The following is a production of Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary. For more information about the seminary, visit us online at gpts.edu. Tag team Q&A. All right. Uh, this first one I'm going to give to Dr. Belcher, um, and I'll leave it up here for you. Uh, would you please address Hugh Ross slash reasons to believe slash progressive creation as it gains credence within Reformed circles. Many who accept long ages, but not evolution, have latched onto this means of reconciling Genesis with science. I don't know exactly how to address Hugh Ross. There are not everybody who believes in that a long period of time is needed for there to be, not everyone believes in an old earth is an evolutionist, and Hugh Ross would fall into that category where he believes that the days in Genesis 1 are long periods of time, but does not affirm evolution. However, in reading a book by, I think, last name Rana, perhaps, who is associated with reasons to believe. They do sort of allow for hominids. So it was a little strange reading that. But, you know, progressive creation has been a view that's been held by many who are convinced that we need a long period of time perhaps for light to make it to the earth or to describe the geological columns. But many of the progressive creationists have not been evolutionists. They have believed that God has supernaturally intervened within the development. So you don't have an evolutionary development, but you have God intervening at certain periods To sort of move it forward so you don't really have evolution then when it comes to to Adam and Eve you have God directly Intervening and I'm not well enough read in in reasons to believe stuff to To know exactly what they do at Genesis 2 7 Whether they allow God to intervene intervene on a hominid, but a lot of progressive creationists have not taken that particular view. They've been more in the traditional view of Genesis 2.7. So I hope that answers the question. All right, Dr. Waters. Wright has been clear about his rejection of the wrath slash forensic themes. Any idea why these are so unacceptable exegetically to him? Yeah, it's a fine question. I think You know, as I said, towards the end, where you, where you start goes a long way where you end up. And Wright simply does not understand the problem in what we've called forensic terms. That is, sin as bearing guilt vertically between the, with respect to the sinner in the presence of God. Sin is subjecting the sinner vertically to the wrath of God. When you look at Wright's treatment of sin in his writings, it is invariably horizontal. That is, sin as it impacts relationships, sin as it impacts the way cultures and races relate to one another, sin as it impacts the creation at large. And to be sure, that is a legitimate biblical dimension of the doctrine of sin. But as Wright formulates it, it is an inadequate one. Because primarily, the chief problem of sin is as it relates to the sinner and God. And in that context, sin will manifest itself relationally among human beings. So with that starting point, and particularly the way he'll speak of sin as an enslaving power in the world, he understands the work of Christ to redress that very state of affairs. Not surprising that because he doesn't appreciate the forensic and the vertical dimensions of sin, that there would be a corresponding lack or attenuation in the forensic and horizontal dimensions of Christ's work in relation to God and to the believer. Again, in neither case does he flat out deny these things. It simply doesn't play an important and constructive role in his work. And the matters that he does emphasize and does address, of course, find a very wide hearing in the world today. Matters of wrath and guilt and reconciliation, of course, don't have nearly the kind of interest and hearing that these other issues do. So those are some thoughts to a fine question. All right, Dr. Belcher, how did the theistic evolution guys treat the imputation of Adam's sin. That question is going to be answered in the conference. Let me go back to the Hugh Ross question if I can do a selfish plug here. Christian Focus has just published their lay commentary series. I've done the volume on Genesis, and the introduction to that volume, I go through all the different views on the days of Genesis 1. So I cover the day age view, and I analyze all of the views, strengths and weaknesses. So you can sort of follow up more on the Hugh Ross question. In that volume, it's out and it's available, so more information there. It really depends on who you're reading in the theistic evolutionary camps in terms of the imputation of Adam's fall. You've got people at Calvin College, I believe, who virtually deny that there's a fall. So if there's not a fall, you don't have an imputation. So in fact, one of Collins' articles related to, before his book came out, related to the history of Adam and Eve was in a journal related to creation and faith, or science, I forget the exact name of it. where Collins has an article and then you have two scholars from Calvin College who really have gone off the deep end in accepting evolution and being willing to accept evolution and then to take to what they believe are the consistent conclusions of where you come to if you accept evolution. And basically you don't have a fall. And so it's really kind of hard to argue imputation of Adam's sin. They're calling for us to re- interpret, restructure our theology. So there are those who have gone way off the deep end. And so, again, it depends on who you read. There may be some who try to hold on to imputation, but I look forward to some of the other lectures, sermons that we're going to hear, because I think this is going to be addressed more. All right. Dr. Waters, will you recommend a resource that clarifies, either primary or secondary source, Wright's position on the Covenant of Works? Does he ever speak directly to this? Thank you. Fine question. I am not aware of a specific resource. In other words, you can't go to Amazon and find a title, N.T. Wright's Covenant Theology by N.T. Wright. I wish there were. It really would have made my work a lot easier. Trying to twist through Wright's writings to construct a narrative, I think I could have an easier time giving you the plot lines of Three Seasons of Downton Abbey than I could giving you Wright's work, but I think Wright is working with a clear narrative here. I would say that, you know, certainly a place to start, and You know, wherever you fall on Wright as a theologian and as an exegete, he is quite readable. I would start, if you want to begin modestly, with his older treatment of Paul now. This is his What St. Paul Really Said, where you'll get some of this in germ, and he'll talk a fair bit about the creation. Now, if you're really ambitious and you've got some time on your hands, Volume 1 of his New Testament Theology, New Testament and the People of God, that's a mere 500 pages or so for Wright. That's just an appetizer. We'll speak at much greater length on that issue. While Wright does speak in terms of creation and while he does speak in terms of covenant, and he understands the God who created and the God who enters into covenant to be one and the same. I have never encountered the formulation covenant of works or some equivalent in his writings. I'm not sure it would be fair to say that there is a construct called the covenant of works in Wright's own work. Now he does as an exegete in his Romans commentary deal with the work of Adam. So even if he doesn't use that terminology, he has to wrestle with some of the things that that terminology is dealing with. And that was our port of entry in terms of looking at right and covenant of works. So you ask a professor a question like this and he gives you lots of books to read, I suppose you didn't expect anything differently. All right. Dr. Belcher. With regard to the first hermeneutical move, the symbolic way, please identify for, this is actually a two-part question, please identify for us some of the common names of these viewpoints, such as, for example, framework hypothesis, day age, et cetera. And also give us specific questions that should be asked of a candidate that reveals his understanding of theistic evolution. I don't know if I completely understand the first part of the sentence. If you're looking for people who are framework hypothesis, Meredith Klein is the sort of, not really the originator of it, but he has popularized it. You've got other people that have written on it. Walkie at one time was a framework hypothesis held to that view. Futado holds to that view. A lot of Klein followers do as well. The day age view, we mentioned Hugh Ross. Bradley and Olson has an article, early article on this in a particular book. Now, not all these people specifically push the symbolic view, the symbolic aspect. Well, Klein does argue for a poetic nature of Genesis chapter one, semi-poetic he calls it. But when you come to Genesis two, Klein is pretty much straightforward historical narrative. It's just Genesis one where it becomes more of a problem in Klein's particular understanding. So yeah, you've got semi-poetic, maybe some symbolism there. You've got the framework in Genesis 1. When we get to Genesis 2, Klein is virtually right where we would be in terms of how God created Adam. And that's really a major watershed, the division between how you handle Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. And then the other question, three specific questions that should be asked of a candidate. As Gaffin argues in a new horizon, recent new horizon, well, within the last year, you cannot just affirm the historicity of Adam because that allows, you can say I affirm the historicity of Adam, but you don't really know what the candidate is or is coming from. So you need to ask, specifically about Genesis 2.7, what does dust mean in Genesis 2.7? If it's anything other than dirt or loose soil, you got a problem. If it's a hominid, you got a problem. So that's really, that question will answer a lot of things. You can go on and ask about the formation of Eve. Do you believe that Eve was formed? from Adam, you can directly ask, do you believe theistic evolution has any standing? So there's easy questions to ask to find out maybe where a candidate is coming from and whether he's able to affirm Genesis 2.7. Dr. Waters, could you outline the main points of contact between Federal Vision and N.T. Wright? Well, I think probably the most basic point of contact is that Federal Vision proponents and N.T. Wright are covenant theologians. They both understand the theology of the Bible to be covenantal in its nature. They both understand the God of the Bible to be a covenant-making and covenant-keeping God. I think further, another point of contact, and I'm not arguing you understand a cause-effect relationship, but simply where there is alignment among these folk. is that you have a weakness in the doctrine of justification by faith alone. And you have work for both groups, the Federal Vision on the one hand and N.T. Wright on the other hand. Works play a role in justification that is biblically impermissible. Works assume a justifying role. in the sinner's justification, and that, of course, is out of court biblically. And as we didn't develop this point, but we did note, that Federal Vision proponents are very often going to be defective in their formulation of the Covenant of Works. And I won't take time further to explain this, but there's a related issue where you often don't see the imputation of Christ's act of obedience affirmed in justification. And very often, those two problems will go together, again, for reasons I won't take time to outline. So there are some affinities here, and affinities that, as we've been urging, are not without consequence, not just for one's overall understanding of biblical theology, but for the very way in which we understand and articulate the gospel itself. I'm going to give one last question to each. Dr. Belcher, is it acceptable to say that Moses had source documents when he composed Genesis 1 to 11. There's a lot of detail provided. Where did Moses get that detail? It depends what you mean by source documents. If you're talking like JEDP, I'd say no. But it's very possible. I mean, a critical scholar used to argue Moses couldn't even write. But now we know the alphabet's been discovered, and obviously Moses could write. But it's very possible. Where did Moses get his information is the basic question. Revealed by God. Oral tradition handed down, and then when Moses went to write it down, God, the divine author, superintended to human authors, so what he wrote down was the word of God. Or it's possible that things had been handed down, not orally, but perhaps written. I think it's possible that Moses could have had written sources. It's not absolutely necessary, but I do think it's possible. Ultimately, God superintended the process of Moses writing the Pentateuch so that what was produced was the word of God. But there could have been several things that Moses could have had access to. But obviously, God's involvement is there, whether it was direct revelation, which is possible, whether it was something orally handed down, or whether it was perhaps a written document. As the moderator of this Q&A, I always, because there's more questions than can possibly be dealt with. And so I ended up serving as an editor of some sort. And it's a real temptation to, or it's a real hard decision here between asking Dr. Waters a question that's probably unanswerable and a question that is probably answerable, but would, might take a little time. I think I'll do the latter. Dr. Waters, what is the meaning of sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, Romans 5.14, and how does this affect the idea of imputed sin? Good. And with that introduction and... With the dinner hour crashing upon us, I'm under some pressure here. My short answer is that Dr. Piper will make it all clear to you when he expounds this passage later. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. I suspect you wouldn't let me get to my dinner table if I don't say something. What Paul is doing, and I regret I didn't bring my New Testaments down there, but let me work. This will probably keep it shorter, frankly. In verse 12, Paul says that when Adam sinned, all sinned. Now what verses 13 and 14 do, and there are a number of legitimate difficulties that surface when we try to understand what Paul is arguing here, but The gist of it is, Paul is making clear, when I say all sinned, I don't mean all sinned by following the example that Adam left for us. That I take to be the meaning of the phrase, even those who did not sin according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam. The point is, is that Adam's one sin came into their possession, and they are held responsible for the consequences of that sin, independently of their own action. That's a point that Paul will go on and expound positively in 515 all the way through 21. And I think that becomes important not only for understanding the imputation of Adam's But doesn't it help us to understand our justification? We are no more justified by the things we do than we became guilty, in the sense that Paul is describing Adam's one sin, by the things that we do. No. And as dark as these verses are, 12, 13, and 14, what they really do is they provide the framework for the good news of the gospel, that we are justified by Christ's work, not by our work or Christ's work plus our work, but by Christ's work imputed and received by faith alone. It's not our imitation of Christ's righteousness, it is the imputation of that righteousness to us. That's the good news that Paul celebrates in these verses. If you have any questions that haven't been picked up, there's still some of the students who are collecting questions. I'd be more than happy to get those to us. In our time here, we will be with Dr. Beeky, Dr. Van Doodewoerd, and Reverend Hulse. Make sure that you ask Reverend Hulse the really hard questions. You know, Matt was bargaining with me for a few extra minutes in the thing. It reminded me of class when he's always trying to get a few extra points on a paper and exam. I told you. I told you. OK, red tooth and claw. In your opinion, Mr. Reverend Hulse, how much time may have lapsed between the time of creation and the fall? I suspect the answer to this will be the same as the answer to many other questions you have. I have no idea. I saw that answer more than once. Dr. Van Dood, a word. If Boston said, take no rest in the natural state and Burroughs said something like, Don't be too quick to flee to heaven because a contented Christian on earth brings glory to God. Will you please speak to these paradoxical realities? I think if I'm right, Boston, when he says, take no rest in the natural state, he means contentedness in the state of grace in this life, in the Lord's providences, and in a joyful service to Him, but not taking rest in our natural state, our fallen state, our sinful state before God. And so I think those two statements are really in harmony. We should look forward to the day of entering the presence of the Lord with great anticipation But also, while we are here, serve him knowing that he has appointed the number of days he's given us. We can't hasten those days more quickly. We rest in him as to the day that he has given. And I think both Boston and Burroughs would be of one mind on that, that we look forward to heavenly glory. We look forward to being free from sin utterly and made perfectly holy, but at the same time, We are to work here with a joyful cheerfulness and zeal where God has placed us in his perfect wisdom. I hope that helps. Well, Mr. Van Deutewer, these are all for Mr. Holes, so I will give you this one to answer and then we can grill him all we want for the rest of the time. This says, can someone be so depraved that they desire assurance of salvation but cannot obtain it, even unto death? What counsel would you give to them? And no one is so depraved as not to be outside of being able to be regenerated and transformed by the Holy Spirit. And so certainly there are none that can be so depraved that they cannot receive assurance of salvation unto death. Someone be so depraved they desire assurance of salvation but cannot attain to it even unto death. If someone is unrepentant, living in unrepentant sin and not coming to Christ, not coming to him and crying out to him for deliverance from that sin, perhaps it's possible that they would desire an assurance but never attain it. So I would say if it's a believer, they certainly can attain assurance and you would counsel them by saying, look to the promises of Christ, first of all. That's the first and foremost place to find our assurance. It's by looking to Christ and what he promises in his word and taking hold of those promises. And then also secondarily, and perhaps with the counsel and encouragement of others as well, by grace seeing some fruits and marks, evidences of regeneration. And so I think there'd be a place for pastoral counseling a person, but the question would be, What's going on? Have you come to Christ? Is there a love for sin here in your life that in some way you desire assurance but you are still in love with sin and have no hatred of it, no desire to be freed from it? Then there's something wrong there spiritually. That's the counsel I would give to them. And Boston would press these things on them and say, well, search your heart, but look to the promises of Christ. Cry out to him. And I love one of his Boston's later sermons, The Everlasting Spousals, where he goes through a whole list of people and he says, is your problem that you're dull spiritually? Well, Christ is a sufficient Savior for people who are spiritually dull. Have you backslidden? Well, Christ is a sufficient Savior for backsliders. Whatever your case or condition is, bring it to the Lord and cry out to Him with it. Don't try to patch yourself up in advance. And I think it's in coming to Christ, then graciously a measure of assurance will proceed, though believers could struggle. And when sin and Satan's attacks can cloud us and our own sin rise up, we can be shaken. That's not necessarily an unhealthy thing to be shaken somewhat and to, again, make sure that we are looking to Christ. Okay. Reverend Holst, if death is separation, man from God, soul from the body in the case of man, what is death for animals? I like this question, it's a clever way of saying, will my dog be in heaven? And the answer's no, your dog won't be in heaven, but I do think animals will be in heaven. I might be wrong on this, of course, but I'm thinking that animals clearly don't have an immortal soul. When they die, they die. But for what reason did God create animals in the first place? They declare his glory. And in the new heavens and the new earth, I think also that they will do precisely that, the lion and the lamb cohabiting peacefully together. I hope that helps. Reverend Hulse, please explain exegetically on how plant death is okay before sin. Answers in Genesis takes the opposite view. How could God pronounce death as very good at the end of day six? Yes, I think I dealt with this in the paper somewhat. The biblical definition of life, as it's stipulated in the breath of life, the life in the blood and the flesh, does not then suit the definition of plants. And therefore, for the purposes of our discussion, while plants have a kind of life, and I'll be honest, I don't know how to express this any better than I am now, they don't have the kind of life that God has communicated of himself to animate creation. And therefore, I don't accept the essential premise of the question. I don't think plants die in the sense that I've laid before you today. I'm afraid that's all I've got on that. Most of these questions have to do along this same theme, Reverend Hulse. I believe that you have said God creating life with death in it is contrary to his being. Could you please clarify then two things, whether you think plants are alive or qualify as having life, and two, cellular death in your coyotes or something, I'm not sure, before the fall, or skin cells, death and skin cells. Can I help with that? Yeah, I hope you answer the question. Do you want to join me, Dr. Beaky? He'll only be there. OK. Clarify two things, whether you think plants are alive. Well, I think I've just said that. I mean, clearly they have a kind of life, but not the life that we've been discussing, at least I discussed in my paper today, as embodied in the three elements of life. Cellular death before the fall of skin cells. Neither of us know anything about cellular death before the fall, the questioner or me. And this is something that I had to remove from my paper because I would have gone on an extra few minutes, which I was owed. But frankly, we know very little about what went on before the fall. And I think every camp that deals with the issue of death before the fall, whether it's a young earth camp or an old earth, will always struggle when it tries to say too much. And that's one of the burdens that I've picked up in reading the evolutionary theologians, is that they're always wanting to nail down exactly what happened where, when, how, and to who. And yet we can't say that because there is so much of the pre-fall age that we know nothing about. We know nothing about cellular death before the fall. We simply cannot comment on it positively or negatively. And so the answer that I gave a few questions ago about the length of time before the fall, I don't know if the brothers have a better answer than I had, they probably do. I don't know is actually one of the more common answers that you'll hear in a lot of these discussions because we're asking or being asked questions to state categorically something of which we have no knowledge about and therefore if we overstretch If we overstretch in our arguments, we say, this happened here and here and here, then we open ourselves up to unwarranted attack, because we may have said more than Scripture says. Deuteronomy 29, we know the secret things belong to the Lord. And therefore, we say what Scripture says. And when Scripture is silent, we do the same. Dr. Van Duterward, our catechism states The souls of believers are made perfect in holiness and do immediately pass into glory. What do you do with Revelation 6.10 when the souls of believers seem to be restless and must receive new robes? Is that evidence of sin in glory? Revelation 6.10. I would say no. It's not. I haven't done any exegetical study on Revelation 6.10, so I'm loathe to comment on that, exactly what's that speaking of and what's directed there. We do have the picture there of these martyrs slain around the throne, crying out, how long, O Lord? In terms of the robes. I'd love to hire someone else who's done some exegetical study on this, comment on this, but I would note that there is a sense of anticipation in heaven. There's a longing for the fullness and completion of all things. There's a looking forward in heaven to the return of Christ to the earth. There's a longing for the completion of all things. It's a longing without sin. It's a longing in perfect comfort and perfect blessedness, and yet there's a longing expressed here. and a great anticipation. But as for the robes, it certainly is not an evidence of sin and glory. But Dr. Beeke would like to comment on that, give him an opportunity. Give me a minute. Obviously, Bill is right. It's not sin and glory. I think, you know, again, we have to be careful to press too far the literalness of this section. I think what's going on here is that John is portraying, don't forget John's on Patmos and there's a lot of persecution going on. John's portraying the longing of the church of all ages to be complete in glory and all the martyrs to be in glory and have the full rewards. And the white robes are given to every one of them. Well, those robes are given figuratively not literally, the body's not there yet, but the figurativeness of this is to say that they are sinless, they are rejoicing, but there's a sense in which there is an incompleteness. You find a parallelism here between the Old Testament saints also are incomplete without the New Testament saints. If you look at Hebrews 11, the last couple of verses, and it doesn't mean that they're in some kind of intermediate state where they're not rejoicing in the Lord, but there's just not a completeness yet. These all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise, God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect. So there's a longing with the church of all ages, and even in glory There is, in this intermediate state, there is a sense of everything not being complete yet. The soul and body is not reunited. All the martyrs are not together and victorious. And so this is the pathos of this text. And we shouldn't over-literalize this text, but we should understand that the whole creation is groaning. There's even a certain kind of groaning and longing and glory for the great day when Christ will come in the clouds and everyone will be complete in glory. Not one chair will be left empty, and He will bring all with Him and say, Father, here am I and all those whom Thou hast given Me. And so we long for that day of complete perfection. And I think that's the pathos that's going on here. Reverend Hulse, we'll let this be the last question to you. Is it that Tim Keller says that science trumps scripture, or that science causes him to double-check his understanding of scripture, which could be flawed? What you quoted sounded like the latter, but you said it was the former. Would you please flesh this out a bit more? Yeah, I don't know if this is the same person who asked me the question outside. I could certainly go back and check the video itself to see if I've misunderstood what Dr. Keller was saying. And that's quite possible. I don't think I have. I think what Dr. Keller was saying is that when science is there, rather than just sneer at the science, those are his words, He goes back and rechecks his biblical interpretation. Now, biblical interpretation may be wrong, and science may possibly give us insight into that, but I don't think I'm happy with the idea of science being one of our hermeneutical tools. It doesn't seem to me to be a proper understanding of the authority of scripture. I think also what we see in, I think, Dr. Keller's whole system is the result of science actually trumping scripture. And again, he makes it very clear that there are certain things which he thinks, those things which are not apostolic, apostles' creed issues. Basically, he said they're up for grabs. We can more or less do with them. We can hold what position that we want. Under the influence, under the pressure, under the insight, as he would say, of science. Of course, he's working with two books now, of course. The book of science, the book of general revelation, and the book of scripture. And I think for a whole host of these men, they've overplayed that distinction and elevated the Book of Nature at least to a par with the Book of Scripture. and often elevated it higher than scripture. And so I think I would stand by my initial assessment of what Dr. Keller said, but would make the allowance that I might possibly have misunderstood him. But I do think when we look at his overall theology, as he has brought evolution into his theology, And I tried to lay out that I think evolution is diametrically opposed to the biblical message and therefore the two cannot simply be put side by side. And we can't put the word theistic before the word evolution and somehow make it nice. It doesn't work like that. The idea of theistic and evolution butt heads every time we say those words, at least they should. So I think we see the results of his mode of interpretation, his hermeneutics. The results show us clearly, I think, that he is subjecting scripture to modern science. And our last question goes to Dr. Beeke. Was the first sin eating the fruit or were there sins of the heart prior to the eating of the fruit? Well, If you want to dissect that carefully, of course, you can't, Adam and Eve couldn't eat of the fruit without responding to those steps of temptation that Satan was laying in front of them. So of course, Eve already in verse six, this train of satanic influence has seeped into her system. She's already been exercising pride in those opening verses and susceptibility to temptation. She's been already distorting God's word. So by the time she eats the fruit, yes, there's been sin going on in her heart. And we don't know quite as much about Adam in verse six. She gave him of the fruit and he did eat and it all seemed to happen so quickly. But the Bible doesn't necessarily record for us every single detail. So I think we can say certainly there was this element of pride and unbelief, the two greatest sins that are the foundation of our fall. I know the Puritan George Swinock said pride was the shirt we put on first in paradise and it's the last shirt we'll take off in the moment of death. And this kind of inward sin is of course what motivated them to do the outward sin of actually eating the fruit. So I'd say the answer is yes, there were sins of the heart prior to eating the fruit, but let's not dissect it in such a way as if there's a long time in between here. The two are one package and they go together in just an immediate context. It all happened, no doubt, in just a few moments. I'd like to thank the speakers for the time they've given to us for these questions and answers. We will be dismissed now for our lunch time. All right. Questions? Do you want to go, Chief? Oh, yeah. I've got a lot of them there. Do you want me to read them or do you want me to read them? I'll let you read them. All right. Then I could have a few more. Okay, since these are all for Dr. Clifton, I've decided to just go ahead and hand him the list of questions we have so far, so he can kind of work through those. I think that's just going to be the easiest way to do it, is if you read the questions and we can get back. So, Dr. Clifton. Well, of course, this is proof of good and evil. How do we put into concrete practice what it is that we're talking about? So I hope I won't disappoint you. But before I begin, I did neglect in my previous presentation to give a plug for the Biblical World Institute Conference, which is scheduled to be held in 2013 with Special Speaker Dr. Joe Beeke. You'll find a table in the college hall of literature. And I want to encourage you, if you have young people, grandchildren, grandchildren who might be high school or college age, that you send them on down to this conference, which is very, very stimulating. I spoke last year. I had the privilege of some advice. But we had a lecture last year on music that was simply I wish I had had that when I was in high school at Troubled. It was that entertaining. It was that helpful. And we were taught about music and how music works. That's the kind of stuff individual world needs. And so I want to strongly encourage you to consider supporting that and picking up the literature they have to leave tonight, so make sure you do it in the near future. Okay. We'll be here through tomorrow. Somebody will be? I believe we'll be here through tomorrow. There you go. There you go. Pastor Bradley will be there and you will have opportunity. Okay? All right, let me read some of these questions and If I pause, it's because I'm thinking, not because I don't know anything. How should we choose to share the principle we've laid out with Christian women, family, or friends who have already chosen a military or law enforcement career? Number two, would you be reluctant to accept a new church member in the church if the wife has a military career? First thing, how can we share the principles? How? Technically? Relatively? Personally? How do we apply them? How can we present them? How can we persuade the women who have chosen the military and the law enforcement career? I think you need to present the Bible's teaching as I've tried to lay it out. On this question. as winsomely, charitably, patiently, and as possibly, with as little of this as you need. I don't think we need to do that with people. People who have already chosen those very law enforcement, what you need to do is explain to them what's going on in terms of the authority structure. Do they realize that when they place themselves under, in certain circumstances, under the headship of another man, that is potentially compromising? Not potentially. It's compromising with regard to their marriage? I think we need to be far, far more alert and aware of those barriers in our society that have been created in the last 30 years. whereby women are placed in situations with men that, I'll put it nicely, resemble their marriage situation, but ought not to, I think the Secretary's in trouble with the boss. That's a job requirement. If we have any elders here, if we have any ruling elders here, don't identify yourself, don't let me tell you. Do you know? Do you know how many women in your congregation or in your workforce are compelled, as you know, to jog across and try and lose their bosses? I think you ought to know. That's what I mean by the church needing to step up to the plate on this kind of stuff. and advise and help. So the first thing we do is teach. The church teaches and now we get pushed back. Well, what about me? What about myself? Well, let's look at your situation. Tell me how it goes. Here's your biblical principle. How can this biblical principle be honored? How can it be applied? How can it be incarnated in your situation? And if somebody comes up with the answer, you know, well, I'm not sure I belong on the police force. OK, we're going to try to find another job where you can use your skills and your ability in a way that honors your marriage and your husband and honors the Trinitarian relationship and reality that that is. It's time, it's time that we get involved with the congregation members this way. And by the way, I'm not talking about condemning, judging, criticizing, isolating, excommunicating. I'm not talking about any of that. I'm talking about teaching. That's what I'm talking about. Would you be reliant on a set of church members whose wife has military career? I don't mean to be presumptuous or snide when I use this analogy, but if you know church history well enough, you know that when Paul and Peter and those men proclaimed the gospel and people came to faith, you know that some of these men were husbands of more than one wife? When's the last time you welcomed into church membership a polygamist? Now, of course, Paul writes in Timothy that an elder or a bishop has to be the husband of one wife. I take that to mean that there were men who were husbands of both of one wife, but they were not eligible for church leadership. So, too, if you have a situation, you welcome people in the Lord Jesus Christ, even if He has welcomed them. And you, through teaching and through pastoring, you welcome them and you allow them things like access to the table, access to the means of grace. But I wouldn't put such a husband in leadership position in the church. Well, that's clear. I wouldn't allow a man whose wife was the chief of police in Greenville, South Carolina, I wouldn't allow that man probably to be an elder in the church, because we've got a conflict here in terms of modeling. Do we not? Do we not? OK, I hope that's helpful. I want to communicate pastorality and patience. You recently mentioned the same little bit at the end of your lecture. Can you elaborate on their place as indicators of God, especially considering what you said about man alone or woman alone being incomplete? Yes, please understand that. You know that I've said, according to Bobbitt, that the entire human race finally, will be, will finally be the image of God. Do you know that? Let me speak to you in complete. I am not complete without my grandchildren. I am not complete as a human being without my great-grandchildren. My great-grandchildren. I, I not only pray for my grandchildren, I have five children, I have thirteen grandchildren one way to be born, I haven't reclaimed them, I live with them, by wish, by need. I drive my car, the car of my life, not by looking in the rear-view mirror to see where I've been. I drive my car by looking through that real estate called the windshield. And I may be, well, for your information, older than 50. But I look forward to every day. I look forward to every day of my life. Because I look forward to the world, my grandchildren in America, my great-grandchildren and so forth. My point is, I'm not complete until the end of history occurs. I feel it. I know it. I'm my way of life. So too, single people. feel incomplete because they're not married. Part of that, and I say only part of it, is due to certain cultural, social expectations on the need, you've got to be married, and how people can talk to you like that. Okay, what's the place of image bearers of God if they're single. Somebody came up to me during the break and asked about in the church. By the way, I believe that the church as the bride of Christ, as the household of faith, as the family of God provides the resources to compensate with respect to single people, both male and female. But I believe that a woman is created in God's image. But that their service, in terms I was talking about today, the Trinitarian picture, occurs in the church most helpfully, most really, most beneficially. And that service, I come, you don't know a lot about me, I know. I grew up in the Christian Reformed Church. I left in 1995 as part of the United Reformed Churches. I am currently an ordained teaching elder in the Presbyterian Church of America. I went through, and I can show you the scars if you'd like to see them, the debates on women's ordination. I was in the front on that one, and I've got the scars to show. And here's one of my regrets. When you're in a polemical situation, you lose your sense of balance and perspective. And that debate left us, and by us now I'm identifying with the United Reformed Churches who came out of the CRC. left us without a positive message for women in the church. It always happens if you study history, that that against which you have stood comes to define you. And I think as a church, and I'm speaking to you all as maybe Presbyterians in general, I think as a church we need to do far more in terms of maximizing the abilities, the gifts, the calling, the service of women, God's children, in the church, not only in teaching, but also in organizing, also in terms of serving various age groups. I'm not at all advocating the public teaching office or public ruling office in the church. I'm advocating that women be allowed and encouraged to use their gifts for, with, in the church as largely and widely as possible. I don't know if the name Marian Schooland means anything to anybody here. Raise your hand if you've ever heard of Marion Schooland. All right. CRC? Never married. Never married. She lived together with another woman in days when that didn't raise one eyebrow of suspicion. That other woman was named Dorothy Reuters, and she was my caretaker when my mother died. And we had five children in the home and Dorothy came and she kept house for my father while my father went to work to earn our Christian school tuition. And Dorothy would have us over for weekends and I got to meet Mary in Schoolland. And you know, she wrote some books. She wrote some children's books, some Bible story books, et cetera. I only use that as an example of a noble woman. who understood, she understood her role as an image bearer of God in service to God's church. I hope that's helpful. How do you define the difference between men and women? Woo. Okay, here's one. Men hunt, women graze. That's a shopping metaphor. Men go to the hardware store and they grab and they're out of there, but women, they got to look at every kind of hammer and every kind of pliers and see if they're getting the right one. I'm kidding. I'm kidding. I don't know how to answer that question. How do you define the difference? I can describe it. I can describe it, but there's a complementarity that men are called, minimally, let me say this, men are called to be protectors and providers. And women are called to be supporters, help, meet, suitable for him, a supporter, and a follower. If you have a leader, you've got to have a follower. To reverse those, to reverse those, is what I was talking about today, this afternoon, as violating the Trinitarian function. If the son, and by the way, We're in the season that people call Lent, but we're meditating on the sacrifice of our Savior on the cross. And he, at one point on the cross, said, meditate on this, will you? Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do. Do you know what he was doing? He was honoring his office, his position. Jesus had been forgiving people his whole ministry. Why now did he call on the father to do it? Answer? Because he was in the seat of the defendant. He was in the seat of the accused. And it was not his job at that point to issue and extend forgiveness. So he prays to the father for the postponement of judgment. Anyway, there's a sermon there. We're talking about defining the difference. That's the best I can do to this very good, very good, but very large question. Men protect, provide. Women support. help and follow. Here's a great one. In what ways will the image of God as nuptial and marital be reflected in the new heavens and the new earth? That's a beautiful question. The person who wrote that got it. They got it. Because here's the answer. You know Jesus said that people will not any longer be given in marriage. There will neither be marrying nor being given in marriage. suggesting to me that there will not be procreation. Incidentally, never talk about reproduction when it comes to human sexuality. Animals reproduce. People procreate. Animals do what they do by instinct. People do what they do by choice. Okay? There will be no more procreation in heaven. But there's going to be a wedding. And there's going to be marriage in heaven. Not a marriage between human beings, that is to say, one man and one woman, but a marriage between Christ, the Lamb, and the Bride. Heaven is going to be nuptial. It's going to be marital. It's going to be covenantal to the max. There's going to be such marital bliss for which You all are rehearsing right now in your marriages. You're married? It's a rehearsal. You thought the rehearsal was before you tied the knot? No. My wife and I next week are going to have been married 42 years. 42 years. It's been a 42 year long rehearsal. It's been a long one. Many tears. A lot of laughs. A good time. But that's going to be the ultimate, I didn't say real, I said ultimate marriage. The one between Christ and the church. And in the new heavens and the new earth. I'm so glad God has revealed to us in the Bible that what we're going to see when Jesus returns is going to be a lot like what we see right now except for, and this is the mind blowing, except for sin and its effects. We're going to have a new earth. And that God – redemption doesn't overturn. Redemption doesn't ignore. Redemption doesn't discount creation. As a matter of fact, that's why I'm so happy about this conference. The start of the gospel, the beginning of the gospel begins in Genesis 1, verse 1. Creation is the beginning of the gospel, not because – not because there was sin inherent, but it's because the categories, the structure, the structure of creation is the structure of redemption. So, for now, let's suffice with that. Could you please speak to how pastors can apply Bobbing's understanding of the nuptial aspect of Imago Dei in the church, particularly in regards to the middle-aged women in their churches that wish to be married? Well, I've spoken a little bit about this in terms of, I think we need to be far more intentional, calculating, that's a good word by the way, calculating, We need to be far more programmatic in terms of the use of the gifts, the abilities, the wisdom, and the blessing of such women, even in terms of diaconal ministries. I have to confess to you that among the women in office debates that I've participated in, I've learned that reformed church polity is a tad different than Presbyterian church polity. I've taught church polity for 26 years, so I know a little bit about this. And I believe that there is room in the church especially in Presbyterian churches, for women who are assistants to the deacons. And I think we've got to maximize that. I praise God for the women, the godly women in the church who know the right thing, the right tone, the right timing of a gesture, of a touch, of a glance, of a word. And we klutzes who call ourselves men We can learn. We can learn from that. That's the best I can do. Pastors, please try to do that in terms of your congregation and its ministry. Church elders of the past generation seem to have overseen the creation of a church that is mainly operated for the service of women and children. How did this happen? What should sessions and concessions do to reform the situation? I think if I understand the question rightly, The question bemoans the fact that today the church seems to be aimed at, designed, targeted for women and children. Men are not interested in the church. How did it happen? Oh, I've got one answer. I'm not sure it's the answer. It has to do with forgetting and losing psalm singing. Now, isn't that strange? That abandoning psalm singing would have this kind of effect? on the church? Well, let me ask you, in the absence of psalm singing, what came in its place? All kinds of hymns and songs about the sweetness of Jesus and how I love to be with Him and all of this sentimental, emotional kind of approach to religion, to sin, to heaven and all of this. Where is the muscularity? Where is the muscularity, the muscle? Where is the testosterone in our songs in church worship? You know what? Women, if they're regenerated by God's grace and if they're moved by the gospel, women love and respect men who lead and who lead in the example of the Lord Jesus Christ. I don't know a better example than Psalm 2. It talks about a Savior who's going to crush somebody's head. We've got a Savior who has a sword coming out of His mouth. It's not a butter knife, it's a sword. Whatever happened to the Psalms? You talk about the feminization of society. Somebody said over coffee time, maybe I said it. A lot of the problems we see out there need to be laid at the feet of the church. The feminization of culture and the feminization of society is a result of the feminization of the church. Go study the hymnody in the 19th century that arose in American Christianity and how much of that has crept into our worship services. So I know that's only part of an answer. I understand that. What should they do about it? What should Sessions and consistories do? Well, change the singing. Change the singing. By the way, don't misunderstand anything I've said about singing psalms, robust, masculine, to require an organ or a piano. Now maybe I've overstayed my welcome on that one, but I don't believe it and neither do your children, by the way. I know that's a — that's half an answer. It's not the full one, but that's what we have. With — with Bobbink's nuptial marital imago dei, how does he treat Paul's view of not to marry? Well, please understand, That Paul's suggestion not to marry is better not to touch a woman, better not to marry, that that was given in the context of an eschatological understanding of the present day in which Paul was living. He — Paul was not laying down there in that passage a universal rule to which the exception is those who can't handle their sexuality and better get married. That's a very poor view of marriage, by the way, that marriage is legalized lust. Marriage is legalized fornication, legalized sexuality. That's a poor view of marriage. No, Paul was not laying down the rule, the general rule, not to marry, to which the exception is, okay, for the rest of you guys, you schmucks. No, the rule from creation onward is that marriage is an institution of God and it's good, but we live in the last times. And so he was saying, as it were, if you're going to get married, look ahead and relativize. Relativize your marriage in terms of the new heavens and the new earth, in terms of your calling to serve God here and now. And don't let your marriage be the idol of your life. So that's what I think. And therefore, I think Bobbink's emphasis on the nuptial or marital imago dei fits because we always remember that that our calling before the face of God is tempered, it is affected, it is modulated in terms of the timing of God's clock. Let me explain that a little bit more. See, I think, for example, that I'm a big fan of Christian activity and culture. I think Christian schools are essential. I think they're important. I think that Christian art and Christian music, Christian newspapers, Christian political activity, and I'm getting into my comments for tomorrow here, but these are all part of our response to the gospel in our culture and our generation. However, there's a time and a place for everything. There's even permissible Christian dancing. Unfortunately, we can't do it. because our culture has so corrupted and so tied physical movement in with sexual innuendo that it's tough. Now, I know Klumpen dancing. I don't know if you do. Klumpen dancing is as asexual as it gets. I mean, because there's just nothing pretty about it. It's just wooden shoes banging on the street. That's what that is. But there was a woman in the Middle Ages who was given this gift of dancing. She was a ballet dancer. She was a Christian. At a certain point with her fantastic ability to dance, one day she decided to chain her ankles together. And she quit dancing. And when somebody asked her, why, with your gifts and your ability, have you chained your ankles together never to dance again? She said, so that one day I may dance well. That's a Christian ethic. There are all kinds of things we may do. But what time is it, folks? That was not a rhetorical question. I mean to say it's late on God's clock, and we'd better be about the important things in life so that, again, with regard to marriage and so forth, relativize it in terms of the end times. That means, by the way, a noble... I think it nobilizes. Sorry, I just invented a word. It makes noble. the calling, and it is a calling, of being single. So that for the sake of the time in which we live, there are values, there are activities, and there are goods, good things, there are goods that are necessary and achievable in singleness. Are you suggesting that remarriage after divorce is always wrong? Ooh. You heard me say that God hates divorce. I'm familiar with Westminster 24 in terms of what are called the two permissible grounds of divorce, sexual immorality and desertion. Um, I believe that God hates divorce and he hates everything that leads to divorce. But the Bible, God's revelation does give us some permissible situations or situations when divorce is permissible. But remarriage is another question altogether. I happen personally to find John Murray's position on this question plausible, biblical, tenable, pastorally applicable, though these situations are always difficult. So, no, I'm not suggesting that remarriage after divorce is always wrong. By the way, you may be confused by now. If all of reality is marital and covenantal, if God's covenant with the elect is indissoluble and eternal, based in eternity past for eternity future. And if our relationships as husband and wife is covenantal, does that not thereby ipso facto require indissolubility? My answer is sadly, no. I believe that marriages which are covenantal through human sin and deformity can be broken, can be dissolved. and thereby that divorce truly defaces God's relationship with the church and with His people. God tolerated divorce in the Bible. Did He not? Deuteronomy 24. Matthew 5. Read about Israel's return after the exile in Ezra and Nehemiah where they were commanded to divorce their pagan wives. So on the question of divorce, I think that there are some areas where the Bible is more permissive than the position which says marriage is indissoluble, unable to be dissolved except by death. I find that to be a position that is attractive. It is, however, beyond what I think the Bible teaches. Remarriage, I can't lay any formula down. But case by case, we need to examine. We need to examine people's hearts to the extent they allow us to. We need to examine people's attitudes on that question. I'm not sure I understand your or Bobbing's position well. According to your, Bobbing's view, is a man or a woman unmarried and living in his or her own household the image of God? My answer is yes. Remember, I said there were three reference There's the individual. In James 3 and in Genesis chapter 9, the fact that I am created in the image of God has certain implications about taking my life or injuring me, et cetera. So, yes, an individual woman or man is created in the image of God. If not, how can we explain the death penalty, okay, applied by God to the murder of women or men? Thank you. Okay. Well, I hope I've answered the question. I'm talking about different levels of the referent to the phrase imago Dei, and therefore death the death penalty, in my opinion. And by the way, in our culture, in our culture, we have decided we are wiser than God, I think, by foregoing outlawing the death penalty. I think that's that's I know that's not good in terms of practiced and applied theology. And it has all kinds of social and psychological ramifications that are very, very nasty. So I think I've answered that one. If the image of God is nuptial, marital, and Adam is essentially Adam and Eve, is the single person not made in the image of God? I trust I've answered that. Or becomes in the image upon marriage? No. There's just a different level. Single believers, single believers, unmarried believers are fully image of God by virtue of creation and by virtue of redemption. They are included in and embodied in the bride of Christ, the wife, the wife of Christ, and thereby they experience that complementarity, though not on the same kind level as a husband and a wife do. So I want to be clear that single people are single unmarried people. are created in the image of God. But the nature of the image of God is not thereby exhausted. The meaning of the image of God is not thereby exhausted. That's what marital complementarity is about, and eventually all of humanity will be the unfolding. In a real sense, folks, given that third example from Bob Inc., the image of God doesn't yet exist. Now get your head around that one. I mean, I don't mean to be funny, but in a real sense, the image of God doesn't exist yet until all of humanity has been born, created, and then the new humanity will take over. And that doesn't exist fully yet. In principle, in seed, in germ form, it does in the Lord Jesus Christ. What interaction have you had with the Protestant Reform view of, quote, the organic idea, end quote, and the Imago Dei, particularly Professor Engelsma? How do you assess Hoeksema's peculiar views as over against Bavink? That's an interesting question. Somebody knows something here. Professor Engelsma, I would call him a friend. Not sure he'd call me a friend, but I call him a friend. He and I served together on the Dutch Reformed Translation Society, and after the Bavink work was finished, We were soliciting proposals for the next project. And he was with me and we were all together as a board. And I proposed that we, this was about 10 years ago, that we translate Abram Kuyper's Common Grace. And I thought David Engelsma was going to hit me, but he began laughing and he said, I am all in favor of that. Then people can see how stupid it is. Well, at least we were co-belligerents. on that project, but they declined to translate it, and now we have another organization busy translating and producing Common Grace and Pro Reg and all that. But I have to confess, I don't know what the Protestant Reform view of the organic idea is. So the person who wrote the question knows more than I do about this. I don't know what, I don't know Professor Engelson's peculiar view or personal view on this. Perhaps the person who wrote this can come and we can talk about this after the Q&A. Could you compare, contrast the Southern Presbyterian view of the church's mission, for example, Machen, with the Kuyperian view of the church's mission and assess it? Oh, you bet I can. Tomorrow morning, 9 o'clock, that's what we're going to be talking about. when I propose to you something you will not forget, an integrationist model of the cultural mandate and the Great Commission. And I promise you, I will have a drawing, a graphic for you to go home with that answers precisely this question. That's all that I see. Oh, more. What's our time? You've got about three minutes. Three minutes. Okay. Let's see if I can stretch this out. Um, how, how should the church seek to utilize single men and women? Okay. We, I've spoken many, much about the women. Let me talk about the men. Now, when I grew up, um, when I grew up in the Christian reform church, we had in our congregation, a program, I don't know, maybe some of you know, called the Calvinist cadets, the Calvinist cadets. And that was for the boys and the girls had the Calvinettes. the Calvinettes. Today they're called Gems, I think. I went through the entire cadet program and I got to be acquainted with men in the congregation who taught me the difference between a square knot and another knot. And, uh, you know, they taught me, they taught me how to swing an ax without hurting somebody and how to use a power saw. My father was a carpenter, but my father, my father was a carpenter, but my father didn't, he wasn't successful in teaching us boys, you know, so these other guys taught us things. And I think men, young men, single unmarried men in the congregation need to be sought out. for mentoring, mentoring. We could call it discipling. We could call it mentoring in terms of teenagers. And look, I know there are all kinds of possible risks and dangers. Our society is so full of fear about adults and children and adults and teenagers and all of this kind of stuff. And I'm urging that we be eyes wide open and that we be responsible, also perhaps insured. But that shouldn't stop us. That shouldn't stop us from having godly single men use positions of influence, mentorship, and discipling with young men, young boys in the congregation, particularly in terms of single-parent households. Single-parent households. Again, a lot of risk, a lot of things need to be taken care of. Get professional advice with regard to how to structure this. How do we battle the feminist? That's the question. How do we battle the feminist? What is their view about creation? Well, I happen to believe, men, that feminism is our fault. You know, the opposite of feminism is chauvinism. And I have heard feminists who, when I listen to them, I say, Your father didn't treat you very well at all, did he?" And I mean that. I hear the pain, the anger. I hear the abuse in the language and the rhetoric of feminism. And I wonder if feminism would ever have arisen if chauvinism had not done its dastardly, its wickedness. How do we respond to a feminist? With the gospel. With the gospel. The same way you respond to a chauvinist. And you show them a God. You show the feminists a God who is called the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. A God who is mighty, who is powerful. A God who is strict against sin and who is righteous in his judgments. But a God who is tender, compassionate, A God who stores up the tears of His children as if in a bottle. A God who sent a Son. A Son who was so human as we, yet without sin. A Son who cried. And you present that same Gospel, that same God and Savior to a chauvinist. And with all of the personal tact, touch, and tenderness You watch the Holy Spirit melt, melt their anger. You want to talk to me about anger? I can talk a long, long time about anger. There's only one thing, there's only one thing that conquers anger, the anger of the feminist or the anger of the chauvinist, and that's the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. The root of anger, I'm convinced by experience, And by the testimony of Scripture, the root of anger is fear. And the number one prohibition in the entire Bible, the one said more often than any other is what? Fear not. And what's the opposite of fear? Faith. Feminists and chauvinists in our culture need to be brought to faith. And they need to be welcomed by a God who satisfies all of the needs that were robbed from them in their childhood by people appointed in authority, by people appointed to nurture and protect and provide and model. And that's the church's glorious, positive, positive modeling mission in today's culture. Thank you. Again, it's unfortunate that Mr. Floor and Dr. Pipe, I already had to, uh, leave, um, because of flight commitments, but there are, uh, a number of questions here for, uh, Dr. Klosterman and, uh, I'll allow him to address a few of them in the, uh, uh, in the next few minutes. Uh, I've already given him one that I thought would, uh, it's a, a, uh, a little softball question to start us off on a somewhat lighthearted manner. And I'll, I'll let him read the question and then answer it. Well, there's somebody here who knows something about me, but about Dutch culture too. Uh, Dr. Klosterman, you said, no one hoards up salt to munch on it later. Are you saying that the Dutch are unsanctified and moronic in eating dropjes? You are Dutch too, aren't you? Well, I have to, I have to assure you that I eat only zooterdropjes, not zouterdropjes. That is sweet candy, not salty candy. Anyway, good question. All right. Um, another question, uh, in your five options for relating the cultural mandate and the great commission. Where would you place the neo-Calvinism that is expressed in the Institute for Christian Studies, Dork College, or Calvin College? Do they still follow a transformational model? Have they moved away from Kuiper or Bavinck in any significant ways? Thank you for that question. I would, first of all, distinguish between Kuyperian Calvinism and Neo-Calvinism, and Neo-Calvinism being represented by the Institute of Christian Studies in Toronto, Neo-Calvinism being represented by people like Hermann Duyvierd and others. They were the second generation of Kuyper followers who applied Kuyper's principles and thinking to areas of philosophy, somewhat jurisprudence, technology, and so on. Where would I place the Institute, Calvin, Dort College? Well, um, let me, let me do two things. Number one, let me enlarge the group to include Covenant College. That would be your college perhaps. Let me in the second place, make this pastoral observation. Covenant College, Calvin College and Dort College, um, are committed to training young people through their curriculum and through their college experience to enter the world, into the world of, uh, of living, of business, of art, of culture as those who are salt and light. Now the rhetoric that's used by all of these schools includes the verb transform. And I wince sometimes when I sense that they go beyond the line with regard to us transforming culture. And it's not as clear in any of those college statements that the Great Commission is the context within which the cultural mandate comes to expression. But rather than criticize those colleges, let me alert you to something that's very, very important and helpful and positive. There is a renaissance underway. of neo-Calvinism today in our generation, and it is being led by younger folk, and it is cleaning up particularly three defects of the neo-Calvinism of my generation and earlier. The three defects that are being repaired self-consciously are an inadequate respect for the Word of God with regard to the normativity of the Word, the infallibility of the Word, and the comprehensiveness of the Word for all of life. 2. A restored, remedied, high view of the institutional church, with its means of grace, with its offices, and with its worship. I can tell you that is happening today. a renewed regard and championing of holiness and godliness in the life of Calvinists, of God's children. Those were three cardinal defects that people like me and others identified and wrote about some 30 years ago when we published a document entitled Our Testimony. It was published in various periodicals, but it laid at the feet of neo-Calvinism then, these three defects. Where is this Renaissance occurring? It's occurring principally in Canada at the Paideia Center for Public Theology associated with Redeemer Christian University in Ancaster, Ontario. Names associated with this Renaissance would be Craig Bartholomew, Michael Goheen, and others associated within that orbit of Paideia Center for Public Theology. Interestingly, I attended a conference about two years ago now. detailing and documenting this renaissance. And the majority of attendees at that conference, believe it or not, hold your breath, were Southern Baptists. You would not believe the entrance of the ideas that I shared with you this morning. You wouldn't believe the receptivity to these ideas among Southern Baptists. Now I think I can tell the story about how I came to translate Bobbings the Christian Family out of nowhere. I got an email from a Baptist minister in Johnson City, Tennessee, who said, we heard you're translating Herman Bobbings the Christian Family. We would like to offer you the free use of a mountain cabin in the Appalachian Mountains so you can finish that translation. So my wife and I enjoyed their hospitality and generosity. I preached and spoke for them on a Sunday evening. And they are the ones who assisted me in translating that because he said, the minister who, by the way, doesn't identify himself with capital R-E-F-O-R-M-E-D, but he preaches it. Let me tell you, he preaches it and he and they, who assisted me in completing that translation, and they are the ones to whom I owe a debt of gratitude. The Southern Baptist, Albert Moeller, perhaps you've heard of Al Moeller from the seminary, and a number of people are picking up what we're putting down here in terms of worldview Christianity and worldview Calvinism. So I hope that's sufficient. This one is probably going to require you do some unpacking. Do you think that the two kingdoms view or doctrine is part of and or consistent with the Kleinian project of reading New Testament Christianity of the mosaic expression of the law of God, a.k.a. a crypto-dispensationalism? Boy, whoever wrote that question, they've got the ear of the dog. You know, they've got it right there in their hand. Yes. My answer is yes. What I mean there, there's some big words and you might not appreciate or understand them is the two kingdom view. By the way, um, I am very averse. It's not anybody's fault here. Just a little linguistic thing. I'm very averse to talking about the two kingdoms. It's like, pardon my coming into the Presbyterian home here for a moment and talking about y'all's emphasis on the regulative principle. And I ask, which one? Which regulative principle? You understand my point? I don't mean to be obnoxious here. So it is with the two kingdoms. Which two kingdom view are you talking about? So those who are perpetrating in these books the reform view of the two kingdoms, let's talk about a reform view of two kingdoms. Anyway. The two kingdoms view or doctrine as part of, and, or consistent with the Kleinian project of ridding man, sorry, ridding New Testament Christianity, the mosaic expression. Absolutely right. Meredith Klein, who has written some very, very interesting and challenging work in the area of covenant, covenant renewal, ancient near Eastern covenant, Hittite treaties, et cetera. Interesting work with regard to images of the spirit. His main, his main work is kingdom prologue, um, and his He views Israel as an interim, as an intrusion, as a parenthesis in redemptive history. And God's dealings with Israel, including now, you'd have to say, the Mosaic Covenant. The Mosaic Covenant is an interim arrangement. And so a notion is peddled today that the Mosaic Covenant is a republication of the covenant of works. So just as Adam was confronted with the need to obey and thereby earn salvation, By the way, I've got problems with that manner of expression, but so to Israel's place before the Torah and expected to earn her salvation to stay in the land. She couldn't, she didn't. We need Jesus Christ. In my judgment, there's a book been written or articles been written in response to the law is not of faith. Dr. Cornell Venema has written an article in the mid America journal of theology, both on that book. in response to it and on Two Kingdoms recently, the latest edition. But this notion of the republication of the Covenant of Works is disastrous on a number of fronts, not the least of which, I said it earlier, the third use of the law. Perhaps you all know a little bit of OPC history in terms of the public adjudication of a theological position defended and advocated by one whose name was Lee Irons. That happened a number of years ago, but I'm going to suggest to you that the, the problems associated with that theological discussion and debate and adjudication, the problems are not over. And I believe that they are coming again to expression in what appears in form, structure and paradigm. to be a dispensational approach to the Old Testament, given the current two kingdoms discussion. Um, if you're a minister and you're preaching through Leviticus or numbers or Deuteronomy, as I love to do, I love to preach the gospel from those books. But if you're a two, that kind of two kingdoms person, the most you can say with regard, for example, to. The passage where God says, now, you are a people of my own possession, therefore, do not cut the hair on your head, or do not cut yourself or shave the hair of your head on behalf of the dead, for I am the Lord your God. What do you do with that? Well, the best you can say is, well, that points us to Jesus Christ. And Jesus Christ is, and you leave the text, the text becomes a platform for jumping, you might say, to Jesus Christ. But I think there's something going on in that text having to do with life and death. And God is giving Israel some instructions about our funeral habits. And he's saying sackcloth and ashes, dirt on the head, that's okay. But that's where it stops. No cutting, no shaving of your head, no identification of yourself with the dead because Jesus is coming and Easter is coming. So God's law proclaims the gospel. You can't say that. If mosaic is a republication of the covenant of works, I believe God's law, God's Torah to Israel is the proclamation of the gospel. And in shadow form, in shadow form, so that Jesus comes to make, he's the reality to which that casts the shadow on the Torah and in the Torah. So that's an excellent question. And you've got the issue really by the right end there. I guess this is sort of an evaluation question. Uh, is the reason for the present two kingdom debate within the church a result of, or I suppose, or a reaction to the social gospel? Um, I think there are at least three, uh, contributing factors and impulses to this, uh, reconstruction, this construal, this paradigm. The first has to do with theonomy and Christian reconstruction. Meredith Klein set his sail. He set his life sail in opposing viscerally theonomy and Christian reconstruction. That's no secret. That's a matter of public record. And I think that in carrying forward Klein's legacy, this movement, this paradigm is dead. It's got its target right on theonomy and Christian reconstruction. And because neo-Calvinism, the good neo-Calvinism is interested in applying the principles of God's word, listen carefully, the principles of God's word to all of life, they are dubbed theonomist. I can hear people spinning in their grave. They would never, they would never be identified with theonomy. So that, that's the first impulse is theonomy of Christian reconstruction. Another impulse is indeed the social gospel, which is almost indistinguishable from the bad neo-Calvinist emphasis on, um, on going out into the world and redeeming the world for Christ and building the kingdom. When I was a pastor during those days, those, excuse me, those dark days, I would get kids in my catechism class who were going to high school and college coming back saying, well, our teacher or our professor said that when we're in a Christian school classroom, we're in church. I said, what? Or we can worship because all of life is Holy and every day is Holy. We can worship God on the golf course. as well as we can worship God in church. And I said, what? So you get the diminution of the church. So that's in my opinion, that's almost indistinguishable from a social gospel, which says the cup of cold water is the gospel. The third impulse to this new movement has to do, I think, with the, with the collapse and the decay, the emasculation of evangelicalism. Evangelicalism, both in terms of worship. And in terms of church activity with the, with the evangelical penchant for using the pulpit as a political platform, worse identifying the American way of life as the way of Jesus Christ. Now I'm sympathetic to a lot of these criticisms. I'm sympathetic. I have publicly criticized theonomy and Christian reconstruction, but in a friendly, sympathetic way, I love their attention to the old Testament. I just think they've got it a little bit wrong here. Thank you, though, for bringing us back into the Old Testament as the Word of God for today. I'm very sympathetic to critiques about turning the pulpit into a political platform and turning the church to pull everybody's wagon from pro-life to this wagon and that wagon. I'm very sympathetic. The institutional church, what goes on here on the Lord's Day is unique. It's sui generis. It's one of a kind. You come here on the Lord's Day. to hear the life-giving word of God. You don't come here to listen to a Christianized version of Fox News or Rush Limbaugh. All right? And you better learn very quickly that Rush Limbaugh and Fox News have no transcendental point of reference. And they're no better. Their philosophy is no better than that of the left from that point of view. So don't be seduced by that. And don't turn the church into an extension of the Republican Party at prayer. You know, if we object to the social gospel because it turns the church into the democratic party at prayer, we're no better off if we do the other. So with some of these impulses, I am in thorough agreement, but the consequences, and I'm finished with this story. When I, when I grew up in the Christian reform church, I got educated. I became a minister and ordained in the Christian reform church. We faced issues. Issues involving women's ordination, creation and evolution, and homosexuality. And every one of those issues has what one thing in common? View of scripture. And the arguments employed to defend these things over here took the Bible out of your hand. And my concern with this new movement of the two kingdom and natural law is that it's going to take the Bible out of your hand and keep it in church. And it doesn't get off the parking lot. That's my concern. And I think though the intentions are noble, the answer is not what we need. I'll follow up with this one because it really touches on something that you've already heard deals with something you've already touched on. Uh, can one be post mill and an integrationist model without being theonomistic? Wow. That's a, can one be post mill? Can one be post-mill in an integrationist model without being theonomistic or believing in an earthly golden age? Boy, I think so. Um, from the point of view, I would identify this question as the post-mill meaning an optimistic a-mill. Okay, I'll just redefine the question. I think you can be an optimistic Amil, that is to say, recognizing that the Lord's kingdom, the Lord's gospel, the Lord's church is going to grow along with its impact in the world before the Lord Jesus Christ comes without being theonomistic. By the way, when Greg Bonson was alive, I had a personal friendship with him and I critiqued him in the pages of Christian Renewal and he thanked me publicly for having read what he wrote. So many of his critics didn't read what he had written. I did, and I interacted with him. We were friends, and I said to him, I said to him once, you know, what are you saying differently about the Old Testament and civil law? What are you saying differently than John Calvin? He said, exactly. I'm not saying anything. Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, wait, wait. I said, no, no, no, no, you can't do that because Wherever theonomy goes, there are corpses in the ditch. People get hurt. Churches get split. People excommunicate each other. Something's not right here. Because if you're not a theonomist, why? You know the mode, the mentality? So, and then I said to Greg, I said, listen, Greg, there's something about what you're peddling here that doesn't resonate with the broad reformed Presbyterian community as they've become nurtured under Calvin. And I think it has to do with post-millennialism. Calvin and others, and this is something I've not emphasized this in my addresses here, but Calvin and others had a healthy biblical respect for what's called pilgrimage. Pilgrimage. We are not possessors. We are pilgrims. And as pilgrims, we are sojourners and we're aliens. And by the way, the two kingdom people love to use that metaphor as well. They love it. But the difference is, my difference is this, I use that metaphor of pilgrimage and alienation and sojourning as a mode of existence in the world, as a mode of cultural engagement. That's the way we engage culture, not arrogantly, not with our banners and our rallies, but with the gospel. Post-millennialism, I think, doesn't have much room, at least I don't hear it articulated, much room for suffering. Much room for self denial. And I talked with Greg about that and he's, he assured me that while one doesn't have to be a post mill in order to be a theonomist. And I said, well, that's not become obvious to me at all. But to the question, I think you can be optimistic Amil with the integrationist model, uh, that I proposed, um, to you this morning. I'll leave it there. Uh, one final question. What is your response to those who say that Two Kingdoms is not a new doctrine, but rather was espoused by men such as Calvin? Yeah. Well, that gets back to something I said earlier. These tempests in the reform Presbyterian teapot, you know, this matter of justification, federal vision, and now this Two Kingdoms. Isn't it interesting how many of the advocates and proponents want to wrap themselves with Calvin's mantle and Calvin's cloak? and they want to thereby sort of assure people, this isn't anything new, folks. This isn't anything new. Well, I'm here to tell you that this construction and combination, this mix of the ingredients in the test tube, in the Petri dish, this is new. This is new, particularly with the emphasis on natural law as the sole basis for public morality and public discourse of ethical questions. That's new. I know Calvin had place for natural law. I know Calvin taught two kingdoms. What we have here is a combination, a mixture that is not present in Calvin. Study Geneva, study the history. I wrote a 12 part review of David Van Droenen's book about natural law and two kingdoms in reformed theology. And he begins with Augustine and he ends up, he works with Kuyper and Schaefer and others. And the scholarship and the setting up of the of the case is very, very defective and very deficient. So they cannot claim Calvin, and they cannot claim Kuiper, and they cannot claim even Luther to be on their side. You can find that review, it's in an e-book on my website. My website has, you can Google Worldview Resources International, Worldview Resources International. And the title of my e-book response is Peering into a Lawyer's Brief. David Van Drunen happens to be an attorney. As well, he's got his law license and he conducts his argument in that book, like a lawyer, a lawyer who doesn't allow certain witnesses to come to the stand. And I demonstrate that in my book, in my ebook, in my review. So, so Calvin Luther, they did have a doctrine of two kingdoms. What we have today is not the same thing that they had. Thank you, Dr. Klosterman, and that brings us to the end of this year's GPTS Spring Theology Conference.