Category: Theology

In Defense Of Penal Substitutionary Atonement

Lately the doctrine of the Penal Substitutionary Atonement of the death of Christ has been being assaulted online by various Arminians, Provisionists, Amyraldians, Lutherans, and Roman Catholics. All of them have in common the idea that Christ’s death was hypothetically universal. That is to say they all believe that Christ died for all men everywhere without distinction. Thus, there are numerous people, according to this thought system, for whom Christ died but without efficacy so as to accomplish what was intended inasmuch as not all men are saved.

All of the above mentioned must reject the Penal Substitutionary theory of the Atonement since the Penal Substitutionary Atonement explicitly teaches that Jesus Christ most certainly did not die for all men without distinction, but rather only died to the end of substituting for and so saving a distinct people (called the elect).

A few notations on this matter;

1.) A complaint is often issued that Calvinism teaches “Limited Atonement,” but in point of fact this teaching is not unique to the Biblically Reformed. Indeed, all who believe in hypothetical Universalism (the doctrine that the intent of the Atonement was potentially for all men though it is recognized that all men are not saved), teach a limited atonement. However, there is a difference inasmuch as while the Calvinist doctrine of limited atonement teaches that God, in election, limits the atonement, those who advocate for a hypothetical atonement teach that it is man who limits God’s desire for all men, without distinction, to be saved.

2.) This teaching that Christ died for all but some frustrate God’s design and intent is contradictory. If Christ died for all then the death of Christ paid for all the sins of all men. If all sins of all men are died for by Christ’s death on the Cross then not even the sin of unbelief in Christ’s death can be excluded as a sin for which Christ died and if Christ’s death includes the payment for sin, it includes the payment of sin that refuses to believe in Jesus Christ. The options here for the hypothetical universalist is to either drop the “hypothetical” part and so become full blown universalist or drop the universalist part and leave Christ’s death a hypothetical that applies to everyone in general but to no one specifically.

3.) We should also note that the denial of the Penal Substitutionary Atonement with the embrace of hypothetical universalism means that not only does the death of Christ apply to all men potentially, it is also the case potentially that the death of Christ would not apply to anybody. The doctrine of hypothetical makes it possible that all men can potentially be saved but guarantees that no men will be saved.

4.) Clearly, this denial of the Penal Substitutionary Atonement also is a denial of justification by grace alone. With the doctrine of hypothetical universalism the Cross doesn’t justify but only provides the opportunity to be justified. This opportunity to be justified can only be cashed in on if fallen man adds his faith consent. In such an arrangement faith becomes a work that man contributes so as to put the machinery of justification into motion. With hypothetical universalism faith becomes a working organ that contributes the energizing that makes the cross effective to the end of justification instead of an organ that does it’s proper work when it doesn’t work but instead rests in Christ for all.

5.) With the doctrine of hypothetical universalism Christ propitiates (turns away the just wrath of God against the sinner) against the sinner while at the same time saying that propitiation is provisional upon the basis of fallen man’s acquiescence to being propitiated for. In other words, in hypothetical universalism the turning away of God’s wrath is conditional upon fallen man’s consent to Christ propitiating the Father’s just and reasonable wrath against sin. It begins to be clear who is really the agent of justification here. Christ dies for all. All are not saved. The difference lies in those who are justified as opposed to the one who does the justifying. Is justification really to God’s glory alone in this arrangement?

6.) The same is true of the doctrine of reconciliation. The doctrine of reconciliation teaches not only that man is alienated from God but also that God is alienated from man. In Penal Substitutionary Atonement Christ is the alone mediator who alone reconciles man to God and God to man with and in His atoning and reconciling death on the Cross. However, in hypothetical universalism Christ does not Himself reconcile but only makes provision for reconciliation. The real provision for reconciliation comes when fallen man makes the machinery of reconciliation operative by buying in. Again, here it is not really Jesus Christ and His cross work that reconciles, rather, the reason why some men are reconciled to God and others are not lies in the fact that some fallen men via their faith work made the wheels of the cross efficient.

7.) The same can be said of expiation, redemption, ransom, sacrifice, substitution, and all the other doctrinal streams that flow into the river we call Atonement. The denial of the Penal Substitutionary Atonement is the denial of Biblical Christianity with the corresponding embrace of a horizontal man-centered auto-soteriology. The denial of Penal Substitutionary Atonement is also the denial that man is totally depraved in favor of partially depraved. It is the denial of unconditional election opting for  man-centered conditional election. It is the denial of sovereign irresistible grace in favor of a common / prevenient grace that sometimes is successful and sometimes isn’t depending on the cooperation of fallen man to improve on grace. It is the denial of the perseverance of the saints favoring instead the falling away of the saints depending upon their will power.

But wait … there is more.

If the doctrine of Penal Substitutionary Atonement is not true then neither can be the doctrine of an Imputation that finds God reckoning the sins of the elect to Christ and Christ’s righteous to the elect. Remember, there is no elect in Hypothetical Universalism, when consistently held. There is only potentially elect and as such the potentially elect can only have an imputation that is likewise potential and not actual.

Further, if the doctrine of the Penal Substitutionary Atonement is not true and it is not the case that Christ pays the penalty as the substitution providing the atonement for a particular people then there is no reason to believe that Christ continues to pray as our Great High Priest, efficient to the end all that He secured in His sacrifice. If Hypothetical Universalism is true then it applies not only to Christ’s work as Priest, sacrifice, and altar as being only potential but it also applies to Christ’s continued work as our Great High Priest in praying for His people. If Christ did not have a particular people He sacrificed Himself for as their Great High Priest, then Christ can in no way pray for a particular people while at the right hand of the Father.

The denial of Penal Substitutionary Atonement ends in auto-soterism and if consistently held means the end of Biblical Christianity. Fortunately, there are countless numbers of people who are indeed among the elect who deny the necessary doctrine of Penal Substitutionary Atonement.  All kinds of Christians are involved in felicitous inconsistency.

Children In The Covenant

“Yes, they’re infants, but they are his members. They’re infants, but they receive his sacraments. They are infants, but they share in his table, in order to have life in themselves.”

~Augustine,
On infant communion

“The NT’s restatement of the Fifth Commandment to honor parents (Eph. 6:2) assumes that children are born as covenant members, and thus parents are bound to to train their children in Christ (Eph. 6:4). When the law was first given to Israel (Ex. 20:12), children were included in the covenant (Gen. 17), and there is no indication that the law can be given to such children if they are not in the covenant. Paedobaptism teaches that Christian parents are bound by covenant to train their children in the faith…”

Rev. Zach Garris 

1.) It is true that there is no indication that the law can be given to such children except that they are in the covenant. However, it is also true that children not in the covenant are responsible to God’s law. Pagan children cannot say, “because I am not a covenant child therefore God’s requirement that I obey my parents does not apply to me.” However, heathen children need to see that they cannot obey their parents unless they are in Christ.

2.) And since Rev. Garris’ statement above is true covenant parents extend to their covenant children the judgment of charity and so extend to their covenant children from the tenderest of ages the privilege of coming to the Lord’s Table to commune. Baptized children of covenant parents have full membership in Christ’s church and so receive Word and Sacrament in both kinds. Rev. Garris properly here appeals to the OT structure to support the contention that children are in the covenant. However that same OT structure that Rev. Garris appeals to found the covenant children receiving the sign of the covenant (which Rev. Garris agrees should continue) and participating in the covenant meal (which Rev. Garris does not agree should continue).

This is called “Covenantus Interruptus.”

Predestination & It’s Implications

Isaiah 46:9 Remember the former things of old,
For I am God, and there is no other;
I am God, and there is none like Me,

10 Declaring the end from the beginning,
And from ancient times things that are not yet done,
Saying, ‘My counsel shall stand,
And I will do all My pleasure,’

11 Calling a bird of prey from the east,
The man who executes My counsel, from a far country.
Indeed I have spoken it;
I will also bring it to pass.
I have purposed it;
I will also do it.

Ephesians 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, 4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, 5 having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, 6 to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He [a]made us accepted in the Beloved.

7 In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace 8 which He made to abound toward us in all wisdom and [b]prudence, 9 having made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He purposed in Himself, 10 that in the dispensation of the fullness of the times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, [c]both which are in heaven and which are on earth—in Him. 11 In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will, 12 that we who first trusted in Christ should be to the praise of His glory.

13 In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14 who[d] is the ]guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory.

We are saying a few words about Predestination this morning. Before we get too lost in the subject we should provide a simple definition. We see from these texts and all of Scripture that Biblical Predestination is that doctrine that sets forth the truth that all that comes to pass… all that happens, happens because the good God of the Bible determined from the foundations of time and of the world that such a happening, or event, or situation would come about. We see this articulated in the Isaiah passage. God declares through the prophet that that which makes Him unique is this reality we call “Predestination.” (Read vs. 10 again).

There in this Ephesians 1 passage we see Predestination referred to in vs. 1. Paul says he is an apostle by the will of God … that will we are going to learn in what follows is a will that was present from eternity.

vs. 4 – once vs. 5 – twice vs 9 – once vs. 11 – once

In Ephesians 1 Predestination is the eternal context, or background, against which all salvation happens. In Isaiah 46 Predestination is the eternal context, or background against which all of human history happens. There is no understanding life, no understanding the Christian faith, no understanding God without embracing this teaching of Predestination. It is, we could the central reality against which all other realities alone make sense. This is so true that we would have to say those who deny Biblical Predestination deny the Christian faith, and really except for felicitous inconsistency are not men to be listened to in the least.

The doctrine of Predestination of course makes a God-oriented people. Without this Biblical concept of Predestination we become humanists of one stripe or another. We no longer run life according to a vertical axis but we run and live life according to a horizontal axis. Non Reformed or Biblical doctrines of Predestination put the God of the Bible in a humanist jail, constraining His authority and sovereignty over His world.

And this explains why this doctrine is so despised and attacked. One example of which is given to us by Gordon H. Clark in his book “Predestination,”

Toward the end of the service (there in Indianapolis), Billy Graham asked people to come forward and a crowd came. With them before him evangelist Graham addressed the large audience still in their seats and delivered a five or ten-minute diatribe against Presbyterianism. “Don’t pray for these people who have come forward,” he said. ‘You may have prayed for them before, and that is good. You can pray for them later on, and that will be good too. But right now prayer is useless, for not even God can help them. They must accept Christ of their own free will, all by themselves, and God has no power over the will of man.”

Gordon H. Clark
Predestination

Fallen men and confused Christians do not desire this kind of sovereign God ruling the world and the affairs of men. Small men desire a world where God is limited so that they can have the final measure of control and authority. This kind of denial of revealed Predestination is everywhere seen in the Church. Indeed, the only place one finds it is in some Reformed Churches and it is our embrace of Biblical Predestination that really is our reason for existence.

Note here in this passages in Ephesians 1. Paul is writing here about the graciousness of grace found in our deliverance from sin. In doing so Paul starts not with God’s saving work in time, but He starts w/ God’s saving work in Eternity. What happens in time… in history … happens because of what God had ordained from eternity. Between Is. 46 and Eph. 1 we learn that all of life … all of redemption is a living out of what God determined / predestined from eternity. These passages teach us that we do not live in a time + chance + circumstance world. This is our Father’s world and though the wrong oft seem so strong, God is the ruler yet.

In relation to Predestination we note in Eph. 1 the tight and unbreakable connection between redemption and predestination. All of our redemption is anchored in Predestination and this is so because it is impossible to have an elect people to be redeemed if that elect people are not protected from all possible contingencies. If a man is set aside to be redeemed than there can be nothing that can come into the life of that man that will stop him from having that set aside redemption applied to Him and then nothing that can happen afterwards that will stop God from fulfilling His purposes for the redeemed. What God has spoken for any of us He will bring to pass and having purposed whatever He purposes for His people He will do.

We see then that there is no Biblical doctrine of Redemption without a Biblical doctrine of Predestination. The two are hopelessly intertwined so that when Calvinistic doctrines of Predestination are denied, there Biblical doctrines of redemption are also denied. Of course, not overtly. Many are those who want their doctrine of gracious redemption who want nothing to do with Predestination and yet that is just not possible and those who pursue that are living in contradiction-ville. We have established then that the savior in any system of thought or any religion will always be the predestinator.

As we briefly consider this truth of Predestination we need to understand that while only Christians believe in Biblical Predestination all men, without exception, live life in terms of some kind of Predestination. What we are suggesting here is that the denial of the doctrine by fallen or confused men does not make the doctrine of Predestination go away. All men believe in predestination. It is never a matter of “if predestination,” it is only a matter of “which predestination.” You see the only option to a world that is not predestinated by some predestinating agent is a world completely operating by random and absolute chance. Predestination and chance are the alternatives. Either all things are planned by a Predestinator or all things happen randomly by chance. And living in a universe governed completely by time + chance + circumstance is untenable. Without a Uni in the Universe there can be no rationality in the Universe. Without a Uni in the Universe there can be no order. Without a Predestinator in the Universe resulting in a total chance Universe one day gravity could be true and the next it wouldn’t be. Without a Predestinator in the world your next birthday could mean your 10 years younger instead of 1 year older. Without a Predestinator in the world at birth gender wouldn’t be constant and one could invent as many different genders as there are baskin-robbins ice cream flavor. No one who is sane really believes in a totally random world not governed by some principle of predestination found somewhere. As all things reveal order and design all things reveal a Predestinator that has planned all things so that in all this diversity there is a unity that is headed towards a particular end.

So.. Predestination is an inescapable concept for rational man. We see this overtly stated in some places. In the Buddhist / Hindu religion there is Predestination in the idea of Karma which teaches that the Predestinator is man’s mind;

Both external events and our experiences of them are created by our own minds, mainly through the process of karma. The Buddha talks about this in the first two verses of the Dhammapada

Mind is the forerunner of all states;
Mind is chief, mind-made are they.
If one speaks or acts with an impure mind, suffering follows,
Like the wheel that follows the cart-pulling ox.

Mind is the forerunner of all states;|
Mind is chief, mind-made are they.
If one speaks or acts with a pure mind, happiness follows,
Like one’s shadow that never leaves.

Note here that we see here a Predestinator. The Predestinator is the mind. And we, as Christians would agree with that but the difference is that the predestinating mind in Karma is man’s mind whereas in Christianity it is the mind of the God of the Bible.

If you turn to Marxism there you will find a doctrine of Predestination. Marxism with its Scientific Socialism of all varieties teaches predestination. The scientific socialist believes that it is predestined that Feudalism gives way to Capitalism gives way to socialism gives way to communism. This is inevitable. The Scientific Socialist therefore determines to help this process along by pursuing revolution via his Hegelian dialectic. He sees himself thus as an agent of the impersonal process that will bring about what can’t help but be brought about. Because of this he crafts what we might call a humanist predestination. Predestination thus has not gone away in the Worldview of the Marxist. It merely has been transferred to a new and different God … to wit; MAN. Man now, collectively considered in the State, will do the predestinating work that the Christian believes belongs to God. Man, collectively considered in the Sate, will be the predestinator of man.

Because all this is so, the man who is in Christ and embraces God’s predestination will be at war with any state that rises up to seize God’s predestination prerogatives. The Christian will be at war with the State understanding that the State has violated his 1st commandment. The Biblical Christian thus will wage un-remiting warfare against the Predestinating state.

By thowing off the God of the Bible man does not rid himself of ancient notions of predestination. He merely transfers it to another location and that new location of Predestinator will be the new location of man’s savior as Predestination and salvation are inextricably intertwined as we see in Ephesians 1.

We see then, that Predestination is an inescapable concept. All men believe in Predestination though few men believe that the God of the Bible predestinates the way we see here in Isaiah and Ephesians. For the Christian the God of the Bible who predestines is a Transcendent God who because of His transcendence is able to see the end from the beginning and so can bring to pass all He decides. This transcendent predestination includes the predestination of secondary causes. God plans all things but His predestination includes the predestinating of creaturely freedom – a freedom that operates within the context of God’s unhindered and unchallenged freedom.

Humanistic predestination to the contrary are imminent predestinations. That is to say that they are predestinating agents who are predestinating as working within the world and this means an overt command and control system. Imminent predestination, such as we are living in now, seeks to constrain all things as within the world. Imminent predestination plans sees man as mold-able and will use force to the end of molding men to fit the imminent predestination. God’s transcendent predestination to the contrary is, we might say, un-observable. Man feels no constraint in God’s transcendent predestination. There is no sense of force being used against him. In God’s transcendent predestination man acts as God determines but without the whip and the cudgel.

We see this in the Isaiah passage. God raises up a bird of prey from the East – the man who will execute God’s counsel. This is a reference to the God hating Cyrus of Persia who God uses to liberate His people from their Babylonian captivity. Cyrus has no personal interest in being God’s tool. He is not being forced by whips and chains to be God’s instrument. He rises up because that is Cyrus’ wicked desire. But what Cyrus intends for evil God intends for good. Here we see God’s transcendent predestination guiding the behavior of nations and leaders in an un-observable way. (Jer. 25:9)

When this kind of predestination is denied what we get then always is imminent predestination. A predestination as I said that seeks to take away the secondary freedom belonging to creatures. This then entails the use of observable force to social engineer men to operate in the desired terms of the imminent predestinator. This can be done by hammer, such as Mao’s cultural Revolution or it can be done by the silk of propaganda as recently explained by Brett Pike. (Explain SEL)

In the time we have had this morning we have seen that Scripture teaches from Genesis to Revelation the Biblical doctrine – the Reformed doctrine of Predestination. We have seen that there is no gracious Redemption apart from a totatlistic Predestination. In any system of thought once the Savior is located the Predestinator has also been located. We have seen that Predestination is an inescapable concept – all men believe in Predestination whether they are epistemologically self-conscious of that or not. We have seen the difference between Transcendent Biblical Predestination and Imminent Humanistic predestination. We have seen that most of the Church today hates Predestination.

If we, as God’s people, desire Reformation, we must return to this teaching of Predestination. There will be no stopping the tyrant Predestinating State if we do not become convinced again that God predestines all.

A Few Words On Covenant Theology

After listening to Jeff Johnson (advocate of Baptist covenant theology) and Michael Horton (advocate of one take of Presbyterian covenant theology that I don’t agree with) debate

I can understand how we are awash in anti-nomianism. Each emphasize in their own way how the New and better covenant does not have a necessary bilateral echo, each insisting that the covenant of grace is only Unilateral without a bilateral echo.

And yet every time I baptize a baby the formulary I read speaks to the bilateral nature of the covenant. These words follow the initial words that teach the unilateral nature of the covenant of grace;

“Third, the covenant of grace contains both promises and obligations. Having considered the promises, we now consider the obligations. Through baptism, God calls us and places us under obligation to live in new obedience to Him. This means that we must cling to this one God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. We must trust in Him and love Him with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength. We must renounce the sinful way of life. We must put to death our old nature and show by our lives that we belong to God. If we through weakness should fall into sin, we must not despair of God’s mercy, nor use our weakness as an excuse to keep sinning. Baptism is a seal and totally reliable witness that we have an eternal covenant with God.”

It strikes me that both Michael Horton and Jeff Johnson must deny this aspect of the formulary because

1.) Horton denies the bilateral nature of the covenant because he insists that those requirements set forth in the Mosaic covenant were an aspect of the works nature of the Mosaic covenant. For Horton, the Mosaic covenant has a broad aspect that should be thought of as gracious but it also has an aspect that should be thought of as narrow and that narrow aspect (the law requirements… “Do this and live”) belongs to the covenant of works. In the new and better covenant that narrow aspect is no longer in operation since Christ has fulfilled the narrow aspect of the Mosaic covenant. For Horton (and R2K) because Christ fulfilled all the righteous requirements of the law, the bilateral aspect of the covenant of grace seems no longer to have any application. Four times in that formulary above you find the words “WE MUST.” This is emphasizing our obligation (that word is even used three times above) in the covenant of grace. I don’t see how Horton or R2K could use the formulary above given their insistence that in its narrow aspect the Mosaic covenant is a legal covenant that was completely fulfilled in Christ.

My insistence would be that the Mosaic covenant was a completely gracious covenant and that the law requirements were not so that Israel could assist in meriting grace, but rather the law requirements were given as the proper response of gratitude expected from a people completely saved by grace alone. The Mosaic law was never given with the intent that Israel could merit either righteousness with God or the ability to stay in the land. The law was given to a redeemed people (see the prologue to the 10 Words in Ex. 20) to answer the question, “How Shall We Then Live.” The law was given to Israel in what today we call “it’s third use.” However, because many in Israel desired to put God in their debt they turned God’s gracious law-Word into a means to put God in their debt. At that point the law’s intent was to reveal to them their sin in never being able to keep God’s law. Instead of being tutored by this first use of the law, many instead chose the route of hypocrisy and insisted that because they kept God’s law God was a debtor to them.

2.) While Horton introduces a covenant works element into the Mosaic covenant of grace, Johnson goes one better and insists that the Abrahamic covenant was also a mixed covenant characterized by works and grace and then notes the Mosaic was consistent with the Abrahamic covenant of being both a law and grace covenant. He insists, that with the New and Better covenant all of the OT covenants in terms of their bilateral realities are eclipsed and the New and Better covenant is completely unilateral with no obligations or “We Must” found in the formulary reading.

Because of this it strikes me the inevitable consequence of both Horton’s and Johnson’s covenant theology is an unfortunate antinomianism.

Biblical covenant theology is Unilateral with a bilateral echo. Christ has done all the saving. He has kept all the covenant of works conditions that was required by Adam and all the typology found in the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenant is fulfilled. Christ is the one who, in the Abrahamic covenant, takes on all the covenant curses while Abraham sleeps, and Christ is proleptically present in all those Mosaic covenant sacrifices and ceremonial laws communicating that they all spoke a better word. Christ brings in the new and better covenant which is first spoken in the proto-Evangelium of Gen. 3:15 and then found flowering into incremental full growth in the subsequent OT covenants (Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic). The Lord Jesus Christ, introduced typologically in an ever burgeoning way in each and all of the subsequent OT covenants is the one old testament covenant of grace now in full flower. Once the new covenant is present in Christ then all the OT shadows fall away much like different stages of a rocket fall off during a moon shot, leaving only what was always the main point all throughout revelation.

However, the bilateral echo of our obedience as read in the formulary above was always part of the Unilateral covenant of grace. The idea that, by the outpouring of the Spirit, we as God’s people would increasingly become what we have been freely declared to be in Christ has always been part of the covenant of grace. God has saved a people, in Christ, and that people in both the covenant in the OT and in the new and better covenant have always been described as a people who are hungry to glorify God and who are zealous for good works and in order to be zealous for good works there must be a standard by which good works are measured and that standard has always been God’s gracious Law-Word.

The Heidelberg catechism puts it this way:

Question 91: But what are good works?

Only those which proceed from a true faith,5 are performed according to the law of God,6 and to His glory;7 and not such as are founded on our imaginations or the institutions of men.8

But if the law has been eclipsed the way Horton and Johnson want to suggest by insistence that obedience to God’s standard was only a “covenant works” aspect of either the Mosaic (Horton) or the Abrahamic and Davidic (per Johnson) then the bilateral aspect spoken of in the infant Baptism ceremony should be excised.

Again, the bilateral aspect of the covenant does not deny its unilateral reality. In light of our walking obedience we are not adding anything to Christ’s finished work for sinners. After all, as Christians we all know that the best of our works still need to be imputed with the righteousness of Jesus Christ in order to be found as a sweet aroma before the Father. No, our obedience, just as the obedience found in those who were the Israel of God in the Abrahamic and the Mosaic and the Davidic covenants is always graciously given and received only by grace. It was true for our OT fathers as it is for us today as New Covenant Christians that it was required to work out our salvation in fear and trembling knowing that it is God who works in them and us to will and to act on behalf of His good purpose.

The Future is Now … Eschatology, Soteriology, & Christology

Colossians 1:13 For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves, 14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.

In this passage we see a classic example of the future being injected into the present. We are placed in a Kingdom that while “yet to come” is, at the same time, present to us as we now live in that future to come Kingdom.

Previous to our entering the future we dwelt without division in “this present evil age” but now upon our union with Christ we have been delivered from the present evil age. The consequence of this is that we walk in two realities at the same time. On one had we are citizens presently in the future age to come, while on the other hand while not being citizens in this present evil age we still navigate as living among those who remain citizens of this present evil age. We live, at one and the same time, in two ages — both in this present evil age and also in the age to come.

I think Tolkien captured some of this when he wrote about his high elves who could walk in two worlds at the same time.

Note he also the Apostle’s triangulation of soteriology, eschatology, and Christology. Our redemption is anchored in Christ who is Himself the future Kingdom. This triangulation was underscored by Dr. Richard Gaffin in his “In The Fullness of Time,” when Gaffin wrote;

“The center of Paul’s theology is determined by the triangulation of his Christology, soteriology, and eschatology.”

I have a friend who often will say, “Christians suffer from not knowing who they are.” This passage teaches us that we are the redeemed ones (soteriology) belonging to Christ (Christology) now living in the age to come (eschatology). If we combine this idea with the reality that Christ is King it is not a far leap in the least to understand that our role is to live so as to expand the age to come, in which we dwell, so that it overtakes and vanquishes this present evil age.

Being in Christ is not a passive affair. Being in Christ and so in the age to come means following our great Liege Lord into battle so that all of the earth is redeemed and so experiences what it means to live in this “age to come” reality.

My Order are to fight
then if I win
or bravely fail
What matters it?

God only doth prevail

The Servant craveth naught
Except to serve with might
I was not told to win
or lose
My orders are to fight