. J. C. Smart once remarked that an argument useful (from his naturalistic point of view) for convincing believers in human freedom of the error of their ways is to point out that contemporary mechanistic biology seems to leave no room for human free will: how, for example, could such a thing have developed in the evolutionary course of things? Even in physics and mathematics, those austere bastions of pure reason, similar questions arise. These questions have to do with the content of these sciences and the way in which they have developed. They also have to do with the way in which (as they are ordinarily taught and practiced) these disciplines are artificially separated from questions concerning the nature of the objects they study-a separation determined not by what is most natural to the subject matter in question, but by a broadly positivist conception of the nature of knowledge and the nature of human intellectual activity.

And thirdly, here, as in philosophy, Christians must display autonomy and integrality. If contemporary mechanistic biology really has no place for human freedom, then something other than contemporary mechanistic biology is called for; and the Christian community must develop it. If contemporary psychology is fundamentally naturalist, then it is up to Christian psychologists to develop an alternative that fits well with Christian supernaturalism-one that takes its start from such scientifically seminal truths as that God has created humankind in his own image.

Of course I do not presume to tell Christian practitioners of other disciplines how properly to pursue those disciplines as Christians. (I have enough to spare in trying to discern how to pursue my own discipline properly.) But I deeply believe that the pattern displayed in philosophy is also to be found in nearly every area of serious intellectual endeavor. In each of these areas the fundamental and often unexpressed presuppositions that govern and direct the discipline are not religiously neutral; they are often antithetic to a Christian perspective. In these areas, then, as in philosophy, it is up to Christians who practice the relevant discipline to develop the right Christian alternatives. [italics mine]

One can argue how consistent Plantinga is in his writings on this particular matter, but that discussion aside, I think he articulates well some fundamental truths regarding vocational pursuit as a Christian.

Next: Eschatology.

Because revelation unfolds throughout history, we must not only take seriously what God has said, but also when he has said it. In terms of faithful exegetical and biblical-theological pursuits, I believe it is important to read any inspired word in light of its immediate historical and canonical context. By doing so, we can be faithful to the original context and reception of the text, and we can come to better grips with God’s intent in revealing this particular word at this particular point in time.

Nonetheless, the important point to maintain is the organic connectedness of revelation as it progressively unfolds. And so as Christians, we must go further than a first reading. God’s earlier revelation builds up to the climactic revelation of his son (cf. Heb 1). In other words, this revelation of Christ is the telos of all redemptive-history. Hence, Jesus Christ is present in Gen 3:15, though in seed form—not merely as an addendum tacked onto a bare prophecy. Christ is not an out-of-the-blue surprise, but the originally intended apex of what had been previously revealed. Moreover, Jesus called his hearers to account for rejecting him in spite of their apparent knowledge of the Old Testament (Matt 21:42; cf. Matt 22:29; John 3:10). Therefore, we cannot artificially divide earlier and later revelation. We certainly ought to consider revelation as it unfolds, but given the organic and unified nature of divine revelation, later and fuller meaning cannot be divorced from earlier, anticipatory revelation.

In my understanding, this was a principle concern in Lane G. Tipton’s essay, “The Gospel and Redemptive-Historical Hermeneutics” in Confident of Better Things: Essays Commemorating Seventy-Five Years of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (the subject of an episode of Christ the Center). In this essay, Tipton presents his case for a trans-testamental gospel before turning to a critical discussion of Dan McCartney’s work on hermeneutics and typology. But even as he criticizes Dan McCartney’s particular view, which many people identify more closely with first/second readings, Tipton accepts their use, properly understood. He writes,

McCartney’s concerns are laudable. He rightly recongizes that the Old Testament finds its eschatological realization in Christ. He further discerns that it is possible to engage in first and second readings of the Old Testament, one that reads the Old Testament in its original redemptive-historical and canonical context, prior to the coming of Christ, and one that reads the Old Testament in terms of its fulfillment in Christ, with the second reading yielding greater insight into the eschatological purposes of God in Christ. Moreover, McCartney properly observes that in light of texts such as Luke 24 “the Old Testament actually does speak of Christ’s death and resurrection and the resultant missionary people of God.”¹ These points, as far as they go, have some value for a proper reading of Scripture.²

I agree with Tipton’s assessment here. As we practice this type of interpretation in studying God’s unfolding revelation in history, I believe it is imperative to acknowledge that we cannot suspend our knowledge of Christ as we read the Old Testament. When we perform first and second readings, we must do so as Christians—never being satisfied to read the Old Testament in a univocally Jewish fashion. But at the same time, we must strive to see revelation in its manifold and progressively-given fullness.

Notes

1. Dan McCartney, “Should We Employ the Hermeneutics of the New Testament Writers?” (paper presented at the annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, 2003), 7.
2. Lane G. Tipton, “The Gospel and Redemptive-Historical Hermeneutics” in Confident of Better Things: Essays Commemorating Seventy-Five Years of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church edited by John R. Muether and Danny E. Olinger (Willow Grove: The Committee for the Historian of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, 2011), 202-203.

I think we should devote most of our attention to the distinction between historia and ordo salutis. In similar (perhaps more familiar) categories, we speak of redemption accomplished and applied. Dr. Richard B. Gaffin, Jr. has done the Church a tremendous service in his book Resurrection & Redemption.¹ In this work, Gaffin navigates the connection between Christ’s death and resurrection (historia salutis) and the application of that work to believers (ordo salutis). He provides insightful exegesis that demonstrates convincingly that Christ’s resurrection is simultaneously his justification (1 Tim 3:16), adoption (Rom 1:3-4), sanctification (Rom 6:1ff; Acts 20:32), and glorification (1 Cor 15:42ff; 2 Cor 3:17f; 4:4-6).

The fundamental category—the “ground” of it all—is Christ’s person and work, which is neither exclusively forensic nor renovative. From what I gather, it is possible we need further clarification regarding what we mean by forensic. It is a term referring to the procedures of law. It is often used to distinguish the Reformed from the Roman Catholic view of justification. The Reformed argue that justification is entirely extrinsic. It does not make one righteous in themselves, rather Christ’s righteousness is imputed, and justification is the acquittal of guilt on that account. Conversely, Roman Catholics argue that justification imparts grace. It makes the sinner righteous intrinsically.  I gather from my interactions with people on this subject that some prefer to invest the word forensic with the notion of monergistic. I do not find the two synonymous. For instance, regeneration is entirely monergistic, but in no way forensic; it is renovative—a work that changes the subject intrinsically.

I believe we can move forward in this discussion by further exploring what is entailed by Christ’s resurrection, particularly as his justification (1 Tim 3:16). I believe this may help to crystallize Dr. Horton’s concerns in his interview response. We ought to develop the sense in which we may speak of the open declaration of Christ’s righteousness in his resurrection. Specifically, we must detail the way this wonderful truth interfaces with preaching (cf. Rom 10:17). This may clarify how Christ’s justification in historia salutis relates to the believer’s justification in the ordo salutis.

For example, there is a real union with Christ in his death on the cross and subsequent resurrection. As Christ accomplished his work, he accomplishes it for his chosen people. But there is also a real transition from wrath to grace in the life of the sinner saved by grace. There is no point when a declaration can be made to a sinner that their sins have been forgiven until they receive Christ’s imputed righteousness by faith. Christians are not justified in the preaching of the Word. They are justified when God acquits them of their guilt on account of an alien righteousness. To keep with the forensic/legal metaphor, without that righteousness, received by faith, there is no case.

But this rebellion, or rejection of God’s revelation, leads to irrationalism. It is irrational because God and man stand in a discontinuous relation. Thus chance rules. Meaninglessness rules. The opposite problem is entailed by Romanism. Here rationalism rules because God and man share the same being. Again, there is no need for revelation. Man can arise to the position of God by his reason alone. But this also obtains for the irrationalist as well. He also seeks to come to a knowledge of the truth through reason alone. So the Kantian is both at once and the same time a rationalist and an irrationalist. He has both chance (because he has no God ruling or speaking in the world) and determinism (since man is autonomous). Reason is the determiner for him. Likewise, the Thomist also falls into irrationalism because there is no sovereign Lord. God and man stand in a continuous relation which means that they share a substance which transcends both God and man – being. Being is then Lord, and as an impersonal Lord, cannot rule or speak with meaning. One is left with mute facts. Thus, these facts are unintelligible. In this way we can say that Barth and Thomas both ultimately fall into the same dialectical pit.

Some more on Barth. Barth, like Thomas, begins with the act of God. He reasons from the effect to the cause. He does not, like Thomas, begin with the revelation of God in Scripture. Rather, he begins with the revelation of God in Jesus Christ. The problem is, how does he get to Jesus Christ? Even if Barth does have a notion of the historical reality of the person and work of Jesus Christ, we have no way to get back in time to the Jesus Christ of history. In fact, the best we can hope for is to gain an idea of him through Scripture and the preaching ministry of the Church which both serve as fallible witnesses to the person of Jesus Christ. But, since those witnesses are not themselves the revelation of God (but mere witnesses to revelation; i.e., Jesus Christ), man must undergo a rational process quite independent of God’s revelation – and thus as autonomous – to critically determine what things in the witnesses are true about Jesus Christ and what things are not true. And now, God still remains outside of Barth’s grasp – and with God also the meaning of all things (hence his irrationalism). But to take the place of God as the arbiter of the meaning of all things is man’s autonomous reason by which he tries to get to God (here is Barth’s rationalism). The irony here is that Barth has swapped out one kind of analogia entis (Thomas’) for another. This other analogia entis is his own in which he, by reason alone, critically escalates the chain of witnesses until he arrives at who he believes is God in Jesus Christ. Barth’s thought, unfortunately, is stuck in a rational/irrational dialectic leaving both God and his creation ultimately unintelligible.

You can find Van Til’s great works on Barth here and here.

This little phrase from Richard B. Gaffin, Jr. encapsulates so much of Geerhardus Vos’ eschatological program. The phrase is meant to convey the idea that God has a plan of eschatological, consummated life laid out for Adam even before the fall into sin.  The Covenant of Works was put into place with the offer of that reward.

When attempting to demonstrate this point, we often appeal to the Tree of Life and its “reappearance” in Rev 2:7 and 22:2, 14, 19.  This occurrence demonstrates the realization of the blessings offered to Adam prior to the fall. But one place we do not often consider is the book of Job.  Job 42 offers a similar perspective on the question of eschatology.

Job undergoes terrible trials and loses almost everything.  Job was blessed in 1:2-3: “here were born to him seven sons and three daughters.  He possessed 7,000 sheep, 3,000 camels, 500 yoke of oxen, and 500 female donkeys, and very many servants, so that this man was the greatest of all the people of the east.”  All of this he lost at the hands of Satan who received permission from God to persecute him.  The book continues through several questioning episodes from Job’s friends who are convinced Job must have sinned in order to receive this portion.  Retributive theology is at work among his cohorts.  The LORD eventually speaks up in the face of Job’s questions.

Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind and said: “Dress for action like a man; I will question you, and you make it known to me. Will you even put me in the wrong? Will you condemn me that you may be in the right? Have you an arm like God, and can you thunder with a voice like his? “Adorn yourself with majesty and dignity; clothe yourself with glory and splendor. Pour out the overflowings of your anger, and look on everyone who is proud and abase him. Look on everyone who is proud and bring him low and tread down the wicked where they stand. Hide them all in the dust together; bind their faces in the world below. Then will I also acknowledge to you that your own right hand can save you. (Job 40:6-14, ESV)

Shortly thereafter, in chapter 42, Job is restored, and this is the interesting eschatological point.  Look at the details of his restoration in Job 42:12-13 “And the LORD blessed the latter days of Job more than his beginning. And he had 14,000 sheep, 6,000 camels, 1,000 yoke of oxen, and 1,000 female donkeys. He had also seven sons and three daughters.”

His blessings are doubled [except for the sons, an interpretive issue we'll save for another day].  The inheritance is expanded to his daughters – something unheard of in Job’s contemporary culture. Moreover, his daughters are named and the sons are not.  This is perplexing, but I think is illustrative of the expansive reach of the New Covenant blessing (similar to how the covenant entrance sign of baptism is given to both men and women).

God’s plan and goal for a consummated glory was in place even before man fell into sin.  It was set out for Adam to attain.  He would have entered into eschatological, consummated life had he obeyed throughout his probation period.  But he fell and now a second Adam must come to provide a way for God’s elect to reach that original goal.

This eschatology is behind the message of Job.  Job’s “salvation” is not a return to his original blessing.  Likewise, we do not look to the Garden as our heavenly reward.  We look to the New Heavens and New Earth.  Job is a prototypical righteous one who suffers while pointing to the eschatological one who comes to suffer vicariously.  This is the Christ, the one who ushers in eschatological blessings greater than anything ever present before.

As a boy, I remember my mother telling me that Amy Grant was transitioning into secular music.  I recall trying to get my head around the idea of “secular” and coming to a realization that we now had one of our own soldiers infiltrating the enemy front.  Grant was quickly followed by Michael W. Smith.  It seemed that nothing could stop our subversive onslaught.

And today, many Christians look to bands like U2 or Switchfoot to become our champion such that if their records sell, Christianity [in some form or another] would advance.  This follows because we identify the faith and its advancement with the music produced by Christian figures independent of its content.  This implicit identification comes out in Knapp’s interview.  During her difficult decision to take a hiatus from the Christian music world, she struggled with the question “If I don’t do Christian music, am I not a believer anymore?” Knapp appears to have found her identity in being a Christian musician, not primarily in Jesus Christ.

In our cult of celebrity we look to famous figures to provide hope and meaning.  Frankly, we look to them as saviors.  Take for example, the American Idol phenomenon.  The title is apropos, and the concept is one of the driving factors behind the reaction to Knapp’s interview.  Christian music figures become objects of worship because we see them as the ones who advance the kingdom.

Unfortunately this misses the point entirely.  We should not look to Christian musicians [or even, dare I say, T4G speakers] for validation.  We cannot look to the culture’s acceptance of our “Christian” artists as a gauge for the advancement of the kingdom. Christ advances his own kingdom through the Spirit. Redemption occurs exclusively through the regenerating work of the Spirit upon the souls of sinners.  So while we will be disappointed when professing Christians move away from biblical principles, if we place our trust in Jesus Christ, our living hope, we will never be disappointed.

// To hear more on the relationship between the church and culture, listen to our current Christ and Culture debate at Reformed Forum.

post photo from nolefan32 and is licensed under Creative Commons CC-BY-SA-3.0 license.

The FCC argues that Comcast must treat all forms of traffic without prejudice for fear of creating a two-tiered Internet: a slow lane for traffic that Comcast would prefer not to carry and a fast lane for “preferred” data providers.  Comcast and other ISPs are fearful of become a dumb pipe.  The last thing they want to be seen as is a utility company.  They would prefer to maintain the ability to treat the data running on their network as they see fit.

At this juncture, you may be asking what this has to do with the constituency served by Historia Salutis.  This issue is significant for many groups including independent content producers such as Reformed Forum.  Why? GigaOm reports:

Because Comcast could potentially slow down the delivery of our streaming video. Why would it do that? To protect its multichannel cable-TV oligopoly, and its owned and operated cable networks — including The Golf Channel, Style and G4 –- from web-based competition.

An added layer of complexity comes to view when we consider that Comcast recently purchased a majority stake in NBC Universal.  Comcast hypothetically can speed the delivery of its own content and slow down content from other networks.  Is this a false alarm?  I don’t think so.  These are legitimate concerns, but the question at this point is How should the government and/or consumers deal with the situation?  Should it be regulated or left to competition?

Jim Harper of the CATO Institute, a libertarian think-tank, provided a helpful rundown and perspective on the subject during an episode of the institute’s daily podcast.  Personally, I have libertarian leanings, but the problem with the argument from competition is that for many Americans, the competition necessary to make it work simply doesn’t exist.  Many consumers do not have more than one viable broadband option.  Moreover, by its very nature, the Internet is interconnected.  Though I might be a Verizon customer, if my bits happen to pass through Comcast routers, my traffic may still suffer.

This is an important issue.  I would encourage you to read up on the subject and study the arguments.  The United States is nearing several key decisions that could shape how a large portion of the Internet works for several decades.

Links

• NY Times Net Neutrality topic page

post photo by jurvetson

Christ the Center treated the subject a while back with Rick Phillips.

HT: Micah Bickford to Todd Pruitt