“The New Calvinism Considered” by Jeremy Walker

Posted by deangonzales on May 27, 2010
13 Comments

Over the past decade or so, it seems that Christian leaders and church ministries which openly associate themselves with the solas of the Reformation and Calvinistic theology have multiplied. While most of these leaders and churches share a great deal in common with the older Reformed tradition, they are also different in some ways. Accordingly, they’ve been called (and many of them accept the label) “the new Calvinists.” For a summary of the personalities and ministries associated with this growing movement, see Collin Hansen’s Young, Restless, Reformed: A Journalist’s Journey with the New Calvinists (Crossway, 2008). My friends and readers know that I’m fundamentally appreciative of what God is doing through this “movement” (see my review, “Young, Restless, Reformed: ‘Hip, Hip, Hurrah!’ or ‘Bah, Humbug!’?”)¹ and believe that we who are associated with more traditional forms of Reformed theology and practice can learn some helpful lessons from the new Calvinists. Indeed, I’m persuaded that in some ways the “old Calvinism” needs to be updated,² and in these respects we shouldn’t hesitate to imitate our “new Calvinist” brothers, where they imitate Paul and Christ. After all, don’t we “older Calvinists” also affirm the principle of semper reformanda (“always reforming”)?

The fact that I have deep appreciation for the new Calvinists and want to learn from them doesn’t mean I agree with them in all points of theology and practice. For instance, many of the new Calvinists have adopted a charismatic (or continuationist) view of the revelatory gifts in contrast with the older Calvinists, most of whom were generally cessationists. While I welcome the renewed emphasis on the importance of the Holy Spirit’s ministry and the vital place of the affections in true Christianity (which charismatic theology has often underscored), I remain unpersuaded that the revelatory gifts of tongues and prophecy are still extant today.³ There are a few other areas of theology and methodology where I might differ with some of the leaders and ministries associated with this movement. Consequently, I don’t think we should simply parrot everything the new Calvinists say or do.⁴ We should praise God for the good he’s accomplishing through these leaders and their ministries. We can and should seek to learn from them how to communicate more effectively the truths we hold dear to a 21st century generation (as opposed to a 16th and 17th century generation).⁵ But our chief allegiance must be neither to the new Calvinism nor to the old Calvinism but to sola Scriptura (“the Scriptures alone”). As a result, our assessments of the new Calvinism as well as the old Calvinism should strive for biblical balance, giving proper due both to commendation and also to caution or criticism where appropriate.

Such balanced assessments of the new Calvinism can be hard to find. On the one hand, those who identify more with the older Calvinism can tend toward a hyper-criticism, which minimizes the strengths and magnifies the weaknesses of the new Calvinism.⁶ The old Calvinists can also convey an unteachable attitude and bristle when self-criticism is offered by one of their own.⁷ On the other hand, those who identify more with the newer Calvinism can likewise manifest an undue resistance toward criticism (whether from without or from within).⁸. Moreover, in their occasional criticisms of the old Calvinists, some of the new Calvinists have, at times, unfairly stereotyped the older Calvinism and reflected an imbalanced criticism.⁹ A lack of charity and even-handedness, which can be found on both sides, is probably due, in part, to the remaining pride that still resides within us all and that shows we all need to work harder at cultivating a humbler orthodoxy.

Happily, there are those on both sides who are endeavoring to be discerning, fair, teachable and charitable in their assessments of the older and the newer versions of Calvinism. I recently became aware of a helpful post entitled “The New Calvinism Considered” by Pastor Jeremy Walker.¹⁰ Jeremy is one of the pastors of Maidenbower Baptist Church of Crawley, England. While Jeremy and his church probably identify more with the older Calvinism, he finds much to commend in the new Calvinism. Overall, I think his evaluation of the new Calvinism is mature, humble, and charitable. I generally agree with his perception and assessment of the movement though, in a few places, I might have been a little less critical,¹¹ made a few more efforts to find some good even among the “bad,”¹² and offered fuller qualifications to my remarks.¹³ In one place, I question the appropriateness of his characterization.¹⁴

Because I found Jeremy’s “The New Calvinism Considered” an overall helpful critique of the movement, I’ve listed below the 21 characteristics of the new Calvinism he highlights in his post. To read his fuller explanation of each of these points as well as the discussion generated by his post, let me encourage you to visit his blog “The Wanderer.” You’re also welcome to comment below and share whether you think Jeremy’s assessment was fair, accurate, and helpful.

So here’s a summary of the main points of Pastor Jeremy Walker’s “The New Calvinism Considered” (emphasis his):

1.  It seems to me that the broad stream of new Calvinism tends to be characterised by a desire for the glory of God.

2.  It seems to me that the broad stream of new Calvinism tends to be characterised by deep-rooted spiritual joy.

3.  It seems to me that the broad stream of new Calvinism tends to be characterised by missonal zeal.

4.  It seems to me that the broad stream of new Calvinism tends to be characterised by an emphasis on the gospel of grace and the grace of the gospel.

5.  It seems to me that the broad stream of new Calvinism tends to be characterised by complementarianism.

6.  It seems to me that the broad stream of new Calvinism tends to be characterised by a return to a more Biblical masculinity.

7.  Again related to complementarianism, it seems to me that the broad stream of new Calvinism tends to be characterised by the promotion of the family as a basic unit of church and social life.

8.  It seems to me that the broad stream of new Calvinism tends to be characterised by charismatic convictions with regard to spiritual gifts.

9.  It seems to me that the broad stream of new Calvinism tends to be characterised by Calvinist soteriology, with some departures and aberrations.

10.  It seems to me that the broad stream of new Calvinism tends to be characterised by a generally thoughtful ecumenism.

11.  It seems to me that the broad stream of new Calvinism tends to be characterised by an often pragmatic ecclesiology.

12.  It seems to me that the broad stream of new Calvinism tends to be characterised by a neo-Kuyperian view of culture.

13.  It seems to me that the broad stream of new Calvinism tends to be characterised by doctrinal if not practical antinomianism.

14.  It seems to me that the broad stream of new Calvinism tends to be characterised by contemporary worship.

15.  It seems to me that the broad stream of new Calvinism tends to be characterised by the driving force of several key personalities.

16.  It seems to me that the broad stream of new Calvinism tends to be characterised by the ready embrace and employment of new technologies and media and the platforms that they provide.

17.  It seems to me that the broad stream of new Calvinism tends to be characterised by a concentration on a younger, more urban demographic.

18.  It seems to me that the broad stream of new Calvinism tends to be characterised by the desire to be big and to have a seat at culture’s table.

19.  It seems to me that the broad stream of new Calvinism tends to be characterised by an ambivalent relationship to church history.

20.  It seems to me that the broad stream of new Calvinism tends to be characterised by sensitivity to the judicial and social aspects of the gospel at work in society.

21.  It seems to me that the broad stream of new Calvinism tends to be characterised by Americocentrism.

Bob Gonzales, Dean
Reformed Baptist Seminary

1. See also Brian Borgman’s “Brothers, There Is No Need to Circle the Wagons!” [↩]
2. See my series “The Danger of Reformed Traditionalism” Part 1 and Part 2. [↩]
3. See my series, “The Cessation of Special Revelation: A Humble Argument for the Cessation of NT Prophecy and Tongues”. [↩]
4. I’m doubtful they would want us to follow them as if they were infallible guides. [↩]
5. As Richard Pratt puts it, “To represent Reformed theology, we must re-present it. Simply repeating Reformed theology doesn’t represent it at all.” “John Frame and the Future of the Church,” in Speaking the Truth in Love: The Theology of John Frame, ed. John J. Hughes (Presbyterian & Reformed, 2009), 952. Pratt’s article seeks to address some of the challenges for Reformed theology in the 21st century, and he offers some helpful advice (following in the line of John Frame’s theological insights) on how Reformed Christians can and should more effectively communicate biblical truth in the shifting cultural contexts of the future. I found much helpful food for thought throughout Pratt’s entire article. [↩]
6. One example that comes to mind is Dan Borvan’s “Old, Grumpy, and (Actually) Reformed,” which I accessed some time ago but can not longer do so because it’s password protected. [↩]
7. As someone who’s associated with the older Calvinism and has offered self-criticism, I’ve learned this through personal experience. [↩]
8. Note, for instance, some of the backlash Bill Streger, an Acts 29 pastor, received when he offered what I considered to be a healthy exhortation in his “Uncool People Need Jesus Too” [↩]
9. See, for example, Mark Driscoll’s “New Calvinism versus Old Calvinism,” which oversimplifies some of the differences and tends to caricature the older Calvinism. Of course, the old Calvinists have also been guilty of caricaturing the new Calvinists. [↩]
10. Jeremy provided me with this brief biographical sketch: Pastor Jeremy Walker was born in 1975 to godly parents in Crawley, England.  Although he kicked hard against the goads, the Lord God was pleased to deal graciously and patiently with him during his teenage years, slowly drawing him to Jesus Christ. He studied English Language and Literature at the University of Leicester before working for five years for the Ministry of Defence in London, at which time he also returned to the church in Crawley. During these periods, God was again pleased to work in his heart, forming a desire for the ministry of his Word. After a time of study and service with this in view, in January 2004 he was recognised as a pastor of Maidenbower Baptist Church, Crawley, where he continues to serve. He is married to Alissa, and God has blessed them with two sons, Caleb and William. He is a co-author of A Portrait of Paul: Identifying a True Minister of Christ (due October 2010). [↩]
11. I’m not sure I agree with Walker’s characterization of the new Calvinists under the heading “an ambivalent relationship to church history” (#19), suggesting, it seems to me, the new Calvinists fail to appreciate that many of the great truths they’ve “discovered” have been around for a while. It appears to me, however, that most of the new Calvinists are well aware they stand on the shoulders of many who’ve gone before. See, for example, John Piper’s biographical series The Swans Are Not Silent in which he traces many of the doctrines and values of his “new Calvinism” to men like Athanasius, Augustine, Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Bunyan, John Owen, William Cooper, John Newton, Charles Simeon, etc. Piper has also labored to show that his “Christian Hedonism” is not something entirely new but finds its roots in Jonathan Edwards and the Puritans. Yes, he does give some credit to the Anglican philosopher C. S. Lewis, but I think he finds the greatest continuity with Edwards’ theology. [↩]
12. Although I don’t agree with a charismatic view of the revelatory gifts, as do many of the new Calvinists, I’m sympathetic with a stress on the importance of the Holy Spirit’s ongoing ministry and the vital place of the emotions in the Christian life and worship. Sometimes, the old Calvinism sometimes tends to emphasize outward form over the inward disposition and the intellect over the emotions. In its polemic against a charismatic view of the gifts, the older Calvinism can fail to underscore the Christian’s and church’s need for the Spirit’s guidance and empowerment. [↩]
13. First, when Walker characterizes their ecclesiology as “pragmatic” (#11), I’d be quick to point out that the Bible itself commends what might be termed “principled pragmatism,” that is, the  pursuit of those methodologies that are most efficient within the parameters of biblical principles (e.g., Prov 22:29). And since the Bible and even the Puritan confessions call for principled pragmatism in the realm of church ministry, worship, and outreach with respect to what is circumstantial in nature (see, for instance, 2LBCF 1.6), we should strive to be more precise in our caveats and criticisms of others’ ecclesiastical methodologies. The question is not whether the new Calvinists are “pragmatic” in some aspects of their ecclesiology. They should be and so should we. The question, rather, is whether their pragmatism stays within the bounds of the light of nature, Christian prudence, and the general principles of God’s word. Actually, Walker would agree with my point here. If you read his explanation, you’ll learn that he’s really questioning some not all of their pragmatism and even suggests that we older Calvinists may need to be a little more pragmatic in the proper sense. I simply want to highlight the need to recognize the different nuances (bad and good) of the concept of “pragmatism.” It’s not always a bad word. Second, Walker’s characterization of the new Calvinists’ worship as contemporary (#14) should be qualified by the fact that a number of the men he mentions in his review actually advocate a blended worship in which both traditional and contemporary forms and genres are used. Third, the fact that the new Calvinism as a movement is driven largely by key personalities (#15) is nothing new. Does not the “old Calvinism” also have its heroes (Turretin, Owen, Edwards, Hodge, Warfield, Spurgeon, etc.) who are all often portrayed as revolving in orbit around the man himself, Jean Cauvin? Finally, while I agree with Walker that some of the new Calvinists do express a concern for their churches to grow large (#16), I think we (especially those of us who pastor small churches) should be careful in our critique of this desire. The apostle Paul wanted to see as many sinners saved as possible (1 Cor 9:19ff.), and he endeavored to accommodate his ministry in order to procure (with God’s blessing) that end. If, as Walker suggests in point #1, the new Calvinists are truly characterized by a desire for the glory of God, it would seem unlikely that they’re pursuing numbers merely for numbers sake. As a case in point, Mark Driscoll and the elders of Mars Hill Church recently decided to dissolve the membership of their church, have Mark teach a series on doctrine, and then reconstitute the membership on a more solid foundation. As a result, they lost about 1,000 members (see an interview with Driscoll here). While we might question the propriety of such a move (did the congregation approve it first?), we can at least applaud the fact that the elders of Mars Hill appear to value something more than mere numerical size. [↩]
14. Walker describes the 13th characteristic of neo-Calvinism as a tendency toward a “doctrinal if not practical antinomianism.” He seems to base this conclusion largely on the fact that many of the new Calvinists fail to affirm and practice a Puritan view of the Lord’s Day as the “Christian Sabbath.” While I don’t contest that many of the new Calvinists’ view of the Lord’s Day may not fully conform to Puritan or even biblical standards, I find the epithet “antinomianism” too strong. Literally, the term means “opposed to law,” and has been historically applied to sects that reject, minimize, or marginalize the abiding relevance of the Bible’s moral standards for Christian living under grace. But most new Calvinists I’m familiar with not only affirm the relevance of all the moral standards (i.e., commands or laws) in the NT but also those of the OT, which they perceive to be of a moral and abiding character. True, many of the new Calvinists question the abiding validity of the fourth commandment or at least its “sabbath” aspect. But even among the older Calvinists one may find some disagreement as to the precise way in which and extent to which the fourth commandment applies today. Accordingly, I wouldn’t characterize the new Calvinists as antinomians, which can give the impression that they fail to view the Scriptures not only as a revelation of the gospel but also as a revelation of God’s abiding moral expectations for humanity and the church. This label may also give the impression that the new Calvinists advocate moral laxity or a licentious lifestyle, which anyone familiar with their teaching would see is untrue. [↩]

Of the State of Man after Death and of the Resurrection of the Dead: An Exposition of the 1689 London Baptist Confession, XXXI

Posted by deangonzales on April 26, 2010
1 Comment

There is no topic so universally relevant and yet so commonly avoided as death—especially in modern America. Americans are willing to talk about morality, politics, religion, and a host of other hot topics. When it comes to serious reflection upon the significance of death, however, they’re quick to “change the subject.” In fact, most of us spend the majority of our lives in a kind of subconscious denial of the reality of death. But then, as Lorraine Boettner notes,

Suddenly the bottom drops out of our world. Perhaps a mother or father, or some other relative or friend, is taken, leaving an aching void. Many of us have already had that experience. We have watched the changing face and have listened helplessly to the shortening breath. We have spoken or looked the last good-bye, and then, in an instant, the departing one has passed out of sight and out of hearing, into the world of the unknown. The body which, perhaps only yesterday, was so full of life and animation now lies before us an insensate piece of clay. A short time ago the one we loved was here, going about his world or speaking to us; and now, perhaps in one moment, he is gone—gone so very, very far away. What baffling thoughts rush in upon the mind in those moments pressing for an answer! But there is no answer in either reason or experience. The Bible alone has the answer for the thoughts that come with such perplexity and insistence.¹

Sooner or later we must face the inevitable reality of death. And as Mr. Boettner notes, neither human reason nor experience alone can prepare us for life beyond the grave. The Bible alone can provide us the answers we need, and chapter 31 the Confession of Faith gives us a helpful summary of the Bible’s teaching.² Paragraph 1 addresses the intermediate state, and paragraph two the bodily resurrection.

I. The Intermediate State (para. 1)

The term “intermediate” underscores two facts about the condition described in this paragraph: (1) this state immediately follows death, and (2) this state is intermediate not final. Let’s reflect on the teaching of the Confession:

The bodies of men after death return to dust, and see corruption; but their souls, which neither die nor sleep, having an immortal subsistence, immediately return to God who gave them. The souls of the righteous being then made perfect in holiness, are received into paradise [‘the highest heavens,’ WCF], where they are with Christ, and behold the face of God in light and glory, waiting for the full redemption of their bodies; and the souls of the wicked are cast into hell; where they remain in torment and utter darkness, reserved to the judgment of the great day; besides these two places, for souls separated from their bodies, the Scripture acknowledges none.

A. The separation of body and soul at death

According to the first sentence, the immediate destiny of the human body and soul are distinct. As a result of Adam’s sin and God’s curse, the “bodies of men after death return to dust” (Gen. 2:17; 3:19). That is, the human body is subject to decay and decomposition (Acts 13:36; 1 Cor. 15:22). This tragic and unnatural reality has been confirmed by several millennia of human experience. Scripture teaches, however, that human beings are not merely physical but are also spiritual creatures. They consist of body and soul or spirit (Gen. 2:7; James 2:26; Matt. 10:28;  Eccl. 12:7).³ Human “souls, which neither die nor sleep, having an immortal subsistence, immediately return to God who gave them.” Following Scripture, our Confession flatly rejects materialism. Man is much more than just a mass of atoms and electro-chemical impulses. He has an immortal soul. Consequently, human life and death have abiding meaning and value. How we live now has ramifications that last for eternity! Furthermore, human death itself is not a natural process but a penal consequence of sin and judgment of God. Not surprisingly, all men, even unbelievers, fear death (Heb. 2:14) and grieve the loss of loved ones. It is this theological perspective on death that makes Christ’s resurrection and the believer’s future resurrection such good news!

B.  The separation of the righteous and the wicked at death

After death the human soul is immediately translated into God’s presence in order to receive preliminary reward or punishment. This results in a separation between the souls of the righteous and those of the wicked. The Confession describes several facets of the reward awaiting righteous souls. To begin with, they are “made perfect in holiness” (1 Pet. 5:9-10; Heb. 12:22-23).⁴ For the first time in their experience, they will be able to “love [God] with unsinning heart.”⁵ Second, they “are received into paradise” (Luke 23:43; Rev. 2:7), which the Apostle Paul identifies as the third heaven (2 Cor. 12:2-4).⁶  Third, the souls of the righteous “are with Christ” (Luke 23:43; John 14:1-3; 17:24; 2 Cor. 5:6-8; Phil. 1:21-23; 1Thes. 4:17; Rev. 20:4-6).⁷ Fourth, they “behold the face of God in light and glory” (Matt. 5:8; 1 Cor. 13:12; Heb. 12:14; 1 Jn. 3:2, 6; Rev. 22:4), which theologians have commonly called “the beatific vision.”⁸ But though this reward is glorious beyond comprehension, the Confession reminds us that it is only preliminary, since we will be “waiting for the full redemption of [our] bodies.”⁹

In contrast, the souls of the wicked are punished. The Confession identifies the place of their punishment as “hell,” which is used in Scripture for the intermediate state as well as the eternal state of unbelievers (Ps. 9:17; Prov. 15:24; Isa. 14:9; Matt. 5:22, 29, 30; 10:28; 11:23; Luke 16:23-31; 2 Pet. 2:4). Here they will “remain in torment and utter darkness” (Matt. 8:12; 22:13; 25:30; Luke 6:23-31; 2Pet. 2:4; Jude 6, 13).¹⁰  Yet, as with the righteous, the state of the wicked is only provisional, since they are “reserved to the judgment of the great day” (2 Pet. 2:4-9; Jude 6, 13).

Paragraph one ends by emphasizing the absence of alternatives: “besides these two places, for souls separated from their bodies, the Scripture acknowledges none.” The Puritans were, no doubt, aiming this statement primarily at the Roman Catholic dogma of purgatory. According to this doctrine,

The great mass of partially sanctified Christians dying in fellowship with the church but nevertheless encumbered with some degree of sin go to purgatory where, for a longer or shorter time, they suffer until all sin is purged away, after which they are translated to heaven.¹¹

This teaching is related to the Roman Catholic view of sin and atonement. Since satisfaction for sin must come in part from the believer’s own merit and since most believers fail to achieve sufficient merit in this life, the Church has accommodated this deficiency by providing its members with further opportunity beyond the grave. But this doctrine not only lacks Scriptural support, it also denies the sufficiency of Christ’s atonement and has provided countless thousands of people with a false security. The Confession, in consonance with Scripture, reminds us that there is no second chance to repent and get right with God after death.¹²  Just as Esau’s tears failed to change Isaac’s mind,¹³ so too the tears of those who lived godless, impenitent lives on earth will not prevail in changing Jesus’ mind at the Day of Judgment. “Behold, now is the accepted time. Behold, now is the day of salvation” (2 Cor. 6:2).

II. The Bodily Resurrection (paras. 2, 3)

Paragraph two describes the timing, recipients, and nature of the resurrection; paragraph three addresses the final outcome.

At the last day, such of the saints as are found alive, shall not sleep, but be changed; and all the dead shall be raised up with the selfsame bodies, and none other; although with different qualities, which shall be united again to their souls forever.

The bodies of the unjust shall, by the power of Christ, be raised to dishonour; the bodies of the just, by his Spirit, unto honour, and be made conformable to his own glorious body.

A.  The timing of the resurrection

The second paragraph begins by locating the bodily resurrection “at the last day” (John 6:35-40; 11:24). This phrase refers to that period in the history of this present age when God’s redemptive purposes will be consummated. Thus, the resurrection will mark God’s final victory over Satan, sin, and death (1 Cor. 15:51-54). Note carefully both the futurity and the singularity of the resurrection. Because Scripture describes the resurrection as a future event, we must oppose attempts by some modern Preterists¹⁴ to spiritualize all NT references to the resurrection and thereby reject its futurity and bodily nature (cf. 2 Tim. 2:18). Because Scripture seems to present the resurrection as a singular event (Dan. 12:2; John 5:28-29; Acts 24:14-15; 1 Cor. 15:20-26, 51-54), we need not feel constrained to postulate several distinct stages of the resurrection.¹⁵

B.  The recipients of the resurrection

“All the dead shall be raised up” (Dan. 12:2; John 5:28-29; Acts 24:14-15) except “such of the saints as are found alive” who, like Enoch and Elijah, “shall not sleep, but be changed” (Gen. 5:24; 2 Kgs. 2:11; 1 Cor. 15:50-53; 1 Thes. 4:17). Those who deny the bodily resurrection are in for a big surprise! Sadducees, skeptics, and atheists will all someday be raised from the dead. Unbelief will not exempt them. Cremation will not deliver them. The mountains and rocks will not hide them (Rev. 6:15-17). Every person who ever lived will some day physically stand before God at the Great White Throne Judgment (Rev. 20:11-15).

C.  The nature of the resurrection

Exactly what shall be raised at the last day? In other words, what shall be the precise nature of the resurrection body? The Confession answers this question in terms of continuity and discontinuity.

1.  There is continuity with our present body

All men shall be raised “with the selfsame bodies and none other.” God will not start over from scratch! The body He raises at the last day will be the same body laid to rest in the grave. The evidence for such continuity includes the following. First, the biblical terminology for resurrection refers to the raising of something previously prostrate and implies continuity.¹⁶ Second, the biblical descriptions of the resurrection clearly identify the objects of God’s resurrecting activity as those bodies which were laid in the grave (cf. Job 19:23-27; John 5:28-29; Rom. 8:11). Third, the New Testament writers compare our resurrection to Christ’s resurrection, which undeniably involved His “selfsame” body (Luke 24:36-43; John 20:24-27; 1 Cor. 15:49; Phil. 3:21). At this point, some have objected to a future resurrection on empirical grounds. They point out the fact that many bodies have been digested by animals, cremated by fire, or vaporized by bombs. Empirically speaking, some bodies no longer exist as such to be raised. However, this objection underestimates the power of God. If human scientists now have the ability to clone an entire human body from the DNA of one human cell, why should we find it difficult to believe the God who spoke this present world into existence is able to retrieve our DNA and reconstitute the same body that was destroyed? Fourth, God’s purpose of redemption—to redeem His original creation—demands the resurrection of those same bodies which were laid in the grave (Rom. 8:18-23). “Thus,” as Anthony Hoekema notes, “the universe will not be destroyed but renewed, and God will win the victory.”¹⁷  The fact that God will redeem our same bodies then ought to affect the way we treat our bodies now (1 Cor. 6:12-20; 1 Thess. 4:1-8).

2.  There is discontinuity with our present body

After affirming the continuity of the resurrection body, the Confession makes a qualification: “although with different qualities, which shall be united again to their souls for ever” (emphasis mine). The primary passage teaching a discontinuity between our present bodies and our resurrection bodies is 1 Corinthians 15:35-44. The question is raised, “How are the dead raised up and with what body do they come?” (15:35). Paul begins his answer by using the analogy of a seed sown in the earth (15:36-38). Not only is there continuity between the sown seed and sprouted plant, but there is discontinuity as well: “you do not sow that body that shall be” (15:37). Next, Paul compares the difference between the present body and resurrection body to distinctions among the animal kingdom and celestial bodies (15:39-41). Finally, in verses 42 through 49, Paul identifies the contrasting qualities of our mortal and immortal body. Our mortal body is subject to disease, decay, and death; our immortal is imperishable (15:42). Our mortal body, when dead, is buried in dishonor, but our future body, when raised, will shine with brilliant splendor (15:43). Our mortal body is characterized by impotence; our future body will be characterized by indefatigable vitality (15:43b). Our mortal body is suited for the first creation, but the resurrection body will be suited for the new creation (15:44-49).¹⁸

Maintaining both the continuity as well as the discontinuity of the resurrection is crucial for the believer’s hope. On the one hand, the continuity of the resurrection (and of the new creation) reminds us that we ourselves—not some new person who will replace us—will enjoy the very same creation that we presently enjoy. On the other hand, the discontinuity of the resurrection (and of the world to come) reminds us the future will be far better! Present sorrows, weaknesses, blemishes, ugliness, defects, handicaps, pains, decay, and death will be gone. We will enjoy a far more glorious world with far greater mental, emotional, and physical capacities.

D.  The outcome of the resurrection

The third paragraph reminds us that though all the dead shall be raised, the final outcome for the believer and the unbeliever will be vastly different: “The bodies of the unjust shall, by the power of Christ, be raised to dishonor; the bodies of the just, by his Spirit, unto honor, and be made conformable to his own glorious body” (Dan. 12:2, 3). Whereas the believer has much to anticipate; the unbeliever has much to dread. Let us, therefore, like Paul, count all things loss for Christ in order than we might attain to the Christian resurrection from the dead (Phil. 3:7-11).

Select Bibliography for Further Study

Boettner, Lorraine. Immortality. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956.
Donnelly, Edward. The Biblical Doctrine of Heaven and Hell. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 2002.
Hodge, A. A. Commentary on the Confession of Faith, pp. 515-26. Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1901.
Hoekema, Anthony. The Bible and the Future, pp. 86-108; 239-52. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979.
Milne, Bruce. The Message of Heaven and Hell: Grace and Destiny. Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity Press, 2002.
Piper, John. Future Grace, pp. 353-82. Sisters, OR.: Multnomah Press, 1995.
Salmond, S. D. F. The Biblical Doctrine of Immortality. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1895; reprint, Klock & Klock, 1984.
Shaw, Robert. Exposition of the Westminster Confession of Faith, pp. 314-21. 1845; reprint, Ross-shire, U.K.: Christian Focus, 1992.
Venema, Cornelius. The Promise of the Future, pp. 35-75; 363-91. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 2000.
Waldron, Samuel. A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, 2nd edition, pp. 375-412. Durham: Evangelical Press, 1995.
Williamson, G. I. The Westminster Confession of Faith for Study Classes, pp. 252-58. Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1964.

Bob Gonzales
Dean and Professor of Biblical Studies
Reformed Baptist Seminary

1. Immortality (Eerdmans, 1956), 10. [↩]
2. The Baptist Confession does not significantly alter the Westminster or Savoy. I have underlined the few Baptist changes or additions. [↩]
3. For a biblical defense of dichotomy, namely, that the human person consists of two basic elements not three, see my article, “Man’s Constitution as a Physical-Spiritual Unity,” Reformed Baptist Theological Review VI:1 (Spring 2009): 29-43; and volume 2 of John Murray, Collected Writings (Banner of Truth, 1977), 23-33. [↩]
4. There is a sense in which we may refer to this perfection in holiness as “complete sanctification.” However, there is another sense in which, from a biblical standpoint, complete sanctification includes the body (see Romans 8:18-23; 1 Thess. 5:23; 1 Jn. 3:2-3). [↩]
5. I borrow this language from Robert Murray McCheyne’s hymn, “When This Passing World Is Done.” (no. 545 in the Trinity Hymnal, rev. ed.). [↩]
6. The word for paradise (paradeisos) is a Persian loan word. In light of this, some modern scholars have argued that the Jews and Christians derived their concept of heaven from the Persian religion of Zoroastrianism. But such a conclusion does not follow. The Jews, and later the Christians, merely appropriated a term from another culture and language to depict a reality that had been previously revealed to them via Moses before any contact with the Persians. [↩]
7. I would agree with Edward Donnelly when he refers to this as the Bible’s favorite way of describing heaven. The Biblical Doctrine of Heaven and Hell (Banner of Truth, 2002), 80-81. This description also serves to emphasize the essential connection between one’s future hope and a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. No wonder that the closeness of a man’s walk with Christ in this life usually determines his degree of hope with which he faces death: “Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil; for You are with me; Your rod and staff, they comfort me” (emphasis mine; Psa. 23:4). [↩]
8. Theologians have debated the exact nature of this vision for at least two reasons: first, during the intermediate state, the souls of the righteous will not have physical eyes with which to see. For this reason, some theologians view this “vision” as consisting in direct, intuitive knowledge. Anyone who has experienced the dream state, however, will realize that physical eyes are not absolutely necessary to “see” (e.g., Gen. 28:12-16). Second, the Scriptures teach that God is a Spirit, and therefore, invisible. This is true. However, the Bible is replete with examples of theophanic displays, that is, instances when God manifested His presence through some physical display of light and splendor (e.g., Exo. 33:17-34:8). But more importantly, there is good reason to believe that we will behold God’s face in the face of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the greatest of all theophanies (cf. John 14:8-11; 1 Jn. 3:2, 6; Rev. 22:4). [↩]
9. In addition to the full redemption of our bodies, we will also await our public vindication, the judgment of our enemies, the final allotment of our inheritance and that of our brothers and sisters in Christ. [↩]
10. Jesus’ account of the rich man in Hades, which is a key text for the intermediate state, seems to describe the man’s agony in physical language. But how can a bodiless soul experience physical torment? In response, it may be argued out that Jesus used physical language because the intermediate state of the wicked, like that of the righteous, is a foretaste of the eternal state, which will be physical in nature. Therefore, there must be some point of correspondence. Both states involve a torment that is both conscious and painful. Furthermore, as noted above, we all have experienced vivid dreams in which the pleasure, pain, danger, etc., seemed quite real and even physical, though our bodies were uninvolved. Thus, it is not impossible to conceive of a bodiless torment that is nevertheless quite real. [↩]
11. “Purgatory” in the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter Elwel (Baker Books, 1984), 897. [↩]
12. In addition to the Roman Catholic view of purgatory, the language of the Confession also rejects the doctrine of soul sleep as held by Seventh-Day Adventists and Jehovah’s Witnesses today. [↩]
13. Some have wrongly interpreted Hebrews 12:17 to teach that Esau prayed for the gift of repentance, but God denied it to him, since he was not one of the elect. In my opinion, this view represents a perverted form of Calvinism and contradicts other passages, which emphasize God’s desire that all men repent and believe (Ezek. 33:10-11; John 5:28; 2 Tim. 2:4; 2 Pet. 3:9). A casual comparison of the Hebrews text with the incident recorded in Genesis reveals it was the material blessing which Esau sought and for which we wept (Gen. 27:34-38). [↩]
14. Preterists interprets nearly all the eschatological events of the NT (especially the Book of the Revelation) as already having taken place at the time of the book’s writing. [↩]
15. Premillennialists have traditionally divided the resurrection into at least two distinct stages—the first stage occurring at Christ’s return just prior to a 1,000 year millennial reign, and the second occurring at the end of the millennial reign. This view depends largely on the reference to “the first resurrection” in Revelation 20. Dispensational Premillennialists have further divided the resurrection into three or four stages, the first occurring before a “pre-tribulation rapture.” I question much of the exegesis associated with such views. Nevertheless, when it comes to certain aspects of eschatological events, we presently “see in a mirror dimly” (1 Cor. 13:12). Just as the Old Testament saints who lived during the time of Christ’s first advent were wrong about certain particulars of His coming, it is possible the church may be wrong about some of the particulars related to Christ’s second coming. In my opinion, we should avoid too much dogmatism about the particular details of Christ’s return where good, orthodox men have disagreed. [↩]
16. The Greek term for resurrection is anastasis, which, like the English term, refers to a raising up of that which was prostrate. As Anthony Hoekema notes, “There must be continuity, for otherwise there would be little point in speaking about a resurrection at all. The calling into existence of a completely new set of people totally different from the present inhabitants of the earth would not be a resurrection.” The Bible and the Future (Eerdmans, 1979), 251. [↩]
17. Ibid., 250. [↩]
18. To be precise, Paul uses the contrasting terms “natural” and “spiritual.” A superficial reading of Paul’s language might give the impression that Paul views our future resurrected body as immaterial or non-physical. But such an interpretation would contradict all the other biblical teaching of the resurrection. It is better to see “spiritual,” in this context, as that which is suited for existence in the Age to Come (cf. 2 Cor. 5:1; Heb. 9:11). [↩]

Of Christian Liberty and Liberty of Conscience: A Brief Exposition of the LBCF XXI

Posted by deangonzales on March 14, 2010
3 Comments

Modern Christians seem to marginalize the doctrine of Christian liberty. The subject is rarely discussed in any systematic theologies. Even practical books on Christian living often gloss over the topic. For some, the doctrine of Christian liberty is just not that important in relationship to other doctrines of the faith. For others, the doctrine of Christian liberty is too controversial. Consequently, many modern Christians fail to give this doctrine the attention it deserves. In contrast, the Reformers and the Puritans saw the doctrine of Christian liberty as central to the Christian faith. Martin Luther wrote an entire book on this subject.¹ John Calvin devoted an entire chapter in the Institutes to “Christian Freedom,” and he argues that any summary of gospel teaching must include this topic.² John Owen referred to Christian liberty as “the second principle of the Reformation.”³ And the Westminster divines and Baptist Puritans agreed by according the doctrine of Christian liberty an entire chapter in our Confession of Faith.⁴

I believe the Reformers and Puritans had Scriptural warrant for their emphasis upon Christian liberty. Following the claims of Jesus Himself (John 8:32-36), the apostle Paul assured believers that Christ had saved them for freedom (Rom. 6:18, 22; 2 Cor. 3:17; Gal. 5:1, 13). In light of this, it is vital that the modern church regain a proper understanding of and appreciation for the doctrine of Christian liberty. We must not allow potential controversy or abuse to keep us from enjoying the blessings Christian liberty was designed to attain.

I.     The Nature of Christian Liberty (para. 1)

The liberty which Christ hath purchased for believers under the gospel, consists in their freedom from the guilt of sin, the condemning wrath of God, the rigour and curse of the law, and in their being delivered from this present evil world, bondage to Satan, and dominion of sin, from the evil of afflictions, the fear and sting of death, the victory of the grave, and everlasting damnation: as also in their free access to God, and their yielding obedience unto Him, not out of slavish fear, but a child-like love and willing mind.
All which were common also to believers under the law for the substance of them; but under the New Testament the liberty of Christians is further enlarged, in their freedom from the yoke of a ceremonial law, to which the Jewish church was subjected, and in greater boldness of access to the throne of grace, and in fuller communications of the free Spirit of God, than believers under the law did ordinarily partake of.

The first paragraph consists of two parts. The first part describes Christian liberty under the gospel. The second part alludes to Christian liberty prior to the gospel under the law, and then compares the two. For our purposes, we’ll consider the teaching of this entire paragraph under three headings:

A. The basis of Christian liberty: Christ’s saving transaction

The paragraph begins by identifying Christ’s redemptive work on behalf of believers as the basis of Christian liberty (John 8:36; Gal. 3:13). This implies two complementary truths. First, all men outside of Christ are in bondage and do not enjoy true freedom. Second, only those who believe in Christ, whom Christ purchased with His own blood, can truly enjoy the benefits of Christian liberty. What are those benefits?

B. The essence of Christian liberty: Freedom from … freedom for …

The essence of Christian liberty may be viewed from two perspectives:

1.  Negatively, Christian liberty is …

Firstly, freedom from the guilt of sin, both subjective and objective guilt: “freedom from the guilt of sin, the condemning wrath of God, the rigour and curse of the law” (John 3:36; Rom. 5:1; Gal. 3:13). Secondly, Christian liberty is freedom from the power of sin: “delivered from this present evil world, bondage to Satan, and dominion of sin” (Gal. 1:4; Eph. 2:1-3; Col. 1:13; Rom. 6:14-22).  Thirdly, Christian liberty is freedom from the punishment of sin: “from the evil of afflictions,⁵ the fear and sting of death, the victory of the grave, and everlasting damnation” (Psa. 119:71; Rom. 8:18-28; 1 Cor. 15:54-57; Heb. 2:14-15).

2.  Positively, Christian liberty is …

Freedom for Godward communion and for heartfelt obedience: “as also in their free access to God, and their yielding obedience unto him, not out of slavish fear, but a child-like love and willing mind” (Eph. 2:18; 3:12; Rom. 8:15; 1 John 4:18).

In summary, Christian liberty consists in our freedom from the bondage of sin and our freedom to know and please God which Christ has purchased for all who believe in Him. But that raises an important question: Did Old Testament believers experience this freedom?

C. The development of Christian liberty: From law to gospel

It’s common for modern Christians to downplay any fundamental continuity between the Old Testament and New Testament saint. Consequently, some view Christian liberty as the experience of only the New Testament believer.⁶ The Puritans, however, did not view the Old and New Testaments in terms of two distinct religions with different religious experiences. Rather, they saw an organic unity with development and progression. As a result, they saw the benefits of Christian liberty as “common also to believers under the law for the substance of them.” That is, the blessings of Christian liberty belonged to the Old Testament saint in essence. On the other hand, the Puritans also recognized that such blessings have been “enlarged” for the New Testament believer. Thus, Christian liberty as experience by the Old Testament saint and the New Testament saint differs not so much in kind but in degree.

In his exposition of the confession, Sam Waldron identifies Jesus’ words in John 8:32 as the key text for this understanding of Christian liberty.⁷ In that text, Jesus asserts that it is the truth of the gospel that sets men free.  The Old Testament saint did know and embrace gospel truth (Gal. 3:8, 16). Therefore, the Old Testament saint experienced a freedom commensurate with the truth revealed to him. Conversely, the New Testament saint has received more gospel light than the Old Testament saint. Therefore, he no longer has to depend upon the shadows of Old Testament ceremonial laws. Now he can see the light of the glory of God directly shining from the face of Jesus Christ (2 Cor. 3:7-4:6). Furthermore, the New Testament saint’s experience of Christian liberty is potentially, in the language of the Confession, “greater” and “fuller.”⁸

II.   The Boundaries of Christian Liberty (para. 2)

God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are in any thing contrary to his word, or not contained in it. So that to believe such doctrines, or obey such commands out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience; and the requiring of an implicit faith, an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience and reason also.

Paragraph two addresses what modern Christians often have in view when discussing the topic of Christian liberty, namely, liberty of conscience. However, liberty of conscience is actually just one facet of Christian liberty. In particular, liberty of conscience addresses the boundaries of Christian liberty.⁹

A. Positively, God’s Word is the sole authority of a liberated conscience.

The second paragraph begins with an obvious yet profound assertion: “God alone is Lord of the conscience.” And according to the Confession’s opening chapter, God administers His lordship over the conscience through the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. Thus, liberty of conscience is a corollary of sola Scriptura. It was this great truth that emboldened Luther to stand firm at the Diet of Worms.¹⁰

B. Negatively, human standards are not the authority of a liberated conscience.

If God’s word is the ultimate authority for a liberated conscience, then the believer is “free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are in anything contrary to his Word, or not contained in it.” This does not mean the believer is free from all appropriate forms of human authority (see paragraph 4 of Westminster Confession of Faith below). Nevertheless, it does mean that the believer is free from human authority when it usurps the place of divine authority (Matt. 15:9; Acts 4:19; 5:29; 1 Cor. 7:23). Two implications follow. First, we may believe human doctrines and obey human standards only insofar as they are consistent with God’s word (Gal. 1:10; 2:3-5; Col. 2:20, 22-23). Second, we should not require others to render implicit faith or blind obedience. That is, we should not demand another man believe and obey our teaching as biblical and divinely authoritative without seeking to demonstrate that such doctrines and commands are based on God’s word (Isa. 8:20; Acts 17:11; 2 Cor. 1:24; 1 John 4:1-6).

III.  The Abuses of Christian Liberty (para. 3 [and WCF 4])

Historically, the doctrine of Christian liberty has been a bulwark against the authoritarian abuses of both church and state. Yet, history also demonstrates that one extreme may also give rise to another. Not surprisingly, some Anabaptist sects and radical revolutionaries used the doctrine of Christian liberty as a pretense for licentious and lawless conduct.¹¹ As a result, the Puritans felt constrained to address these abuses of Christian freedom.

A. A licentious disregard for genuine biblical morality (para. 3)

They who upon pretense of Christian liberty do practice any sin, or cherish any sinful lust, as they do thereby pervert the main design of the grace of the gospel to their own destruction, so they wholly destroy the end of Christian liberty, which is, that being delivered out of the hands of all our enemies, we might serve the Lord without fear, in holiness and righteousness before Him, all the days of our lives.

The main design and goal of Christian liberty is not freedom to do as I (autonomously) please (cf. 1Pet. 2:16; Gal. 5:18).  This is nothing more than license to sin, and, as G. I. Williamson points out, “License is that vain and deceiving thing which Satan has offered as a substitute. It is the suggestion that sinful man be unrestricted in setting his own moral standards and doing his own will.”¹² The design and goal of Christian liberty is, rather, freedom to do what pleases God. The liberated Christian has become the “servant of righteousness” (Rom. 6:18, 22).

B. A lawless disregard for God-ordained human authority (para. 4)

[And because the power which God hath ordained, and the liberty which Christ hath purchased are not intended by God to destroy but mutually to uphold and preserve one another; they who, upon the pretense of Christian liberty, shall oppose any lawful power, or the lawful exercise of it, whether it be civil or ecclesiastical, resist the ordinance of God.  And for their publishing of such opinions, or maintaining of such practices, as are contrary to the light of nature, or to the known principles of Christianity, whether concerning faith, worship, or conversation; or to the power of godliness; or such erroneous opinions or practices, as, either in their own nature, or in the manner of publishing or maintaining them, are destructive to the external peace and order which Christ hath established in the Church; they may lawfully be called to account, and proceeded against by the censures of the Church, and by the power of the Civil Magistrate.]

As the brackets indicate, this last paragraph is found in the Westminster Confession but was omitted in the Savoy and the 1689. The reason for this omission was probably due to the teaching of the second half of the paragraph, which, in its original historical context, implied the establishment of one state church and allowed for the intervention of the state in punishing heresy. In other words, this paragraph was seen as an open door to the intrusion of the state in matters that are purely ecclesiastical. The American Presbyterians partly acknowledged this problem with the paragraph by omitting the last phrase with its proof-texts.

Properly interpreted, this paragraph is primarily concerned with the due recognition of God-ordained authorities, especially ecclesiastical and civil. Christian liberty does not free me from my responsibility to parental, ecclesiastical, or civil authorities. To the contrary, the believer must as a matter of conscience acknowledge God-ordained human authority (Rom. 13:5; Eph. 6:1; Heb. 13:17; 1 Pet. 2:13-16). That’s the real burden of this paragraph, and that burden still needs to be sounded today. Even the second half and last phrase might be interpreted in such a way that does not imply the abuses feared by the Congregationalists and Baptists.¹³ Yet, because of potential abuse, I believe the best solution would have been to drop the second half of the paragraph and retain the first.

Bob Gonzales, Dean
Reformed Baptist Seminary

1. Luther entitled the book Christian Freedom and dedicated it to Pope Leo X. In Philip Schaff’s estimation, the book “breathes the spirit of a genuine disciple of St. Paul” and “takes rank with the best books of Luther.” History of the Christian Church (1910; reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 7:224. [↩]
2. See Book III, Chapter 19 of The Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1960), 1:833-49. Calvin opens this chapter by referring to the doctrine of Christian liberty as “a thing of prime necessity” and “an appendage of justification.” (p. 833). [↩]
3. See Volume XV of The Works of John Owen (1850-53; reprint, Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1965), pp. 402-04. [↩]
4. Dr. James Renihan is the Professor of Historical Theology at the Institute of Reformed Baptist Studies and a modern authority on the 1689 Confession. He treats the chapter 21—“Of Christian liberty”—as the major heading under which chapters 22 through 30 are subsumed. [↩]
5. When the Confession asserts that the believer has been freed from “evil afflictions,” it means punitive afflictions.  Believers may and do suffer remedial and pedagogical afflictions (Psa. 119:67, 71). [↩]
6. I am thinking primarily of the unbiblical dichotomy between the age of law and the age of grace advocated by some more classical dispensationalists. [↩]
7. See A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, 2nd ed. (Durham: Evangelical Press, 1995), p. 258. [↩]
8. Of course, the New Testament believer’s actual experience of Christian liberty is not only conditioned upon the degree of gospel truth revealed but also upon his response to that truth. Thus, we must beware of the assumption that New Testament believers are automatically more spiritual than Old Testament believers (though on a corporate level this assumption is correct). Waldron’s caution is appropriate: “Beware of excessive depreciation of the privileges of Old Testament saints. They knew the truth and it set them free. As to their actual experience and holiness, some of them may have exceeded many New Testament saints! The fact that ‘ordinarily’ and corporately New Testament Christians have larger endowments of knowledge and the Spirit does not mean that they universally exceed the Old Testament saints in practical godliness or experience” (p. 260). [↩]
9. Sam Waldron is certainly correct to see liberty of conscience as resting upon the foundation of Christian liberty since man’s conscience cannot be free until he has been loosed from the shackles of sin (pp. 260-61). It seems to me, however, that the paragraph is not addressing the believer’s conscience per se but rather the rule which may properly bind the believer’s conscience. [↩]
10. Luther’s famous words were, “Unless I am refuted and convicted by testimonies of the Scriptures or by clear arguments (since I believe neither the Pope nor the councils alone; it being evident that they have often erred and contradicted themselves), I am conquered by the Holy Scriptures quoted by me, and my conscience is bound by the word of God: I cannot and will not recant any thing, since it is unsafe and dangerous to do anything against the conscience. Here I stand. God help me! Amen.” (cited in Schaff, 7:304-05). [↩]
11. The Anabaptists of Munster and the Fifth Monarchy Men of England provide historical examples. [↩]
12. The Westminster Confession of Faith for Study Classes (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1964), p. 148. [↩]
13. For example, the teaching of this fourth paragraph including the last phrase is defended by Robert Shaw (An Exposition of the Westminster Confession of Faith [1845; reprint, Ross-shire, U.K.: Christian Focus Publications, 1992], pp. 209-12) and by G. I. Williamson (pp. 154-57). [↩]