The Christian’s Dual Citizenship

The Christian’s Dual Citizenship

It cannot be denied that Scripture ascribes some duties to the governments of this world and some duties to the church. For example, governing authorities of this world are said to bear the sword. Paul, in Romans 13:1-4, writes:

Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.

This sword, while given to the state, is never said to be given to the church. Christ, instead, gives the church the keys to the kingdom of heaven. To Peter, Jesus says, “And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven (Matt. 16:19).” So, the government has been given the sword, and the church has been given the keys to heaven.

Since the Scripture never gives either of these to the other, neither the keys to the government nor the sword to church, these powers ought to always be seen as distinct. Writing of the Reformed position in the post-Reformation era, Herman Bavinck writes:

Just as God had appointed the government as sovereign in the state, so he anointed Christ as king of his church. State and church, therefore, were essentially distinct from each other—in origin, nature, and government. To transfer the church’s power to the state was a violation of the kingship of Christ.

Speaking to the power of local churches, then Second London Baptist Confession reads:

To each of these churches thus gathered, according to His mind declared in His Word, He hath given all that power and authority, which is in any way needful for their carrying on that order in worship and discipline, which He hath instituted for them to observe; with commands and rules for the due and right exerting, and executing of that power.

Notice how both Bavinck and the Confession are careful to observe and maintain the clear distinction in the Scriptures between the powers of man’s kingdom and the powers of God’s kingdom. To the city of God is given the keys to heaven; to the city of man, the sword of civil justice.

This is a simplified summary of what is sometimes referred to as two kingdom theology. The two kingdoms refer to the kingdom of God on the one hand, and the kingdom of man on the other. This distinction serves to highlight the circumstance of the Christian as he lives in this world. He is a citizen of heaven and he looks toward a heavenly country. Nevertheless, he has been given an earthly citizenship in an earthly country. The Christian has dual citizenship. He is at once a citizen of the kingdom of heaven and a citizen of the kingdom of man—and he has been given responsibilities accordingly.

Resources:

1. Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 4, (Phillipsburg: P & R Publishing, 2008), 411.

2. 2LBCF, 26.7.

3. Sermon, ‘The Christian’s Dual Citizenship’

The Church, A Ship In Troubled Waters

This is a sermon manuscript for a sermon preached on 3/22/2020 for the purposes of encouraging my congregation in the midst of such strange times. This sermon is based in 2 Corinthians 11:22-29.


The affliction of God’s people is nothing new.

Woe are we if we fall into believing that which is not true. Christ’s church is a ship designed for the roughest waters. She has an ironclad bow, forged by the mercy-hammer of God which allows her to do her work. What is her work? To face the tallest, meanest swells in all the sea. These are swells that would capsize even the most advanced war fighting vessel. But war fighting vessels, at least those in this world, are created by men. Our ship has been built by God. Her name is New Jerusalem. The grace of God fills her sails, and her rudder is the Word of truth. She is a war fighting machine, with impenetrable plates of glory round about her. Her Captain is radiant in beauty, arraigned in shimmering armor which no man could wear, dawning a sword too heavy for any man to wield. He is knowledgeable, always ahead of the storm. He makes decisions in such a calculated manner you’d think Him to be a god. Yet alas, He is a God. No, He is the God. The only God, the Lord Jesus Christ!

The Lord God is her captain.

Christ’s church is a ship. It’s not designed for smooth waters, but for choppy, violent seas. Now we must ask three questions. First, why is Christ’s ship designed in such a way? Why is it made for violent rather than calm waters? Second, what is she made out of? What are the materials with which God builds this ship? Third, where is she going? Does she have direction? Is she lost? Can she be destroyed? Will she reach the shore before she capsizes in the waves?

Why Is Christ’s Ship Designed This Way?

Exegetical Part

“Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they the seed of Abraham? So am I. (v. 23)

Here Paul begins laying forth the context of his ministerial difficulty. Paul, in many ways, is a microcosm example for the entirety of Christ’s church. Paul had joy, but he also experienced many trials, some of which we’ll recount here. He compares himself to the Jews only to show that he himself is familiar with their ways and indeed comes from them in the first place. He is, according to the flesh, one of them. He is a Hebrew. In Philippians 3:5, he says, “circumcised on the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews; concerning the law, a Pharisee.” Paul was exceedingly Jewish in ethnic, cultural, and religious origin.

“Are they ministers of Christ?—I speak as a fool—I am more: in labors more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons more frequently, in deaths often. (v. 23)

Here he asks an interesting question. “Are they ministers of Christ?” The implied answer is no, especially since Paul follows up his question with the qualification that he’s speaking like a fool. He is, again, utilizing the art of rhetoric. Are the Jews ministers of Christ? Obviously not, but to the extent that they show forth the oracles of God which no doubt point to Christ, “I am more,” he says. God, after all, revealed the Old Testament through the prophets of Israel. They had the Word of God first. Yet Paul says, notwithstanding this fact, He is more a minister of the climax of revelation, the Lord Jesus Christ, than they are. The Jews, at this point, had largely rejected Christ, with the exception of very few. Thus, they rejected the entirety of the Old Testament in the sense that the entire purpose of the Old Testament was to point toward Christ.

“From the Jews five times I received forty stripes minus one. (v. 24)

Paul begins now to recount his persecutions, starting with the torture he received from the Jews. “Forty stripes minus one,” was a unique punishment of the Jews reserved as one of the most humiliating punishments. Such a punishment would’ve taken place in the synagogue. These are Paul’s own kinsman according to the flesh. They turned their backs on him just as they turned their backs on his Christ.

It is significant to note here that Paul says “five times.” He was given the “forty stripes minus one” on five separate occasions making for 195 stripes or lashes in all. It is a wonder how his bodily frame would have withstood so much punishment if it weren’t for the kind preserving grace of God. It appears the Lord had equipped Paul for such a life.

“Three times I was beaten with rods; once I was stoned… (v. 25a)

Here, he continues to list out two more instances wherein he was persecuted by men for believing and preaching the pure gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. The punishment with rods was a Roman punishment. Paul was a Roman citizen and would have received punishment by rod for disobeying the Roman state. Acts 16:22-23 records one of these instances. It says:

Then the multitude rose up together against them; and the magistrates tore off their clothes and commanded them to be beaten with rods. And when they had laid many stripes on them, they threw them into prison, commanding the jailer to keep them securely.

Acts 14:19 records the stoning of the apostle Paul by a Jewish mod at Lystra. It says, “Then Jews from Antioch and Iconium came there; and having persuaded the multitudes, they stoned Paul and dragged him out of the city, supposing him to be dead.” Paul was a persecuted man for the sake of the Lord Jesus Christ. Likewise, the church as a whole is a persecuted bride for the sake of her Lord and bridegroom. Times of prosperity for Christ’s church, as we’ve had for the last couple hundred years are extremely rare throughout church history.

“three times I was shipwrecked; a night and a day I have been in the deep… (v. 25b)

Now he moves from persecution to providential hindrances which no doubt created much trial for Paul, and indeed, throughout the last two millennia, has created both trial and tribulation for Christ’s church. He was apparently shipwrecked on three separate occasions. These three shipwrecks occurred before a fourth which is recorded in Acts 27. So he was shipwrecked a total of four times. He says “a night and a day I have been in the deep.” Presumably this means he was stranded in the ocean until he was able to find a shoreline. In Acts 27:42-44 we learn that the crew of the shipwrecked vessel had to jump overboard and swim to shore. It is possible this event was what led Paul to be in the deep for a night and a day. Perhaps the shore was a great distance.

“in journeys often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils of my own countrymen, in perils of the Gentiles, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren… (v. 26)

Do you see the amount of trouble Paul went through for the sake of Christ and for the sake of His church! Perilous journey, perilous waters, perilous robbers, perilous countrymen, perilous Gentiles, perilous cities, the perilous wilderness, the perilous sea, the perilous false brethren! What love did Paul have for the brethren if it wasn’t the love of Christ. The apostle Paul is truly an example for every Christian who would give him or herself up for the sake of their brothers and sisters in Christ!

“in weariness and toil, in sleeplessness often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness… (v. 27)

Here in v. 27 we learn he was weary, he toiled. He spent sleepless nights laboring for the saints. He went hungry and thirsty in great sacrifice for the brethren. He fasted often, and was cold and naked at times. Could you imagine giving yourselves up for this church like Paul gave himself up for the churches of his day? This is the call of every Christian. It’s the call of Christ’s church, to a sacrificial, Christ-like love. No matter if we find ourselves in danger, poverty, or prosperity.

In v. 28, he gives up his reasoning. Besides all of this, what comes upon him daily? What’s constantly on his mind? It’s his deep concern for all the churches. A lot of people might call this paranoia. But Paul would just call it the love of Christ! Brethren, you wonder why the church is designed like she is in this world? It is because she’s been called to a daunting task! She has been called to steadfastly love with the love Christ has given her through His Spirit.

Doctrinal Part

We live at a time when prosperity has been taken for granted. But prosperity for Christ’s church is not the rule. It is the exception to the rule. Know therefore that what’s happening now, the uncertainty of our present situation, is really normal for Christ’s people. This side of glory, we are considered the church militant. Why is that? It’s because we exist in a world of sin, fallen by sin. We live with the various miseries both of our sin and the sins of others. In Hebrews 13:20-21, the author writes:

Now the God of peace, who brought up from the dead the great Shepherd of the sheep through the blood of the eternal covenant, even Jesus our Lord, equip you in every good thing to do His will, working in us that which is pleasing in His sight, through Jesus Christ, to whom be the glory forever and ever. Amen.

The expectation, the hope, is that God does and will equip His saints. The word there for equip is καταρτίζω and could be rendered to make ready. You can think of a general making his troops ready for war. The church is a wartime vessel. She is equipped to take on the most volatile seas, and she is fitted with the defenses and weaponry necessary to resist all enemy attack. Why is she built this way? She’s built this way because of the world in which she presently exists. Glory is not yet here. It lies in our future, and we possess it in reversion, but have not yet seen it. We wait for it, and we wait for it anxiously. Not fearing men, not crumbling under the pressures of the world, but moving forward toward the shores of heaven.

Practical Part

We should expect situations like the present situation we are in.

The church is designed and equipped for hardship, and we should be able to infer from that very fact that persecution and other trials are to be expected by God’s people. These kinds of things should not catch us off guard. Toward the end of the Beatitudes, I preached on persecution for the sake of Christ. We should be prepared for situations like this because God Himself has told us that it would come to pass.

Consider also that since the church is designed the way it’s designed, Christ is poised to bring us through even the toughest of trials. Remember, this is a ship built for even the tallest ocean swells. Captain Jesus will guide us, successfully, to shores of everlasting glory in the end. The majesty and mystery of the gospel of the Lord Jesus! How it ought to shrink all of your present concerns. How worldly worries ought to be dwarfed while meditating upon the goodness and kindness of God through Christ! Heaven! Look toward heaven! We are built by God, designed for that destination. We will arrive in due time!

What Is Christ’s Ship Made Out Of?

Exegetical Part

We know the church is built for a purpose. But what is she made out of? What are her tools for success in such a volatile, violent, and hateful world?

“Who is weak, and I am not weak? Who is made to stumble, and I do not burn with indignation? (v. 29)

In this verse, Paul expresses his deep concern for the church. He is weak along with the weak. He sympathizes with fellow believers. When you hurt your finger, it’s not just your finger that has to deal with the pain. Your whole body is affected. Your brain receives transmission from nerves in your finger that communicates pain. You feel the pain. If we are all one body, how could we not all hurt when one member hurts? How could we not all be weak if one of us is weak? Do we love one another like this? Furthermore, Paul burns with indignation when fellow brethren are made to stumble. When Satan causes them to slip by means of a false teacher or some kind of wicked temptation. That causes Paul to become angry. Do we have that kind of righteous indignation for the sake of one another?

Implied here in v. 29 is one of the ingredients which causes the ship of the church to move about the world successfully. While Christ is the captain, He administrates His authority to elders or pastors. In Paul’s day, there were apostles who often functioned as pastors. They were Christ’s mouth-piece. In Ephesians 4:11-13 says this:

And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ…

Christ is the captain, but His pastors are the helmsmen. They’ve been put in place to steer the rudder of Christ’s ship, the church, by preaching the Word and administrating the ordinances. What’s the purpose of pastors and teachers? They are purposed to edify or build up (like a building) Christ’s church.

In Acts 15:32, it is written, “Now Judas and Sila, themselves being prophets also, exhorted and strengthened the brethren with many words.” Here we have another building material which enhances the strength and longevity of Christ’s wartime vessel, the preaching of the Word. So, He’s given to the church pastors and teachers, and those pastors and teachers preach the Word. The preaching of the Word, if it is so blessed by the Spirit of God, strengthens the church of Christ.

In 2 Peter 1:10, Peter writes, “Therefore, brethren, be even more diligent to make you call and election sure, for if you do these things you will never stumble…” God has given us the ability to obey His Word with diligence, by the power of the Spirit. Diligence in Christ causes us to be strengthened in assurance of faith, that we would stumble less and less as God prunes us of our sinful branches.

Doctrinal Part

Christ’s wartime vessel, the church, is made out of many different materials useful for battle, useful for surviving the most violent swells. In 1 Thessalonians 5:8, Paul makes mention of the breastplate of faith and love, and a helmet of the hope or expectation of salvation. These may as well be adapted to the whole church. The bride has put on the breastplate. The ship is clad in plates of golden armor, smelted for the highest purity—removing all dross, leaving only the glimmering remains of faith and love. We are the church militant and have been equipped to fight. Remember, in 1 Corinthians 1:4-5, Paul writes:

I thank my God always concerning you for the grace of God which was given to you by Christ Jesus, that you were enriched in everything by Him in all utterance and all knowledge… 

We are enriched in everything we need for this battle. So, in 1 Timothy 6:12, Paul can instruct Timothy to, “Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life, to which you were also called and have confessed the good confession in the presence of many witnesses.” Toward the end of his ministry, Paul writes to Timothy once more and says, “I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith.” We are the church militant, designed by our Builder to fight this fight. We have everything we need.

Practical Part

The seas of this world are swelling higher than they have in man, many years. Not only is there an unfamiliar virus affecting many people and their families, but there is an evil, wicked ruling class that would exploit such a virus for their own political agenda. Perhaps the church has not been targeted specifically, but the biblical ideals which she espouses are under attack in a most obvious fashion. No living American has seen anything like this. The presumptuous movements of governing authorities are unprecedented. Over the last two weeks, Americans have been left with less liberty than they had since prior to the Revolutionary War under the rule of the English crown. Millions are confined to their homes, not because they are sick, but because they could be sick. The right to assemble has been supposedly extinguished in many parts of the country.

What a surprise! Are you thrown off guard? Has your boat been rocked? Why! This is the norm for the churches of God throughout church history. The freedoms that were afforded to us in this country are extremely rare and represent the exception to the rule, not the rule itself in terms of the last 2,000 years. Do not be disturbed. Do not marvel. We’ve already learned from Psalm 2 that the nations rage and the peoples plot in vain. The church, brothers and sisters, was designed for this kind of storm. Indeed, this is a storm we’ve sailed many times before. And the weapons of our warfare have proved more than sufficient.

Where Is Christ’s Ship Going?

Exegetical Part

We have seen why Christ’s church is built the way she’s built, and we’ve seen with what materials she has been constructed. Now we need to ask about her destination. Where is Christ’s wartime ship traveling? We know how she will get there. It’s by grace and by grace alone. And that grace is just as sure and certain as the existence of God Himself. Now, Christ’s ship has one destination, and it’s not a destination in this world. In Revelation 21:1-4, we read:

Now I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away. Also there was no more sea. Then I, John, saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from heaven saying, “Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people. God Himself will be with them and be their God. And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away.”

In his The Pilgrim’s Progress, John Bunyan described the eschatology of the Christian in terms of a city, a celestial city, that is, a city built and established in the heavens. It has a higher and better existence than anything in this present world. And this city will be the capital city of the new heavens and the new earth—the New Jerusalem (Rev. 3:12; 21:2; Heb. 12:22). When we arrive at this city, when Christ’s churchly ship arrives safely on the shores of this heavenly commonwealth, it will be a ship at rest. It will be a ship that is no longer taking on the raging swells of the ocean of the world as she is now. She will no longer be the church militant, no longer a wartime vessel. She will be the church victorious, a perfected church, a church at rest in Christ Jesus. Revelation 21:9-13 illuminates our destination as a church in a most beautiful manner when it says:

Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls filled with the seven last plagues came to me and talked with me, saying, “Come, I will show you the bride, the Lamb’s wife.” And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great and high mountain, and showed me the great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God, having the glory of God. Her light was like a most precious stone, like a jasper stone, clear as crystal. Also she had a great and high wall with twelve gates, and twelve angels at the gates, and names written on them, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel: three gates on the east, three gates on the north, three gates on the south, and three gates on the west.

This is the finished product! This is where we will be when we arrive upon calmer shores! The Lamb’s wife will finally be at rest. She will no longer need her battle raiments. Her cumbersome armor will be laid down at the feet of Christ. Her fight will be finished. She will have the glory of God fully made manifest in her and she will worship God and the Lamb forever and ever. That is our destination, brethren.

This means what? This means we’re not there yet. There is still a long difficult road to travel. We remember Paul’s struggles. His persecution and his suffering shipwreck, but more than this, we remember the sufferings and scourgings of the Lord Jesus Christ. Our life as a church, this side of glory, should look none other than the of the apostles. To the apostles, Jesus promised this, “they will lay their hands on you and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues and prisons. You will be brought before kings and rulers for My name’s sake (Lk. 21:12).” And in the Beatitudes, He includes a blessing for such persecution, “Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, For theirs is the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 5:10).” You see? The choppy, high swells which violently rail against our battleship are the persecutions and other trials we face in this life. But those trials, according to King Jesus Himself, lead us to the kingdom of heaven, which has been purchased by His blood and mediated to His New Covenant people.

Doctrinal Part

Writing a letter to a woman who had recently lost her infant daughter, Samuel Rutherford says:

Ye see her not, yet she doth shine in another country. If her glass was but a short hour, what she wanteth of time that she hath gotten of eternity; and ye have to rejoice that ye have now some plenishing up in heaven. Build your nest upon no tree here; for ye see God hath sold the forest to death; and every tree whereupon we would rest is ready to be cut down, to the end we may fly and mount up, and build upon the Rock, and dwell in the holes of the Rock.

Keep your eyes trained on the future. Our treasure is not here. Our treasure is not in our personal autonomy, our liberty, our rights. God has consigned this forest to death. It’s all going to be cut down and lit on fire. No. Our home is in the heavenlies. Our treasures are there, not here. Our ship will find no port in the midst of raging waters. For she sails onward in hopes of calm seas, and a glimmering city on a hill where God and the Lamb will be her place of worship.

The doctrine of Christian eschatology, the one where Christ is center and our end is sure and certain in Him, ought to be of utmost comfort during these times of uncertainty. This world is always uncertain. The hearts of wicked men cannot be predicted with any greater accuracy than can the swells in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. We, therefore, have no hope or trust in the present situation. In the best of times, we are called toward Christ. In the worst of times, this doesn’t change, we are called toward Christ.

Practical Part

Forward, brothers and sisters. That is the direction Christ has charted for His ship, and it is the direction I, as your frail and dependent helmsman intend to direct us! Therefore, as poor, persecuted Paul did, through the midst of trial, we fight the good fight, and we run to finish the race well. This looks like faithfulness. Faithfulness to who? Faithfulness to Christ, who gave Himself up for us; who purchased us; who has sat us in the heavenlies with Him. We have a greater inheritance, one that far exceeds all riches and glories in this world. Wicked men can burn this place down, and it matters not to us. Our treasure lay elsewhere.

Presupp & Classical: 6 Things You Need to Know

This is a pretty involved debate, and it’s not for the faint of heart. But because it deals with fundamental tenets of the Christian faith, ranging from the doctrine of God to the doctrine man, it is most certainly worth your consideration—in moderation, of course.

Below, I’ve drawn up a few points which are intended to help you consider this discussion more carefully. If you’re new to the conversation, this will especially come in handy. If you’re an old wardog, then this may assist you in “regrouping” as it were, in order to continue impacting the conversation in positive, edifying ways.

This article is intended for both presuppositionalists and classicalists. My hope is that both groups can benefit, even though I have an obvious bias.

1. What Is Presuppositionalism?

Presuppositionalism has been most often described as an apologetic. From Greg Bahnsen’s Presuppositional Apologetics to K. Scott Oliphint’s Covenantal Apologetics, presuppositionalism has been construed as a method for defending the Christian faith.

The two earmarks of presuppositionalism, among others, are revelational epistemology and the transcendental argument for God (TAG). Already, you should see that presuppositionalism, while certainly engaging an apologetic method, entails much more than a mode of defending Christianity. It requires a particular view of epistemology (study of human knowing). It requires one to move out of Christian theology and apologetics and into the field philosophy. This is not a problem (classicalism does it too), but it is helpful to keep in mind since, often, the misconception consists in one thinking presuppositionalism is only a Christian apologetic. There is much more involved.

2. What Is Revelational Epistemology?

Revelational epistemology is most simply put, the act of thinking God’s thoughts after Him. The idea here is that, while we as creatures have to begin the reasoning process in ourselves as we experience the outside world, there is another sense in which God is our ultimate starting point. We know ourselves first (proximate), but in another sense, we know God first (ultimate/remote).

If this sounds confusing, you’re not the only one. In addition to this distinction, the presuppositionalist also maintains the orthodox distinction between general/natural and special revelation. And since both natural revelation (all creation) and special revelation (God’s Word) are forms of divine revelation, we, as creatures, must think according to what God has revealed. There is no other way to know anything save through God’s revelation. Hence, revelation knowing or epistemology.

Presuppositionalists have classically denied natural theology, claiming there is no way for an unbeliever to have any true knowledge about God through creation (cf. Reformed Epistemology, by Van Til). They know God, but according to Romans 1, they suppress the truth about God in unrighteousness and instead fabricate their own idol.

It is within the scope of revelational epistemology that the term presupposition becomes especially important. No fact, according to both Van Til and Oliphint, can be interpreted correctly until one first presupposes the triune God. For citations, please see my previous article. The fact of the triune God must be presupposed prior to any other fact, since the triune God is the concrete universal in which context all other particular facts must be interpreted.

3. What Is the Transcendental Argument for God (TAG)?

The transcendental argument is a rational argument which seeks to dialectically prove the existence of God from the impossibility of the contrary. In other words, if God does not exist, then we cannot make sense of our most basic assumptions (i.e. the laws of logic, induction, morality, etc). This argument has been employed for years by theologians who would not have considered themselves presuppositionalists

You don’t have to be a presuppositionalist to use TAG. However, some presuppositionalists may claim that TAG is the only philosophical argument Christians should employ as they seek to defend the Christian faith. It’s dialectic character makes the argument appear as if it assumes little to nothing except the triune God of Scripture. However, TAG assumes the laws of logic and it even assumes that the opponent of Christianity can understand, to some extent, the argument itself. There is more than meets the eye when it comes to the presuppositionalist’s commitment to TAG. It doesn’t, at bottom, allow one to presuppose God since it requires one to presuppose the rules of thought (i.e. laws of logic) prior to making any sense of God or the argument itself in the first place.

4. What Is Classicalism?

Like presuppositionalism, classicalism is much more than just an apologetic. Considered in theology proper, it refers to classical Christian theism, a doctrine of God most explicitly characterized by divine simplicity (i.e. God is not composed of parts in any sense). Deuteronomy 6:4 would be the most explicit biblical proof for this doctrine, “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one!”

Now, because God has revealed Himself through creation (Rom. 1:18), His creatures can know Him (v. 20). But how they can know Him is the question at stake for the classicalist. Romans 1:20 tells us, “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse… (NKJV)” The NASB renders it, “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.”

How do creatures know or understand God? They know Him by or through what has been made. In other words, they know God through His works. That’s the basic premise of the classical method of apologetics. Through the works of God, God is proven to exist. The various theistic proofs serve to show how this knowledge of God occurs. The five proofs, for example, are merely five ways or avenues by which one comes to knowledge through what has been made.

5. Parsing the Disagreements

What I could write here would be much lengthier than what I can write here. Basically, the disagreement rests in this question: How is God known by His creatures? Here, we aren’t talking about the saving knowledge mentioned in places like Jeremiah 31:31-34 or Romans 8:29, 30. We are talking about the kind of knowledge and understanding of God all people have according to Romans 1 & 2. So, how is God known in that way?

The presuppositionalist answer is somewhat confusing. But if I could summarize it, I would say their answer would be something along the lines of: All people know God, according to Romans 1, but since they suppress that truth about God in unrighteousness, they end up mutilating that knowledge beyond measure, forming it rather into an idol. Therefore, unbelievers do not have true knowledge of God.

For the classicalist, we would agree that all people know God. But we would add that this knowledge about God has been obtained through God’s works. The works of God are known, and through those works, persons come to an elementary knowledge of the true God. Further, we’d say this knowledge must be true or factual because if it were not, the unbeliever could plea deception, contrary to their guilt of active, conscious suppression clearly mentioned in Romans 1:20b. They are without excuse.

It is not the case that the unbeliever apprehends knowledge about God which is true and not true at the same time and in the same relationship. Such a notion would violate the law of noncontradiction. What the unbeliever does is they apprehend true, factual knowledge about God, and then they actively and consciously try to suppress that truth through a plethora of sinful means. God has clearly shown Himself to them through His work of creation. The sinner tries to get away from that reality.

Another point of tension between the presuppositionalist and the classicalist would concern epistemological categories. The classicalist would hold to a classicalist epistemology which involves the conformity of our intellect to the outside world. All knowledge starts with the senses, but it ends in the intellect. This is why God created us with sensory faculties, to explore the world around us and learn about Him while doing it.

For the presuppositionalist, all people are born with a pre-downloaded knowledge of God. Sometimes, borrowing the language of John Calvin in book I of his Institutes, they call this pre-downloaded knowledge the sensus divinitatus (the divine sense). The classicalist would agree that man has a sensus divinitatus, but the sensus is just that, a sense. It’s a faculty for knowing God, an aptitude, if you will. For the presuppositionalist, it seems to be a basic body of self-evident facts about God. The classicalist denies this is the case on the basis of Romans 1. Man knows God, not by virtue of self-evidentiary truth or pre-downloaded, a priori knowledge, but through the works of God.

6. Theology Proper Issues

According to their work, Cornelius Van Til, K. Scott Oliphint, and John Frame are all presuppositionalists. They are also theistic personalists. Neither party consistently affirms the doctrine of divine simplicity, a doctrine found in the confessional document to which all three men claim adherence. It says:

There is but one only living and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions… (WCF, 2:1)

In the case of Van Til, he affirmed what he called equal ultimacy, which no doubt led him to a kind of theistic dualism, where oneness and threeness in God are seen to be two different, yet equal, concrete objects. In Christian Apologetics, p. 25, Van Til affirmed a logical contradiction by affirming, on the one hand, divine simplicity before going on to suggest there were fundamental attributes that formed the whole of His being on the other. Oliphint, in Reasons for Faith: Philosophy in the Service of Theology, famously ascribed what he called covenantal properties to God as a result of God’s covenantal condescension. He interprets the doctrine of God through incarnational categories, thereby ignoring the classical method of theology. John Frame, perhaps worst of all, in his massive volume, The Doctrine of God, opined two existences in God—one eternal another temporal. He also suggests God entered time upon creation.

What caused these aberrations of orthodox theology proper? Was it correlation or causation as it relates to presuppositionalism?

I’ll let you decide. 

I suggest the cause for these disruptions in orthodox thought is the emphasis of epistemology over ontology (reality, being), which no doubt leads to rationalism. This rationalism can be seen in places like Introduction to Systematic Theology, where Van Til suggests the Trinity, an article of the Christian faith, could be deduced through creation, leaving one to ask the question, Where is faith? What then is the significance of special revelation if not to reveal the triune God and His plan of redemption? 

What begins as a pious affirmation of divine revelation tends to end with the bad fruits of man-centered rationalism. This is always bound to happen when the emphasis is placed on what we know rather than on reality and what’s out there. Presuppositionalism seems to have become Enlightenment thought par excellence

There are several variables that go into why presuppositionalists reject the classical construction of the doctrine of God. It could, of course, stem simply from a grudge against Thomas Aquinas, who is most known for his arguments for God’s existence and his doctrine of God. Again, I’ll let you decide.

There is much more to say. But hopefully, this brief survey will be enough to whet your appetite.

Dr. Carl Ellis, We Need More Clarity

Recently, Dr. Carl Ellis of Reformed Theological Seminary (RTS), wrote an article designed to clarify his position after some of his comments came to light here.

First, let me state that I am grateful for the time Ellis spent in clarifying what he believes. Second, let me also state that I believe Dr. Ellis to be a brother in Christ. Thus, what follows, though perhaps uncomfortable, is intended for the edification of Ellis and I’s readership. It’s not an effort to tear down a man, or make someone else look ridiculous. It is not an attempt at slander. This article is an attempt at edification (Eph. 4:29).

That said, I have to take issue with Ellis’ article because while it was clarifying, it raised some additional questions. I want to ask those questions here, and also engage some points in the article I find to be problematic if not troublesome. Before you begin reading, I would encourage you to read Ellis’ article in its entirety, and please read this article in its entirety before commenting.

I. His Beliefs

I am grateful that Ellis “stands with the Word of God” as infallible and inerrant in its original manuscripts. This statement is consistent with the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. I also appreciate his commitment to the authority of the Bible. But, just a few paragraphs later, he says something I find to be problematic, something unclear. He writes:

Finally, I am unapologetically a follower of Christ. I am also, in God’s sovereignty, an African American man who has lived the majority of life in the 20th Century. I believe according to Acts 17:26 that this is the culture, time and place God has given me to do His Kingdom work, and thus I see it as a gift from Him imbued with purpose. That purpose has been to explore His work in the world from a particular non-dominant cultural point of view.

Unfortunately, here Ellis uses the same language he used in the video I linked above where he made reference to power structures, privilege and other concepts original to critical theory. Moreover, his last sentence affirms the legitimacy of standpoint epistemology—the idea that people of different cultures, ethnicities, (insert any distinguishing factor), come to Christian theology from different perspectives and do theology through the lens of that respective set of a priori experiences. 

So, Ellis appears to contradict his second paragraph under this point where he says, “Second, my worldview is solely derived from the Scriptures.” His worldview is his perspective if indeed that perspective (culture or ethnicity) is a priori, or prior to the Christian Scriptures—that is to say, if he uses his perspective as an epistemic starting point.

II. Social Religions

Here, Ellis says:

But as a pastor in the seminary setting, I believe they should be studied against a proper biblical Christology and anthropology, with a full understanding of their deficiencies in producing anything close to a Kingdom agenda.

He needs to define his terms. What is a biblical anthropology according to Ellis? Does it include standpoint or perspectival epistemology? If it does, many people would strongly disagree that that constitutes a biblical anthropology. See problems here. What’s a kingdom agenda? If it’s anything like what SEBTS is doing, we need to talk. Mormons, for example, use a dictionary’s worth of the same terms as orthodox Christians, all with different meanings. Just because Ellis uses orthodox language doesn’t mean it’s all defined in an orthodox way. Ironically, he addresses this problem below, but he fails to meet his own standard.

For instance, if the “Kingdom agenda” includes seeking out individuals of color in order to diversify a congregation, a kind of Christianized affirmative action, we have some serious problems. Not only is such an approach completely and utterly racist, it’s totally unbiblical. Ellis needs to work harder to clarify what he means here. Again, I appreciate what he’s written, but it’s simply not enough.

III. The Academy

Ellis discusses the erosion of orthodox thought at the college and university level. Though I am happy to see him recognize the reality of such lapses in biblical Christianity in academia (a centuries-long plague), as with his previous points, he doesn’t go far enough. He says:

Perhaps one of the clearest witnesses to the destructive potential of such ideologies is found in the “Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Movement.“ The adverse experiences over the last ten years of secular-progressive professors who did not affirm the movement’s social orthodoxies serve as cautionary tales not only for the academy, but for the larger society as well.

In this video, Ellis converses with Dr. Walter Strickland, a professor at SEBTS. SEBTS has launched their kingdom diversity initiative which is no doubt an instantiation of the very thing Ellis is claiming to find problematic. Just look at how they numerize image bearers in their second stated goal: “Southeastern strives to raise historically underrepresented voices on campus by working to be comprised of 20% culturally diverse faculty, staff, and students, and 35% female by 2022.” If this isn’t a product of the “diversity, equity, and inclusion movement,” I don’t know what is. Throw in Sam Alberry and Revoice and it’s all there.

Ellis needs to condemn these particular instances of the concepts he’s claiming to decry as fundamentally un-Christian approaches to things like anthropology, ecclesiology, etc. Only then will we be able to discern the heartbeat behind his ministry.

IV. Our Fallen World

I’m not entirely sure what Ellis is getting at here, so maybe some more clarification is needed. For example, he says:

Yet the genuine people of God have had life-giving responses displaying God’s intent for humanity based on His principles in order to indict the surrounding culture. God leaves such a witness through His people so that those in the surrounding community might “taste and see that the Lord is good.”

What “surrounding culture” is he talking about? Is he talking about power structures controlled by the dominant group (a Marxist approach proffered by the social gospel), or is he talking about the culture of sin, death, and the devil which are rifely found throughout our world regardless of race, economic status, etc., all of which must be fought by the prescribed means of grace in Scripture (emphasis on prescribed)?

Moreover, for Ellis, what constitutes a totalitarian regime? I know he mentions men like Mao and Pol—and other low-hanging fruit—but does he also consider the “dominant group” a totalitarian regime as he seemed to imply in the linked video? If he does, he’s walking in the very footsteps of a man he’s claiming to denounce, Dr. James Cone—author of the black liberation theology.

V. Language Usage

I have more problems with this point than I have the time to set down in writing, but I found it interesting that Ellis writes:

By way of another example, categories of dominance and sub-dominance are used by sociologists who are not Marxists. Language usage is not evidence of ideological affirmation.

Two questions arise here:

The first: Can the categories of dominance/sub-dominance help the church whatsoever? Are they biblical categories, or categories consistent with the biblical data? Earlier on this point, he pulls out the biblical language of oppressor/oppressed and justice; are we to understand these terms to be aligned with their secular counterparts, dominance/non-dominance? Is it automatically wrong for one group to dominate another group, socially speaking, economically? Is the church to see dominance in all its forms as sin? These are the questions Ellis is burdened to answer if he wants people to understand what he means.

The second: If language usage isn’t necessarily evidence of ideological affirmation, then why has Ellis failed to carefully define the biblical language he has used throughout his article? Language like kingdom agenda, oppression, justice, gospel implications, and anthropology need definitions just like the terms in question need definitions. I agree with Ellis that language needs to be defined because of the ever-lurking danger of equivocation, but he fails to uphold this principle in an article meant to clarify.

VI. Differentiating Disciplines

Ellis makes a valid point here that a lot of younger students are failing to rightly differentiate between various academic disciplines, like theology and sociology for example. But then he says this:

In hindsight, during the closing years of the 20th Century it was much safer than it is today to use theological-anthropological terms when writing about social issues. Due to the infiltration of CRT and today’s Intersectionality into the academy, the risk of my ideas being misappropriated and misapplied by both supporters and detractors is far greater today than it was back then.

Apparently, denouncing the practice of appropriating certain terms within Christian thought is a symptom of an inability to distinguish between disciplines. Ellis cites the later 20th century as a period during which it was safer to use extra-biblical terminology that originated in the field of sociology. But, was that because people were better at distinguishing disciplines, or was that because liberalism and neo-orthodoxy was the “cool theology” of the day? 

Of course it was permissible to appropriate biblical language into social contexts or vice versa during critical times. And when I say critical times I mean the times preceding an almost 2000-church-exodus from the SBC in 1990 which resulted in the formation of a new liberal denomination called the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship.

VII. Looking Ahead

Toward the end of the article he says:

By God’s grace, I will continue to refine my own feeble efforts to discover and uncover ways to express the reality of destructive social systems and to present the remedy that’s found only in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. 

Some will no doubt parse and critique the life out of this statement against all ideologies that set themselves up in opposition to the Gospel. So be it. That is the nature and cost of a public witness.

What “social systems” is he talking about? In the video I’ve linked here, he talks about systems that benefit the dominant group more than the sub-dominant group. Is that a destructive social system against which the church must fight according to Ellis? If so, Ellis has appropriated text-book critical theory into his approach—an ungodly synthesis, to be sure. If that’s not what Ellis is doing, perhaps he could clarify further on this point.

Unfortunately, Ellis ends the article by apparently shaming those who (like me) want to “test all things (1 Thess. 5:21),” and who want to correct public errors publicly (2 Tim. 2:25). Because of the way he concludes his article, many of Ellis’ readers are bound to see any kind of public response as an act of aggression, or an attempt to weaken the body of Christ. Some may respond to Ellis with that intent, but know certainly that this is not the intent of everyone who responds, even of those who respond with zeal and firmness. 

We cannot let virtue signalling hinder productive discussion and debate in the body of Christ— something this concluding disclaimer no doubt threatens to do.

This is, if I may be so bold, a cowardly way to end an article that raises a lot of important questions, more questions, in fact, than it answers.

I will end my article in a very different way.

Carl Ellis, if you see my article as flawed—as a detour from the truth of God’s Word—please respond for the sake of our readers. I hope someone out there picks this article apart if it is indeed contrary to the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. I hope someone cares enough about our audiences to correct any errors found in our work.

A Series on Meekness (Part 1)

What is it to be meek?

Growing up, I was taught that meekness was something akin to weakness. Meekness, I thought, was to become weak or impotent in my dealings with others. But, it turns out, meekness is not weakness, but quite the opposite. Meekness is a grace given by God (Matt. 5:5) which moves the Christian to withstand injuries caused by others. It’s ultimately exemplified in the Lord Jesus Christ (Matt. 11:29), and it’s seen throughout the Bible as both a grace and a virtue, something desirable to those whom love God.

What I want to do is write a three-part series purposed to draw out what meekness is. In this first installment, we’ll look at the nature of meekness. In the second, examples of meekness. In the third, motivating reasons for meekness.

The Nature of Meekness

Thomas Watson presents a two-fold meekness (Beatitudes, 105). Meekness toward God, and meekness toward man. Toward God, meekness looks like (a) submission to God’s will, and (b) conformity to His Word. The meek-spirited Christian desires, above all, to obey God’s will, and not only obey it, but be satisfied with it in his heart of hearts. A meek-spirit is apt to accept whatsoever providences God has for it. It doesn’t curse the heavens when the hurricane comes, but bears the trial knowing it’s all part of God’s gracious will which works all things for the good of those who love Him.

The meek-spirited Christian recognizes his want of conformity to the Word of God and, by faith, seeks to bend himself to the high calling of holy writ (2 Tim. 3:16, 17). He is humble to understand the violence of a carnal standard and, by faith, doesn’t struggle with the Word of God, but with his own sin.

Another quality to meekness is the bearing of injuries. Now, before I go here, I want everyone to be aware that this bearing of injuries does not preclude self-defense, which is just to preserve life and the lives of loved-ones against life-threatening danger. Self-defense is not retaliation, but the preservation of the good. Meekness, on the other hand, requires that we forgo retaliation and instead repay evil with good. A meek spirit ought not be quick to anger at others, and is opposed to revenge in any form (Rom. 12:19). Whilst it’s incumbent upon the magistrate to bring the sword, it’s not acceptable for the individual to even show a flash of the blade. In the words of Watson, “Revenge is Satan’s nectar and ambrosia.”

Paul says in 1 Corinthians 6:7, “Now therefore, it is already an utter failure for you that you go to law against one another. Why do you not rather accept wrong? Why do you not rather let yourselves be cheated?” Brethren seeking vengeance upon other brethren is a contrary dynamic to the principle of meekness.

It follows, therefore, that meekness precludes evil-speaking and slander. Paul says in Ephesians 4:31, “Let all evil-speaking be put away.” We ought not speak harshly of others in an effort to demean their character, and if a sharp disagreement arises, any terse language needs to be carefully and exactly used not in order to demean, but in order to edify. This appears to be Jesus’ example (Matt. 12:34).

Conclusion

All this leads to a forgiving spirit. The meek Christian constantly forgives and never withholds forgiveness. In Matthew 18, Peter tries to quantify the number of times Christians are to forgive their enemies. Jesus’ reply insinuates there’s never a point where the Christian has the right to withhold forgiveness.

In the next part, I want to look at example of meekness. First, Jesus, then Moses, then the philosophers.

The Veil Has Been Lifted

Therefore, since we have such hope, we use great boldness of speech—unlike Moses, who put a veil over his face so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the end of what was passing away. But their minds were blinded. For until this day the same veil remains unlifted in the reading of the Old Testament, because the veil is taken away in Christ. But even to this day, when Moses is read, a veil lies on their heart. Nevertheless when one turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as by the Spirit of the Lord. — 2 Corinthians 4:12-18


Second Corinthians 3:12-18 gives us a glimpse of Paul’s use of the Old Testament in adorning the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. Here, I do not want to write an exegetical paper, but I only want to provide words of encouragement as we pilgrim through this week together. We have a hope that reaches beyond the veil Moses wore all those years ago. While Moses, our blessed law-man, saw the backside of God’s glory as he hid in the cleft of the rock, we now stare, with an unveiled face, upon the glory of the eternally blessed God-man. What a glorious thing it is to be received into a New Covenant relationship with God, through the testamentary blood of Christ Jesus.

The children of Israel were shaded from the glory-face of Moses, and their minds were blinded. Even now, just as in Paul’s day, Jews everywhere read the Old Testament with blinded eyes, unable to conceive of God’s Gospel. Paul says they read it with blinded hearts. For the veil is only removed in Christ. “Nevertheless,” Paul says, “when one turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.” As Christians, if we truly be in Christ, we have turned to the Lord, and our veils have been taken away. If a Jew turns to Christ and only Christ, they will begin to understand the Old Testament correctly. We have, by the power of the Spirit, been made able to see God’s glory in both the Old and New Testaments, and that glory is the Lord Jesus Christ Himself.

Now, coming to the last couple verses: Paul says the Lord is the Spirit in v. 17a, then he goes on to make a distinction between the Lord and the Spirit in v. 17b. The Lord and the Spirit are one, yet the Lord and the Spirit are distinguished. The Lord is the Spirit, but the Spirit is also referred to as the Lord’s Spirit or the Spirit of the Lord. This is important for our doctrine of the Trinity. But, here, I have not written you a doctrinal treatise on the Trinity, but a letter of encouragement. As Paul says, “we all, with unveiled face beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord.” What is the glory of the Lord? Paul says we are being transformed into the image of this glory, “from glory to glory,” by the Spirit of the Lord. To understand what he means, we need to reference something else he’s written in Romans 8:28-29. There we see that God is conforming us to the image of Christ. Therefore, Christian, by the power of the Spirit, you are being transformed into the image of God’s glory, which is Christ.

You now have access to God because of the blood and righteousness of the Son. With an unveiled face, you can now approach the throne of glory in acceptable worship and prayer. No longer are you blinded to His will, no longer are you blinded to the Scriptures; but you have been enlightened by the Spirit of light. Moreover, not only are your eyes opened, but you are being transformed by the Master Craftsman to appear in the image of Christ. Thus, do not be discouraged, but encouraged. Do not be downtrodden, but upbeat. For you have everything going for you. You are liberated from sin, death, and the devil—and even when you do sin, you have a faithful Mediator who intercedes for you (1 Jn. 2:1-2). Trust in this Christ, the very glory of God, as you pilgrim through this week.

-JS