See the episodes;
1.) One Diamond, Many Facets
2.) Dissection or Vivisection
So far, nothing has been said that is necessarily a red flag. However, there are some questions that need to be asked.
The question that needs to be put to Kim is whether or not his Redemption Accomplished model means that the following have been completed;
1.) Great White Throne Judgment
Now, I have chatted with Kim in the past and he has insisted that there is no resurrection of the body though there remains a resurrection of the person to receive a body befitting them.
We can subscribe to Kim’s model when it provides, for example, the current reality of positional sanctification (redemption accomplished), while at the same time insisting on progressive sanctification in terms of redemption applied. We can subscribe to Kim’s model when it provides an already, now, and not yet as definitive, progressive, and eschatological in terms of time markers. I even had no necessary problem with saying that the Old Testament eschatology of Israel was fulfilled with the first advent of Christ.
I believe (Jesus) will come again to judge the quick and the dead.
I believe the resurrection of the body.
I don’t believe those are small matters that can be swept aside. Indeed, the denial of these confessional article strike me as approaching a denial of the Christian faith.
It would also help if Kim would explain how his position isn’t the position of Hymenaeus and Philetus. These two men had departed from the truth. They had said that the resurrection had already taken place, and they destroyed the faith of some.
If Kim’s position is that the resurrection that was referenced in the NT was the spiritual resurrection of Old Covenant Israel How does Kim’s explanation avoid Hymenaenism? The resurrection that Hymenaeus was denying certainly wasn’t Old Covenant Israel’s resurrection.
I also don’t agree with Kim’s sneering dismissal of systematic theology and his favor of Biblical theology. It seems he should take his own advice and see these two in a “both and” approach as opposed to the “either, or” he seems to be advocating. I would note that Biblical theology as a discipline really didn’t come around until the 19th century and was only rescued from Liberalism by the work Geerhardus Vos. So, compared to Systematic theology, Biblical theology is a Johnny come lately. Also, I would note that in my estimation Biblical theology can’t even begin to get traction without Systematic theology categories. It is systematic theology that give us categories of sin, righteousness, salvation, covenant, etc. Biblical theology says it is just beginning with the text but every beginning point I would contend begins because of some previous systematic presupposition. I say this as someone who loves Biblical theology. I’ve read tons in both categories. I quite agree that systematic theology needs Biblical theology but I also insist that Biblical theology needs systematic theology. In my estimation, it is a matter of “both, and.”
I do agree with Kim that too many ministers/theologians read the Scripture too one dimensionally (too flat). I also continue to insist that Kim has a certain brilliance and so he should be heard out. I can seriously say that I wished I could make all the connections in Scripture that Kim makes. Keep in mind that I could say much the same of J. Stuart Russell’s work “The Parousia,” though I think him wrong when he goes all Full Preterist.