R.C. Sproul's Blog, page 527

The Resurrection of the Dead — The Unfolding of Biblical Eschatology

Eschatology moves to the foreground in 1 Corinthians 15. Here Paul turns his full attention to the doctrine of the resurrection. The question to which Paul is responding is not stated explicitly until verse 12. Paul informs us there that some of the Corinthians were saying that "there is no resurrection of the dead." As we examine the text it will become clear that what they were denying was the future bodily resurrection of believers. Paul makes very clear in this chapter how central the doctrine of the resurrection is to the Christian faith. His argument proceeds in two stages. In verses 1–34, he demonstrates the reality of the resurrection of the dead. In verses 35–58, he explains how it is that the bodily resurrection of believers is possible.

Paul opens the discussion by reminding the Corinthians of the Gospel that he had preached to them and that they had believed (15:1). In other words, Paul begins his argument by stating a belief on which they agree, and from there he moves to the necessary consequences of that belief. Paul states the content of his Gospel in verses 3–5, saying, "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve."

The death and resurrection of Jesus are the center of Paul's proclamation of the Gospel. It is by means of Christ's death and resurrection that the two evils introduced into the world at the time of the Fall are overcome. Christ's death on the cross is God's solution to the problem of sin, and Christ's resurrection from the grave is God's solution to the problem of death. When Paul says that "Christ died for our sins," he is alluding to Isaiah 53:5–6 and its language of substitutionary atonement. But when Paul says that Christ died and was raised "in accordance with the Scriptures," he has more in mind than the fulfillment of specific individual texts. Rather, the death and resurrection of Christ are the climactic fulfillment of the entire Old Testament narrative.i This is the Gospel that the Corinthians believed. They professed belief in the death and resurrection of Jesus.

Granted their faith in the resurrection of Christ, Paul asks, "how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?" (15:12). The remainder of the chapter makes it clear that what the Corinthians were denying was the idea of a future bodily resurrection.ii In this, they were simply expressing the beliefs of ancient paganism, which denied the very possibility of such a thing.iii In verses 12–19, Paul explains the consequences of such a denial. Paul explains, "if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised" (v. 13). Here Paul is showing the contradictory nature of their beliefs. They profess belief in the bodily resurrection of Christ while at the same time denying the possibility of bodily resurrection, but their denial of the resurrection of the dead necessitates the conclusion that Christ was not raised. Their denial of the resurrection of the dead is a denial of the very heart of Christianity.iv

In verses 13–19, Paul expands on the consequences of their denial of the resurrection of the dead. If there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not raised, and if Christ is not raised Paul's preaching is in vain, and the Corinthians' faith is in vain (v. 14). If there is no resurrection of the dead, Christians are bearing false witness against God by claiming that he raised Jesus from the dead (v. 15). If Christ has not been raised, the Corinthians are still in their sins (vv. 16–17) and those who have died are without hope (v. 18). If there is no resurrection of the dead, Christians are the most pitiful of people for believing in a delusion (v. 19). In short, what Paul is telling the Corinthians is that if their denial of the resurrection of the dead is true, then Christianity is worthless nonsense.v

Paul changes course slightly in verses 20–28 by moving back to the point of agreement between himself and the Corinthians. He writes, "But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep" (v. 20). The word "firstfruits" (aparche) refers to the first and representative portion of an agricultural harvest.vi It implies more "fruit" to come, and it implies a relationship between the firstfruits and the remaining harvest. As Holleman explains, "The designation of the risen Jesus as the 'first-fruits of those who have fallen asleep' (v. 20) means that Jesus has been raised as the first and the representative of those who will be raised."vii In other words, Christ's resurrection and the future bodily resurrection of Christ's people form "an unbreakable unity."viii

Paul continues, "For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive" (vv. 21–22). Holleman helpfully explains the significance of Paul's words, "In verses 21–22 he [Paul] establishes that, just as death came into the world through Adam, resulting in the death of all people who are represented by Adam, so resurrection came into the world through Christ, resulting in the resurrection of all people who are represented by Christ."ix

Paul elaborates on the sequence of resurrection, saying, "But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then (epeita) at his coming those who belong to Christ. Then (eita) comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power" (15:23–24). Paul pictures Christ's resurrection as the inauguration of the eschatological resurrection; it is all one harvest. Jesus' resurrection is the first stage in the eschatological resurrection, and the resurrection of Christians is the second stage.x The resurrection of believers occurs "at his coming," which means that it is a future event.

Some exegetes believe that Paul's words in verse 24 indicate the existence of an interval between Christ's coming and "the end" or final consummation.xi The argument is that Paul envisions three stages in the unfolding of these eschatological events: the resurrection of Christ, then the parousia at which believers are raised, and then the end when Christ hands over the kingdom to his Father. Some exegetes argue that since there is an indefinite interval between stage one and two, it is likely that there is also an interval between stage two and three.xii While the grammar alone may allow for such an interpretation, there are at several reasons why it is highly unlikely. First, these same adverbs (epeita and eita) are used in the immediate context and elsewhere to indicate nothing more than a simple sequence of events (cf. 15:5–7). They do not, by themselves, imply anything about intervals of time. Second, in the immediate context, the completion of the eschatological resurrection, which occurs at Christ's Second Coming, is tied to the defeat of death, which occurs at "the end" (15:24–26; cf. vv. 54–55). This indicates that Christ's Second Coming occurs at "the end," something that Paul indicates in other epistles as well (cf. 1 Thess. 4:13–18). Third, the beginning of Christ's kingdom does not await his Second Coming. Christ's kingdom was inaugurated at his First Advent (e.g., Matt. 28:18; Acts 2:29–36; Col. 1:13; Rev. 1:5).

Paul concludes this section by building on Psalm 110:1. He writes, "For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death" (vv. 25–26). Paul then quotes Psalm 8:6 as he envisions the subjection of all things to God (vv. 27–28). The full manifestation of the kingdom of God is Christ's ultimate goal. Through Christ, God defeats every enemy in order that his reign might be established over all.xiii The eschatological importance of the resurrection could not be made any clearer than it is in this section of Paul's epistle.

Paul concludes his argument for the reality of the resurrection of the dead in 15:29–34. He asks several rhetorical questions to add weight to his argument. The first question he asks has been the source of much discussion. "Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf?" (v. 29). Numerous interpretations of the meaning of this verse have been suggested.xiv While not without its difficulties, Thiselton's suggestion is perhaps the most plausible. He argues that baptism on behalf of the dead "refers to the decision of a person or persons to ask for, and to receive baptism as a result of the desire to be united with their believing relatives who have died."xv In other words, dying believers would urge their unbelieving family members to become Christians in order that they might be together again. Paul, then, is referring to those unbelievers who converted to Christ for this reason as those who were "baptized on behalf of the dead." If there is no resurrection of the dead, their conversion/baptism was for naught. Paul's second question concerns the dangers he places himself in (vv. 30–34). If there is no resurrection, then what he is doing is foolish in the extreme.

The reason behind the Corinthians' denial of the resurrection of the dead was a worldview that abhorred the idea of bodily resurrection. They may have thought that "resurrection" meant nothing more than the mere reanimation of a corpse. Paul turns his attention to this issue in 15:35–49. He writes, "But someone will ask, "How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?"" (v. 35). The word translated "body" is the Greek word soma. Paul uses the word in relation to human beings to speak of the physical body.xvi As Gundry explains, Paul uses this word "precisely because the physicality of the resurrection is central to his soteriology."xvii

Paul rebukes his hypothetical questioner (15:36a) and then uses an agricultural analogy to illustrate continuity and discontinuity between the present body and the resurrected body (v. 37). As Hays explains, "The analogy of the seed enables Paul to walk a fine line, asserting both the radical transformation of the body in its resurrected state and yet its organic continuity with the mortal body that precedes it."xviii Paul then describes the many different kinds of bodies that God has created: for humans, animals, birds, fish, heavenly bodies, earthly bodies, sun, moon, and stars (vv. 38–41). Reading Paul's list here reminds one of the creation account of Genesis.xix The whole creation was affected by the Fall (cf. Rom. 8:20–21). By mentioning all aspects of God's creation in the context of a discussion of resurrection, Paul may be hinting at the idea of the new creation, when everything will be set free from the effects of the curse.xx Paul continues, "So it is with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable. It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body" (15:42–44). Paul's words indicate both continuity and transformation.xxi The continuity is seen in the fact that the same "it" that is sown is also raised. The transformation is seen in the contrasts that Paul describes: perishable vs. imperishable; dishonor vs. glory; weakness vs. power; natural vs. spiritual.

Paul's use of the words "spiritual body" to describe the resurrection body has led some to deny the corporeal nature of the resurrection of the dead, but the words themselves lend no weight to such an argument. In verse 44, Paul says "It is sown a natural body (soma psychikon); it is raised a spiritual body (soma pneumatikon)." To say that the resurrection body is a soma pneumatikon does not mean that it is composed of a pneumatic substance.xxii The contrast Paul is making is between a "natural body" (i.e., a body animated by the breath of life given to Adam) and a "spiritual body" (i.e., a body animated by the Holy Spirit).xxiii Richard Hays suggests that the Jerusalem Bible is perhaps the best translation of this phrase: "When it is sown it embodies the soul, when it is raised it embodies the spirit. If the soul has its own embodiment, so does the spirit have its own embodiment."xxiv

Paul writes, "Thus it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual. The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven" (15:45–49). Paul's point is here is that just as our present body is like Adam's physical body, so our future body will be like Jesus' resurrection body.xxv In short, Paul is portraying Jesus as the one who inaugurates the new creation and the new humanity.xxvi

The conclusion to Paul's argument in 1 Corinthians 15 ties the resurrection of the dead to God's triumphant victory over death, the last enemy (vv. 50–58). Paul reiterates what he has already said, when he states that "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable" (v. 50). These two clauses are in synonymous parallelism and indicate the same truth, namely, that our present bodies must be transformed in order to participate in the consummation of the kingdom. Paul then writes, "Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality" (vv. 51–53). What Paul describes here is the same event he described in his first epistle to the Thessalonians (cf. 1 Thess. 4:13–18). It is the resurrection of the dead and the transformation of those still living at the time of Christ's Second Coming.

Paul concludes, by quoting the eschatological vision found in Isaiah 25:8. He writes, "When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written: "Death is swallowed up in victory." "O death, where is your victory? O death, where is your sting?" The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ" (vv. 54–57). Death has wielded its reign of terror over man since the Fall. The resurrection of Jesus sets into motion the eschatological events that will culminate in the resurrection of his people, an event which will mark the final defeat of death itself.

i Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 1195; cf. also C.K. Barrett, A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (New York: Harper & Row, 1968), 338.
ii See Joost Holleman, Resurrection and Parousia: A Traditio-Historical Study of Paul's Eschatology in 1 Corinthians 15 (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 40; Richard B. Hays, First Corinthians (Louisville: John Knox, 1997), 253; David E. Garland, 1 Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003), 699; I Howard Marshall, New Testament Theology (Downers Grove: IVP, 2004), 264.
iii For a discussion of ancient pagan views of the afterlife, see N.T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003), 32–84.
iv Barrett, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 346.
v Hays, First Corinthians, 260; cf. Thiselton, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 1218.
vi Raymond F. Collins, First Corinthians (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1999), 547–48; cf. Holleman, Resurrection and Parousia, 50.
vii Ibid, 51.
viii Herman Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 538.
ix Holleman, Resurrection and Parousia, 55. He explains further, "The parallelism between the two clauses of verse 22 does not lie in the fact that both groups are identical, but in the fact that for both groups the representative determines the fate of the group. The unity with Adam leads to death, the unity with Christ leads to resurrection. Since only Christians are united with Christ, only Christians will be made alive through Christ" (p. 53).
x Holleman, Resurrection and Parousia, 1; cf. Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 746; N.T. Wright, The Climax of the Covenant (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991), 27.
xi This interpretation is affirmed by premillennialists such as Hiebert in Donald K. Campbell and Jeffrey L. Townsend, eds. The Coming Millennial Kingdom (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1997), 229–34.
xii Ibid, 230.
xiii Collins, First Corinthians, 555; Holleman, Resurrection and Parousia, 60.
xiv See the various commentaries for full discussions.
xv Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 1248.
xvi See Robert H. Gundry, Soma in Biblical Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1987), 80; cf. also James D.G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 61.
xvii Gundry, Soma, 169.
xviii Hays, First Corinthians, 270; cf. also Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 1264; Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, 341.
xix Paul's later mention of Adam adds weight to the comparison.
xx Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, 313.
xxi Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 777.
xxii See Geerhardus Vos, The Pauline Eschatology (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 1991), 166–67; Ridderbos, Paul, 544; Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 786.
xxiii Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, 354; cf. Ridderbos, Paul, 541–42.
xxiv Hays, First Corinthians, 272.
xxv Wright, The Climax of the Covenant, 32.
xxvi Ridderbos, Paul, 56.

Adapted from From Age to Age by Keith Mathison. ISBN 978-0-87552-745-1
Used with permission of P&R Publishing Co. P O Box 817, Phillipsburg N.J. 08865 www.prpbooks.com

From Age to Age is available in the Ligonier store.

Twitter Highlights (6/10/12)

Here are highlights from our various Twitter accounts over the past week.

This year, this month, or, more likely, this very day, we have failed to practice the kind of behaviour we expect from other people (Lewis).

— Tabletalk Magazine (@Tabletalk) June 5, 2012

Regeneration is the act of the Holy Spirit by which he brings a man from the state of spiritual death to spiritual life. —@KeithMathison

— Reformation Trust (@RefTrust) June 5, 2012

Thou, Lord, bruisest me, but I am abundantly satisfied, since it is from Thy hand (Calvin).

— Tabletalk Magazine (@Tabletalk) June 6, 2012

The more sanctified a person is the more heavily weighted his prayer time is in adoration. —R.C. Sproul

— Ligonier Ministries (@Ligonier) June 6, 2012

All the attributes of God do illustriously shine forth in the face of Jesus Christ (J. Edwards).

— Ligonier Academy (@LigonierAcademy) June 8, 2012

...being a sinner is one of the prerequisites for entrance into the kingdom of God. —R.C. Sproul bit.ly/qFURja

— Reformation Trust (@RefTrust) June 7, 2012

Wise is the man who knows which hills to die on. —Steven Lawson #lmwc

— Ligonier Ministries (@Ligonier) June 8, 2012

You can also find our various ministries on Facebook:

Ligonier Ministries | Ligonier Academy | Ligonier Connect
Reformation Bible College | Reformation Trust | Tabletalk Magazine

Seattle Snapshots

It has been an encouraging weekend in Seattle as almost 3,000 saints gathered to stand firm as Drs. Lawson, MacArthur, and Sproul boldly proclaimed several key doctrines that define true Christianity.

The sessions will be available to stream for free in the weeks to come, but here is a slideshow of some of the snapshots taken during this year's West Coast Conference.

Standing Firm in Seattle

Yesterday, close to 3,000 Christians gathered in Seattle, WA, for our 2012 West Coast Conference with Drs. Steven Lawson, John MacArthur, and R.C. Sproul. It is a blessing to see so many gather for instruction and to stand firm with us in the foundational truths of the Christian faith.

Dr. MacArthur spoke on the authority of Scripture, walking us through Isaiah 53—what he called "the first Gospel"—showing how it so accurately foretold the work of Christ.

Dr. Lawson boldly proclaimed the resurrection of Christ from 1 Corinthians 15 where the apostle Paul gives, "the greatest defense for the primacy and the centrality of the resurrection of Christ in the gospel." If the resurrection did not happen:

Our preaching is futile.
Our faith is foolish.
The disciples are frauds.
The cross has failed.
The grave is final.
Everything is folly.

Dr. Sproul defended the doctrine of the Trinity, taking us through the prologue of John's Gospel (John 1:1-5), giving special attention to the person of Christ. He surveyed some of the attacks that have been made on the person of Christ, and consequently on the Trinity, as attacks continue today.

Tweetable Highlights

You can join the conversation by following the hashtag #lmwc on Twitter or Instagram. Here are a few highlights from yesterday's sessions:

The Lord who has no pleasure in the death of the wicked had pleasure in the death of the Holy One. —@JohnMacArthur #lmwc

— Ligonier Ministries (@Ligonier) June 8, 2012

Wise is the man who knows which hills to die on. —Steven Lawson #lmwc

— Ligonier Ministries (@Ligonier) June 8, 2012

Heresy always forces the church to greater precision and clarity about what we do believe and what the Bible teaches... —R.C. Sproul #lmwc

— Ligonier Ministries (@Ligonier) June 9, 2012

R.C. Sproul teaching at #lmwcinstagr.am/p/LozlATiamj/

— Ligonier Ministries (@Ligonier) June 9, 2012

Continuing to Stand Firm

Today, we can continue to stand firm as Drs. Lawson, MacArthur, and Sproul stand firm, "Against the Claims of Atheism," "Against our Own Sin," "for the Exclusive Claims of Christ," and "for Justification by Faith Alone."

Please pray for our speakers and for those in attendance. Lord willing, in a few weeks time, all of the sessions from this conference will be available to stream for free at Ligonier.org.

Do Familial Curses Still Exist?

God tells us in Exodus 20 that He will visit "the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me," (verse 5). That might settle the issue, but then God also told us this, "In those days they shall say no more: ' The fathers have eaten sour grapes, And the children's teeth are set on edge.'" (Jeremiah 31:29). Does this mean that there was, in the old covenant, familial curses, and that in the new they no longer exist? I think not.

I would suggest instead that what was still is, and what is not never was. God's promise in Exodus 20 is not that He will send fresh judgment against one generation for the sins of another generation. God does not have beside His throne a box full of thunderbolts that He hurls down on sinners. Much less does He hurl down thunderbolts against someone's great grandchildren. The consequences of our sin are much more organic than that, as are the results of our obedience.

Suppose that I suffered from covetousness. God is unlikely to, if I am outside the kingdom, send me boils to punish me. Neither is He likely, if I am inside the kingdom, to send me boils to coax me toward repentance. What He is far more likely to do, in either case, is afflict me with collection calls, repo men, crippling interest rates and foreclosure. Now suppose my sons grew up in this covetous household. Is it not more likely that they will learn covetousness from me? Will they not likely see the afflictions as normal life? They certainly are not likely to receive an inheritance that could bless them. They would, in this sense, live with the consequences of my sin, for multiple generations. My iniquity would be visited on them.

That said, if they in turn live covetous lives, will they be able to blame either God or me for the collections calls, repo men, etc? Of course not. They are still responsible to be financially responsible. They are in like manner free to live in gratitude, and to end the cycle.

Those who promote the notion of "familial curses" are correct to note that our sins are not hermetically sealed, affecting only the sinner. (Remember that multiple "innocent" families lost husbands and fathers at Ai because of Achan's sin at Jericho (Joshua 7:4).) God does indeed deal with us corporately, not just in the family but in churches, communities and nations. Those who think there is some sort of mystical cure, beyond repentance, are, I fear, mistaken.

In the end, if we are suffering and wondering why, the last answer we should come to is, "It is my ancestor's fault." On the other hand, when we are tempted to sin, we ought never to lose sight that the consequences certainly can outlive us, and afflict those we love. Thus I pray often that God would spare my children from the fruit of my sins. In either case the answer is to repent and to give thanks. We all enjoy so much more than we are due. And even suffering, for the believer, is blessing. We are to count it all joy.

Earthly Things and Heavenly Things — A Reformed Approach to Science and Scripture

In this series, we have been discussing Dr. R.C. Sproul's answer to a question about the age of the universe during the Q&A at Ligonier's 2012 National Conference. In our last post, we looked at the geocentricity of Martin Luther and John Calvin in order to expand on Dr. Sproul's point regarding past mistakes Christians have made in their understanding of God's creation. Dr. Sproul argued that the church was able to learn from nonbelieving scientists who studied God's created works. For Reformed Christians, this raises several questions related to the Fall and its impact on human reasoning.

It is important to look at these questions because some have suggested that those, such as Dr. Sproul, who stand in the tradition of the Princeton theologians do not take the impact of the Fall on the human mind as seriously as they should. This suggestion is false, as several recent books have demonstrated.i But how can one affirm on the one hand that the Fall has defiled the human mind and affirm on the other hand that the church can learn from unbelievers about God's created works? Before we look at the answer to this question, it is necessary to offer a brief summary of the Reformed view of reason and revelation before and after the Fall. The objective here is not to address every related issue (there are many). It is merely to summarize some of the most fundamental points.

Revelation and Reason Before the Fall

Man was created in the image of God, and before the Fall, "God's image was visible in the light of the mind, in the uprightness of the heart, and in the soundness of all the parts" (Calvin, Institutes I.xv.4). He was, as Charles Hodge explains, "originally created in a state of maturity and perfection."ii Man's reason, will, and emotions were uncorrupted by sin and functioned correctly.

Regarding general revelation before the Fall, John Calvin helpfully explains its original purpose. In his Institutes, he writes, "The natural order was that the frame of the universe should be the school in which we were to learn piety, and from it pass over to eternal life and perfect felicity" (II.vi.1). Before the Fall, then, God's revelation was able to accomplish its original purpose because man's reasoning faculties, his ability to receive what was revealed, had not been distorted by sin.

Revelation and Reason After the Fall

Our first parents sinned against God, and as a result they were "wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and body" (WCF, VI.2). This is a description of total depravity. Theologians sometimes use the phrase "the noetic effects of sin" to describe the defilement of one of these faculties, the human mind. It is important to note that while these faculties, including the mind, were corrupted and deformed, they were not annihilated or destroyed (Calvin, Institutes, I.xv.4). God graciously prevented all human beings from becoming completely irrational beasts.iii

Although the creation itself was cursed as a result of man's sin (Gen. 3:17), God's infallible revelation of Himself continued. Paul, for example, explains that God's "invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made" (Rom. 1:20).iv It is precisely because the continuing revelation remains clear that unbelievers are deemed inexcusable (cf. Calvin, Institutes, I.vi.1).

How, then, does a Reformed believer simultaneously affirm the fallenness of the mind, the curse on creation, and the ability of unbelievers to understand something of the created world? He can do this because the kinds of understanding or knowledge that are being discussed are carefully distinguished. Here is where John Calvin can offer another helpful insight.

The Twofold Knowledge of God

It is important to recall that Calvin's Institutes is largely structured around the idea of the twofold knowledge of God. Book One is titled "The Knowledge of God the Creator." Book Two is titled "The Knowledge of God the Redeemer in Christ." If certain Calvin scholars are correct, and Books Three and Four are actually subsumed under the topic of the knowledge of God the Redeemer, then the entirety of the Institutes is structured around this idea of the twofold knowledge of God.v

Regardless of whether most or all of the Institutes is structured around this theme, Calvin clearly teaches that our sources for knowledge of God the Creator are both general and special revelation. Our source for knowledge of God the Redeemer in Christ, on the other hand, is special revelation alone. General revelation, as we have already seen, is insufficient for knowledge of redemption. Furthermore, what knowledge of God there is in general revelation is suppressed and distorted by the unbeliever. According to Calvin, anyone who would come to a true knowledge of God the creator requires Scripture. Calvin compares Scripture to spectacles that enable us to see the revelation of God in creation clearly (Institutes, I.vi.1).

The important point to notice here is that this entire discussion so far concerns knowledge of God.

Heavenly Things and Earthly Things

We have already looked at several important theological distinctions in this series. John Calvin makes another that sheds significant light on the question now before us. He distinguishes between knowledge of heavenly things and knowledge of earthly things. The fullest discussion of this distinction is found in the Institutes, II.ii.12–21. Calvin also uses it in his commentary on 1 Corinthians 1:20, when he comments on the so-called "wisdom of the world."

Calvin begins his discussion in Book II.ii.12. He begins this section by agreeing with Augustine's assertion that man's spiritual gifts were "stripped" from him by sin while his natural gifts were corrupted. One of these natural gifts is "understanding," which has been weakened and corrupted. But this weakness, according to Calvin, is not the same as annihilation, which would reduce man to the same level as brute beasts. Regarding "understanding," he says, "When we so condemn human understanding for its perpetual blindness as to leave it no perception of any object whatever, we not only go against God's Word, but also run counter to the experience of common sense" (II.ii.12). Human understanding, then, has not been completely destroyed. It has, however, been weakened.

While a weakened human understanding stumbles around, "its efforts do not always become so worthless as to have no effect, especially when it turns its attention to things below" (II.ii.13, emphasis mine). Here, Calvin hints at the distinction that clarifies much of his thinking on this subject. He then explains himself more fully: "to perceive more clearly how far the mind can proceed in any matter according to the degree of its ability, we must here set forth a distinction. This, then, is the distinction: that there is one kind of understanding of earthly things; another of heavenly" (II.ii.13). "Earthly things" are those things that do not pertain to God or His kingdom. Among these things, Calvin includes government, household management, mechanical skills, and the liberal arts and sciences. Among the "heavenly things" are the pure knowledge of God, the nature of true righteousness, and the mysteries of the kingdom (II.ii.13).

According to Calvin, despite the Fall, unbelievers can come to a knowledge of earthly things, and he provides numerous examples. Regarding knowledge of the sciences, he writes, "Those men whom Scripture [I Cor. 2:14] calls 'natural men' were, indeed, sharp and penetrating in their investigation of inferior things" (II.ii.15, emphasis mine). In the next section, he continues along the same lines: "But if the Lord has willed that we be helped in physics, dialectic, mathematics, and other like disciplines, by the work and ministry of the ungodly, let us use this assistance. For if we neglect God's gift freely offered in these arts, we ought to suffer just punishment for our sloths" (II.ii.16). As grateful as Calvin is for the knowledge that can be gained in this way, however, he understands that the knowledge of earthly things that unbelievers do have is true only in so far as it goes. It is "an unstable and transitory thing in God's sight, when a solid foundation of truth does not underlie it" (II.ii.16).

In the following sections, Calvin turns his attention to what human reason can know of heavenly things ("God's kingdom and spiritual insight"). He explains, "This spiritual insight consists chiefly in three things: (1) knowing God; (2) knowing his fatherly favor in our behalf, in which our salvation consists; (3) knowing how to frame our life according to the rule of his law. In the first two points – and especially in the second – the greatest geniuses are blinder than moles!" (II.ii.18). He adds, "Human reason, therefore, neither approaches, nor strives toward, nor even takes a straight aim at, this truth: to understand who the true God is or what sort of God he wishes to be toward us" (II.ii.18). So, while unbelievers can come to some accurate understanding of earthly things, they cannot do so in connection with heavenly things.vi

The Wisdom of the World

In his commentary on 1 Corinthians 1:20, Calvin comments on what Paul refers to as the "wisdom of the world." His use of the distinction between knowledge of earthly and heavenly things helps us understand how learning from the knowledge of unbelievers in some areas does not entail capitulating to the wisdom of the world. He first explains in his commentary on 1 Corinthians 1:20 what we have already mentioned above, namely, that whatever knowledge unbelievers have of earthly things is ultimately vain if not grounded in Christian faith. It may be true as far as it goes, but it does not go far enough. Calvin then makes his main point. He argues that Paul is not condemning man's reasoning or his ability to understand earthly things. He is declaring "that all of this is of no avail for acquiring spiritual wisdom" (i.e. knowledge of heavenly things).

Calvin's distinction concerning the ability of unbelievers to come to some accurate knowledge of earthly things, but little to no knowledge of heavenly things is based on Scripture itself. All of Scripture assumes that man's reason retained some functionality after the fall. He is still distinguished from irrational beasts and can still come to enough of an accurate understanding of the created world to live and function. He can tell the difference between a tree and a cow. He can learn to cook, and farm, and build, and govern by accurate observation of the world. Jesus himself pointed to the ability of unbelievers to properly understand something about the natural world in his controversy with the Pharisees and Sadducees: "He answered them, "When it is evening, you say, 'It will be fair weather, for the sky is red.' And in the morning, 'It will be stormy today, for the sky is red and threatening.' You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, but you cannot interpret the signs of the times (Matthew 16:2-3). Unbelievers can come to some knowledge of 'earthly things' from observation of God's creation. When it comes to the knowledge of heavenly things, however, unbelievers are blind.

In our next post, we will look more closely at how Dr. Sproul suggests Christians should respond when there is an apparent conflict between Scripture and science.

ii Several important recent works have begun to answer this criticism with specific reference to the Princeton theologians and by extension, to those who follow them. See, for example, Paul Kjoss Helseth, "Right Reason" and the Princeton Mind (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2010); Fred G. Zaspel, The Theology of B.B. Warfield (Wheaton: Crossway, 2010); David P. Smith, B.B. Warfield's Scientifically Constructive Theological Scholarship (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2011).
ii Charles Hodge, Systematic Theolgy, 3 vols. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982 [1872–73]), 2:92.
iii See Anthony Hoekema's discussion of "common grace" in his Created in God's Image (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), 189–202.
iv Emphasis mine.
v Edward A. Dowey, Jr. The Knowledge of God is Calvin's Theology, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 41–9.
vi Calvin does sometimes hint at a very limited insight into spiritual things by unbelievers, but this topic is beyond the scope of the present series.

See also:

Introduction
All Truth is God's Truth
General and Special Revelation
Interpreting General and Special Revelation
Luther, Calvin, and Copernicus
Earthly Things and Heavenly Things

$5 Friday: Masculinity, Family, Spiritual Growth

This week's $5 Friday sale has great resources for Father's Day and for the growing Christian. Resources cover such topics as masculinity, family, spiritual growth, conscience, the ten commandments, church history, and more.

Sale runs through 12:01 a.m. — 11:59 p.m. Friday EST.

View today's $5 Friday sale items.

The Masculine Mandate — 99¢ eBook Sale

We announced last month that for a limited time Reformation Trust will be making select titles even more accessible as we lower their eBook price to 99¢. We continue this month by offering you, The Masculine Mandate: God’s Calling to Men by Richard Phillips, a book that issues a call to reformation in the evangelical church's attitude toward the role of men in the family, the church, and society.

Originally published in January 2010, The Masculine Mandate is now in its sixth printing with over 20,000 copies in print and distribution. We thank God for the continued popularity of a book written on such an important topic, and with Father's Day quickly approaching this would make for a timely gift.

What The Bloggers Are Saying

Well-written and presenting tough truths within such a simple grid of work and keep, this book is a very useful call for men to live out their mandate before God. I feel challenged and equipped for having read it and am glad to recommend it to any man. Read it, apply it, live it. — Tim Challies

The Masculine Mandate is a breath of fresh air. The biblical "oxygen" that the Richard Phillips offers is the cure to the polluted air of egalitarianism that is plaguing the church. It offers strong encouragement for Christian men who are serious about obeying God, loving their families, serving their churches and making a difference in their world. — David Steele

If you're a blogger, we'd love to give you a copy if you agree to publish a review.

There is a crying need in the church today for men to be men. Richard Phillips believes the problem and the inadequate solutions being put forward demand sound exegesis of biblical passages relating to masculinity. The Bible alone has the answer to what men are to be in the eyes of their Creator. In The Masculine Mandate, Richard Phillips provides this essential exegesis.

The Masculine Mandate is currently on sale for 99¢ as both an ePub from the Ligonier store or from Amazon's Kindle Store.

Girding up the Christian Mind

In his address called The Religious Life of Theological Students, delivered at Princeton Theological Seminary on the 4th of October 1911, Benjamin B. Warfield stressed the need for servants of God to be both learned and religious. The man without learning, Warfield noted, no matter with what other gifts he may be endowed, is unfit for his duties. Because he was addressing students in particular, the burden of his lecture was on their "religious" or spiritual life—that is, Warfield was warning these students about the dangers of studying apart from worship, of seeking knowledge apart from godliness. Severing knowledge and godliness is indeed perilous to the soul. Apart from godliness, knowledge merely puffs up into vanity and pride; apart from knowledge, godliness proves thin and unstable, tossing one about by every wind of doctrine.

Considering our own context broadly, it is perhaps the latter danger that faces the church of Jesus Christ most urgently—namely, the pretense of seeking godliness apart from knowledge. Without taking the time to rehearse the anti-intellectual trends of our age, by now cliché, it is manifestly the case that with the church's mounting capitulation to secular culture, God's people have increasingly been marked by the antipathy to learning so characteristic of that culture. Accommodating (as well as generating) an essentially passive posture, entertainment has established itself as the medium sine qua non for all communication and interaction, whether the substance of such is politics, education, or worship. In today's society, the lawyer whose presentation demands rudimentary logic, let alone sustained thinking, will lose his case. In the church, even the harmless talks that have replaced sermons are often broken up by video and theatrical interludes—anything to avoid the offense of asking worshipers to flex their little gray cells. In fact, much of the rigor of theological education itself has been methodically phased out, with once standard courses such as logic, the biblical languages, and systematic theology either no longer required or abbreviated into irrelevance by many institutions of higher learning. No surprise, then, the lack of demonstration, clarity, and logical flow plaguing much of the preaching and many of the books of today's evangelical church. Yet, as Christ is called the Logos, the One who came to reveal truth, the church's need to ever be engaged in the business of truth is inescapable.

This issue, of course, has been faced to one degree or another by every generation of Christians. The desire for revel over reason can be seen not only in Nietzsche's penchant for Dionysus, the god of drunken ecstasy, over against Apollo, the god of rationality, but even in the wilderness, in the Israelites' will for dancing around the golden calf rather than waiting upon the Law of the Lord. The role of the mind in the life of the church has always been crucial. Apart from the revival of learning that took place with the Renaissance, for example, it is very doubtful whether Luther would ever have picked up his mallet. Because his case was biblical, moreover, it was also intellectual: spurred on by public debates, books, and pamphlets, in addition to preaching, teaching, and crafting catechisms.

The apostle Peter understood well the spiritual dangers of our natural bent toward intellectual laxity. In a beautifully poetic passage, he calls upon Christians to "gird up the loins of your mind" (1 Peter 1.13). This clarion call to action is in keeping with the journey metaphor Peter employs throughout, having already addressed his epistle to "the pilgrims of the Diaspora." As a shepherd under the Chief Shepherd, Peter desired to guide faithfully the flock of Christ through the wilderness of this age. Often along a journey, pilgrims must be encouraged to quicken their pace; in the first century context, this would involve tucking up one's tunic or "girding up." As ours is a spiritual journey, Peter thus calls upon Christians to gird up intellectually. Not only so but when the apostle refers particularly to "the loins" of one's mind (loins signifying the source of vitality), he is calling upon us to harness not merely some strength of mind, but the core of our intellectual powers for the faith. This girding up the loins of our mind is incumbent upon us as we have been vouchsafed the revelation of the gospel in Scripture—glorious truths and realities into which angelic eyes have long desired to peer (1.12). Because girding up our minds is also vital to the pursuit of holiness (1.14-16), we are brought back to the inseparable pair of knowledge and godliness. Simply put, a slack, undisciplined mind will not produce godliness.

Historically, the progress and influence of the church have been associated with solid theological schools. One thinks of John Calvin's school in Geneva, Luther's lectern at the University of Wittenberg, and the legacy of Charles Hodge at old Princeton. In this same strategic vein, and advancing stoutly the goal of Ligonier Ministries to "further equip Christians to know what they believe, why they believe it, how to live it, and how to share it," Reformation Bible College opened its doors in Fall 2011—with much thanksgiving and praise to God. RBC's curriculum is rigorous, as deliberately focused as its leaders are passionately resolute: we want to see the Reformed faith take root and bear fruit in the next generation. We want to equip our college students to be the godly leaders of their age, engaging and influencing both church and society for Christ—whether these students become technicians, pastors, engineers, musicians, missionaries, or homeschooling housewives. Biblical, systematic, and historical theology, apologetics, church history, biblical Hebrew and Greek, the masterpieces of philosophy, literature, and music—these are some of the means by which we seek to shape and sharpen minds. At RBC, we aim for our graduates to become mature, discerning disciples grounded in truth—and we understand what is at stake. Peter's letter goes on to remind the church that our adversary goes about "like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour" (5.8). No empty rhetoric, then, when our catalog states: "This is no time for Christians to be fainthearted or weak-minded." An education that does not equip for godly engagement with the ideas and powers of this age—and this for the sake of Christ and his kingdom—whatever else it is, is not a Christian education. Nor is any other education Christian that does not have the Bible as its foundational source and ultimate measure of truth.

At Reformation Bible College, we hold a simple yet robust conviction that the Word of God is indeed all-sufficient. Therefore, whatever re-hashed "ism" the atheistic universities spew out, whatever ideologies turn the political sphere, whatever ills plague the church as she is "by schisms rent asunder, by heresies distressed," the singular response remains the same for every generation: we need a greater knowledge of the Word of God. We, therefore, ask you earnestly to join us in praying that this Bible college will be blessed mightily both to gird up and to renew young minds. Soli Deo Gloria

Dr. L. Michael Morales is Provost and Professor of Old Testament at Reformation Bible College.

The Church is One

Here's an excerpt from The Church is One, R.C. Sproul's contribution to the June issue of Tabletalk.

In the seventeenth chapter of his gospel, the Apostle John recounts the most extensive prayer that is recorded in the New Testament. It is a prayer of intercession by Jesus for His disciples and for all who would believe through their testimony. Consequently, this prayer is called Jesus' High Priestly Prayer. Christ implored the Father in this prayer that His people might be one. He went so far as to ask the Father that "they may be one even as we are one" (v. 22b). He desired that the unity of the people of God — the unity of the church — would reflect and mirror the unity that exists between the Father and the Son.

Early in church history, as the church fathers were hammering out the cardinal doctrines of the faith, they wrestled with the nature of the church. In the fourth century, in the Nicene Creed, the church was defined with four adjectival qualifiers: one, holy, catholic, and Apostolic. These early saints believed, as Scripture teaches, that the church is one, a unity.

Continue reading The Church is One.