After Death: The Hope-of-Reunion (Wiedersehen)

There are some questions that pastors get asked quite often.  One of them that I hear often is what the Germans called Wiedersehen; the Dutch called it Wederzien.  This is the long-asked question, “Will Christians recognize each other in heaven?”  The German and Dutch translation is “hope-of-reunion” or “hope-to-see-one-another-again.”  (If only we Americans could say more without using so many words!).

Here’s Bavinck’s answer to Wiedersehen.

The hope of reunion on the other side of the grave is completely natural, genuinely human, and also in keeping with Scripture.  For Scripture teaches us not a naked immortality of spectral souls but the eternal life of individual persons.  Regeneration does not erase individuality, personality, or character, but sanctifies it and puts it at the service of God’s name.  The community of believers is the new humanity that bears within itself a wide range of variety and distinction and manifests the richest diversity in unity.  The joy of heaven, to be sure, first of all consists in communion with Christ but, further, in the fellowship of the blessed among themselves as well.

The part cannot be complete without the whole; the fullness of Christ’s love can only be known in communion with all the saints (Eph 3.18-19).  … The hope of reunion is not bad in itself, therefore, as long as it remains subordinate to the desire for fellowship with Christ (Dogmatics, IV.640-1).

As usual, Bavinck is working on the excellent biblical “grace restores nature” paradigm.  With a gospel-centered and biblically level-headed tone, Bavinck says wiedersehen is not something we should fight against, but long for with our eyes on Christ, because he is the central figure in the covenant of grace and the communion of saints.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Christian Humility

The great Dutch Puritan, Wilhelmus a Brakel (d. 1711) has a most penetrating section on Christian humility in volume four of The Christian’s Reasonable Service ed. Joel Beeke, trans. Bartel Elshout (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 1999).

Of course, Brakel starts with the gospel, how Christ humbled himself to save the ungodly.  He hammers home the truth of what it means that we are ungodly.

One object of humility is “man himself” (p. 68).  “Due to self-knowledge, he knows that there is neither excellence nor anything desirable to be found in him.  In his own eyes he is a great nothing, and he views himself as such.  He thus sinks away in his own nothingness as a stone cast into the water….”  True Christian humility “issues forth from a right judgment of one’s self.  The humble acknowledge that they are made of dust and reside in tabernacles of clay.  They know that they have sinned and come short of the glory of God; are blind, miserable, naked, and wretched, and that they are thus abominable, hateful, and intolerable before God…. (p. 70).  This is what Brakel calls “the book of sin” which is a means to learn humility.  “If you take note of your falling into sin, your goal being the humbling of yourself, you will learn experientially that you are polluted, impure, wicked, atheistic, and abominable in your heart, which time and again brings forth like deeds” (p. 77).  A humble person will say my soul “is a pool of all manner of impure monstrosities” (p. 74).  How can a person be arrogant if he truly reads the book he wrote called “Totally Depraved?”

The other object of humility is a Christian’s neighbor (friend or enemy).  Based on Romans 11.20, Rom 12.3, and Phil 2.3, Brakel notes that a truly humble Christian loves his neighbor – which is motivated by the will of God that he do so.  “In comparing himself to his neighbor, he appears in his own eyes as copper compared to gold, and as lead compared to silver” (p. 69).  When a Christian evaluates his own wicked heart, he looks at his neighbor and says, “There is no way that he/she is a worse sinner than me!”

Brakel also magnifies the grace of God.  He writes that the humble soul realizes he is not even worthy that the skies cover his head, much less the love of God almighty in the death of his Son.  The twin towers of surely I was sinful from birth and Jesus died to save sinners makes the Christian the most humble soul on earth.  In summary, a right view of our dreadful depravity leads to a high view of glorious grace which leads to humility of heart.

In Luther-like terms, I’m worthless, Christ is precious; I am nothing, he is everything.  In Calvin’s terms, “true and sound wisdom consists of two parts: the knowledge of God and of ourselves” (Institutes, I.I.i).

shane lems

sunnyside wa

The Radical Duality of Anabaptist Ecclesiology

One thing that Bavinck did so well was put his finger on the pulse of the radical Anabaptist theology in the post-reformation era.  Here’s one of his many penetrating insights into the Anabaptist dualism.

“Anabaptism proceeded from the premise of an absolute antithesis between creation and re-creation, nature and grace, the world and the kingdom of God, and therefore viewed believers as persons who in being born again had become something totally different and therefore had to live in separation from the world.  Its program was not reformation but separation: Anabaptism wanted a separated church.  For centuries [they said] there had been no church but only Babel, and Babel had to be abandoned and shunned.  In Munster it was said that there had been no true Christian in 1,400 years.  The true church was a church of saints who, after making a personal profession of faith, were baptized, and who distinguished themselves from others by abstaining from oaths, war, government office, and a wide assortment of worldly practices in food and drink, clothing, and social contact” (Reformed Dogmatics, IV.292).

This is pretty significant to understand, especially in light of an earlier post here concerning the conversion experience.  Over and over Bavinck reminds us that grace restores nature; it does not work against or remain outside, above, or beside nature “but rather permeates and wholly renews it.”  In other words, conversion experiences are as diverse as the scores of people who have been converted: there is no one that trumps the others.

This is where the conversion experience and the doctrine of the church go hand in hand: if one sharply distinguishes grace from nature, he sees conversion as a separation from (or destruction of) nature instead of a renewal/reformation of it.  When it comes to the church then, it has to be made up of only those who are separated from nature and show it by their sharp distinction between themselves and everything else.  In pretty blunt terms, it is as if conversion is a lightning-bolt-supernatural-shock which results something totally different, and those who are totally different make up a totally different church (almost an a-natural church).  In Reformed terms (and Bavinck’s terms), this is a dualistic principle that underlies a bunch of sects that emerged within protestantism following the Reformation.

What is the Reformed response?  It is quite detailed, but a the first thing to note with Bavinck is the organic working of grace, the way grace restores and works through, in, and with nature.  We see this principle 1) in the writing of Scripture (God didn’t destroy the personalities of the author, but used them for his purposes), 2) in the unfolding promises of his covenant of grace (his ordinary way of working is through the natural means of parents and their seed), 3) in conversion (which is a renewal [not destruction] of the imago dei), 4) in sanctification (God reforming his people – including their various personalities and emotions), and 5) in the church (he uses natural things like speaking, bread, wine, and discipline – the 3 marks of a true church – to help his people).  These are just five areas – there are more.

There is a pastoral side to this.  Just as with conversion we don’t always need to see the “hell to heaven” experience that one can pinpoint (though those are fine), so too with sanctification and the doctrine of the church.  In a church, we’re going to find a whole bunch of people with different personalities, different ways of struggling with sin, different methods of speaking about Jesus, and so forth.  Since grace renews nature, we should expect to see one parishioner fight sin with tears, another fight it with a more upbeat attitude, and yet another fight it quietly behind the scenes while a fourth sings a favorite Psalm to combat sin.  When I counsel a believer who struggles with some type of addiction, for example, though we follow general Scriptural principles, he may not fight that addiction like I would.  This sometimes frustrates me, since I tend to be Luther-like, fighting sin with fists flying.   When Bavinck reminds me that grace restores nature, I can rest at night knowing that God’s gracious renewal gives us the same weapons to fight, but we all use those weapons in different ways.   Just because the sinner-who-is-a-saint doesn’t throw fists at sin like I do doesn’t mean he isn’t fighting it!  Just because a church is made up of people who are at different stages of struggling and have different methods of struggling doesn’t mean the church is impure!   A church is made up of a bunch of sinners using the same weapons to fight sin, only they wield the weapons differently.  Grace renews nature!

This post is too long already, but this also has implications for preaching!

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Classic Arminianism: The Grandfather of Rationalism

Every now and then while reading Herman Bavinck, I run across this loaded proposal: moralism, mysticism, rationalism, and deism go hand in hand.  I know what he means, but until recently I had to make the deductions myself in light of his other writings.  In Saved by Grace, I found his own explanation of this proposal.

First of all, Bavinck describes the early 17th century teaching of the Remonstrants (a.k.a. ‘classic Arminian’) that God gives sufficient grace to all humans which gives all people the moral ability to choose or reject Christ.  This means that universal, sufficient grace inside all people gives all people moral ability and capacity to do the good.

Bavinck argued that this view was moralistic (i.e. emphasized what people can do), it denied the effectual call (i.e. people can accept or reject as they please), it “undermined God’s entire special revelation” because the Quakers, Anabaptists, and other Enthusiasts highlighted the “internal word” (i.e. who needs a preached word when you can find it inside yourself), and is ultimately contractual rather than covenantal (i.e. God does his part, you do yours).

Add Remonstrant moralism, Anabaptistic mysticism, to Enlightenment rationalism, and you get deism.  Or, in Bavinck’s terms, moralism, mysticism, and rationalism lead to deism, and vice-versa: “deism leads to rationalism and moralism.”

This is part of the reason why the reformers (specifically at the Synod of Dort in 1618-19) rejected Remonstrant moralism and the Anabaptistic interior word and mysticism.  Bavinck:  “History has placed its seal upon the decisions of the Synod of Dort.  The doctrine of the Remonstrants, at first glance so moderate and sweet, paved the way for rationalism and deism, for the disappearance and dying away of all religion.”

In clear summary form – the Remonstrant position was “moderate and sweet” at first glance because it emphasized God’s grace and man’s ability.  But it led to moralism because of its focus on man’s ability.  This led to rationalism and mysticism because who needs God when man has built-in moral ability?  This led to deism and naturalism, which only needs God to wind up the clock and let ‘er tick down…

Above quotes and summaries can be found in Herman Bavinck, Saved by Grace (Reformation Heritage Books, 2008), p. 25-6, 72-3, and 149.  Side note: R. Scott Clark argues similarly in chapter 3 of Recovering the Reformed Confession.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Kline on Abraham and Promise

Going through Meredith Kline’s Kingdom Prologue (Overland Park: Two Age Press, 2000), again (and again!) has been a treat.  I am once again struck by Kline’s excellent appraisal of God’s gospel promise to Abraham. 

“From its opening salvo of divine promises in Genesis 12 the Abrahamic Covenant confronts us with a way to ultimate blessedness that stands in stark contrast to the method which the Babelites of Genesis 11 used to achieve their lofty ambitions.  What was sought in Shinar by autonomous human effort – the restoration of cosmic-culture focus and the great name – was bestowed on Abraham as a promissory grant.  Babel was man-built, from the accursed ground up towards the heavens.  The city promised to Abraham is God-built and descends from the holy heaven to man as the supernatural gift of God’s grace (Heb 11:10, 16; Rev 21.2, 10).”

“Divine promise in the context of redemptive covenant connotes the principle of grace, the opposite of works.  Thus, when Paul in his analysis of the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants in Galatians 3 identifies the former as promise (v. 17; cf Eph 2.12), he sets it over against the principle of works (“law,” in v.18) operative in the latter, and says it is received by faith in Jesus Christ (v.22).  God’s promise arrangement with Abraham is made synonymous with the gospel of grace (p.294).”

You can still download this manuscript for free – simply google it.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Turretin on the Covenants (Part I)

 

Z. Ursinus (d. 1583) said that all preachers should be able to clearly explain the difference between the Law and the Gospel.  I say the same for the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace distinction.   Here is F. Turretin (d. 1687)  on the difference between the two – this is part one of two.

1) They differ in the author: God is the author of both covenants, but in different relations.  In the first (CoW) as Creator and Lord, and in the second (CoG) as Redeemer and Father.  In the first (CoW) he was impelled by love and benevolence towards an innocent creature while in the latter (CoG) he was impelled by special mercy and grace towards a miserable creature.

2) They differ in the contracting parties: in the first (CoW), the parties were only two – God and man.  In the first there was no need of a mediator because there was no sin.  In the second (CoG) a mediator was needed to reconcile God and man.  In the second, there is a third party — the Mediator.

3) They differ in the foundation: The CoW rested upon man’s obedience and strength of nature and free will.  In the latter (the CoG), however, the foundation is Christ and his obedience.  In the first man was in his own hands while in the second man is in the hand of God.

4) They differ in the promise: The CoW promised life as a due reward while in the CoW the promise of life is a gift of God.

5) They differ in the condition: in the first (CoW) the condition was “do this and live” while in the second “believe and you shall be saved.”  In the CoW man would give a perfect righteousness while in the second man would receive it. 

These five (out of 10) are found in Turretin’s Institutes, volume two page 190.  Stay tuned for part two (with the last five differences).

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Horton on Election and Grace

 

Michael Horton says it so well: 

“…We can talk about grace, sing about grace, preach about grace, just so long as we do not get too close to it.  Election is too close.  When we give in to election, we finally give up on ourselves in the matter of salvation.  This doctrine takes grace to its logical conclusion: If God saves me without my works, then he must choose me apart from them, too” (Michael Horton, Putting Amazing Back into Grace [Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002], 59).

shane

sunnyside wa

Kuyper on Covenants (Works/Grace) Part I

I’ll continue Andrew’s “Kuyper Quotes” theme from a few days ago. The following quotes concerning the covenants of works and grace are found in Kuyper’s fine work, The Holy Spirit (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1900).  Part II of this post is coming soon.

“…When God justifies a sinner He puts Him in a totally different state [than losable righteousness that Adam had pre-fall].  The righteousness of Christ becomes his.  And what is this righteousness?  Was Jesus in a state of rectitude only?  In no wise.  His righteousness was tested, tried, and sifted; it was even tested by the consuming fire of God’s wrath.  And this righteousness converted from ‘original rectitude’ into ‘righteousness vindicated’ was imputed to the ungodly.”  (Note of clarification: “original rectitude” is how theologians describe Adam’s standing in the garden before the fall.  “Righteousness vindicated” is how Kuyper describes obedience that passed a test, which Adam did not achieve.)

Kuyper continues:  “Therefore the ungodly, when justified by grace, has nothing to do with Adam’s state before the fall, but occupies the position of Jesus after the resurrection.  He possesses a good that can not be lost.  He works no more for wages, but the inheritance is his own.  His works, zeal, love, and praise flow not from his own poverty, but from the overflowing fullness of the life that was obtained for him.”  Kuyper here echoes the Reformed teaching that we’ve gained more in Christ than we lost in Adam.

It gets better.  “As it is often expressed: For Adam in Paradise there was first work and then the Sabbath of rest; but for the ungodly justified by grace the Sabbath rest comes first, and then the labor which flows from the energies of that Sabbath.  In the beginning the week closed with the Sabbath; for us the day of the resurrection of Christ opens the week which feeds upon the powers of that resurrection” (all above emphasis his) (p. 49).

shane

sunnyside wa

Bavinck and the Covenants (Works/Grace)

 

“Prior to the fall, the state of humanity and of the earth as a whole was a provisional one that could not remain as it was.  It was such that it could be raised to a higher glory but in the event of human transgression could also be subjected to futility and decay” (Dogmatics III:182).   

“The covenant of grace differs from the covenant of works in method, not in its ultimate goal.  It [eternal blessedness] is the same treasure that was promised in the covenant of works and is granted in the covenant of grace” (Dogmatics III:577). 

“…The covenant of grace, insofar as it was made with Christ, was essentially a covenant of works” (Dogmatics III:227).

I’ve saved the best two for last:

“The covenant of works and the covenant of grace stand and fall together” (Dogmatics I: 579). 

“If there were no covenant of works, neither would there be a covenant of grace” (Dogmatics I:103)

Trust me: this is just the tip of the iceburg for Bavinck.  Bavinck would not be Bavinck without his clear distinction between the covenant of works and the covenant of grace.

shane

sunnyside, wa