. . . Crucial here is the eschatological action of the Spirit, his enabling of created things to become what they are by anticipating what they shall be, a function inaugurated and instantiated by the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. Having said that, however, we must remember that there is eschatology and eschatology. On the one hand, there is that, whose father is perhaps Origen of Alexandria and whose greatest
exponent is perhaps Augustine, which sees the end of creation as a return to the perfection of its beginning. This tends to be associated with, if it is not actually the outcome of, a Neoplatonic and emanationist view of things, according to which it is the destiny of creation to be, so to speak, rolled back into the being of God. The inadequacy of this is shown by the consideration that if creation is God’s self-communication, his word, then its destiny is to return to him void, for it does not become, in its own right, anything more than it once was. It simply returns whence it came as what it once was: nothing. That is to say, it has no truly eschatological teleology. On the other hand, if the Spirit is indeed the perfecting cause of creation, whose function is to bring the world through Christ to a completeness which it did not have in the beginning, there is rather more to be said. The destiny of things on this account is to be presented before the throne in their perfection, not without the human creation, indeed, but transformed in such a way that their true otherness is not only respected but achieved. This is the work of the Lord who is the Spirit. (Colin E. Gunton, “Theology Through the Theologians,” 149)
If this is true, which I believe it is, then “Covenant/Federal” Theology is defunct. It is defunct not necessarily because of its eschatology; but instead because of its “static” conception of God. Typically Federal theology places one-to-one correspondence between the first Adam, second Adam; so that “Eden-lost,” in the the first Adam, becomes “Eden-restored,” in the second Adam. If we don’t have dynamism, and creativity (being in becoming) in our view of God, then subsequently we end up with a creation that likewise has no dynamism or creative telos in its ontology. I digress, the reality is, is that by the Spirit, in Christ, the second Adam we move beyond, to our telos (purpose) . . . what started in the first Adam was always intended to “end” in the second Adam so that “creation” might find its purpose in union with its Creator. To simply be restored back to first Adam status, in other words, is rather circular; and just won’t do.
Cool blog, I dont know as much as I would like about the difference between “classic calvinism” and “evangelical calvinism”… but here are some thoughts:
With regard to your contention that salvation is just a return to Eden in Covenant Theology, in my experience that is not true. Consider the tradition associated with Westminster Theological Seminary, exemplified in Kline, understand the consummation not as a return to Eden, but as the covenant blessings earned through the faithful obedience to the Covenant of Works by the 2nd Adam.
In other words, if Adam had been obedient, passing the probation, he would have entered into the eschatological blessed age. Because he failed the probation, he and all his descendants are set on course to receive eschatological curses.
Christ keeps the recapitulated covenant of works and thus he earns the eschatological blessings that Adam should have earned. We receive eternal life by being united with Christ and being placed under his federal headship, thus receiving the eschatological covenant blessings. This is the reason why the bible speaks of us as being “born again”; we must be born a new by the spirit under the federal headship of Christ and die to our old self which is under the federal headship of Adam.
Thus for the WTS tradition, All people have an eschatological destiny, for those under the federal headship of Adam it is damnation and those under the federal headship of Christ it is salvation (with all that entails).
Now, this is advanced CT and so your critique may be proper for earlier less developed understandings of CT. Further, the WTS tradition does draw primarily from Princeton Presbyterianism, but it also draws significantly from the Dutch Reformed (Vos) and draws somewhat from the Scottish reformed (Murray). So while this does represent somewhat of a hybrid system, I think it shows that as CT has grown and become nuanced, it no longer is liable to the same critiques.
With regard to the notion of God and the nature of our salvation… that is a huge can of worms which i dare not open fully… but I will say that there is some disagreement between WTS peeps. Van Til and his followers are ardent defenders of the classic understanding of God’s unchangeableness. And as such, consummation is seen as covenantal and not ontological. That is to say that we do not become God but we enter into the consumated fullness of the image of God. God is the only archetype and we become the perfect ectype, but we remain ectype.
There are some who are not satisfied with this, and they would move in your direction and argue that in our consumation we somehow share in God’s archetypal glory. Therefore, they see that Adam had an ontological insuficiency prior to his fall, which created a need for Christ that is both ethical and ontological.
I think that perhaps the crucial question between these views is whether our union with Christ is with respect to his human nature only or if it is with respect to both natures. I havent yet figured that out…
God bless,
David
Hi David,
Thanks for the comment.
I don’t understand how what you described is an advance on regular Federal-Covenant Calvinism. You described the classic belief of Covenant theology, and it is these ‘static’ Covenant of Works-Grace (and Redemption) shaped by God’s decretive action that continues to be the mainstay of classic post-Reformed orthodoxy. I would still offer the same critique.
But I have read and think understood the contemporary and classic issues involved in this morass of Federal Theology for at least the last 10 years (both formally and informally). I have been in personal contact with guys like Scott Clark at WTScalifornia and others within contemporary Federal Theology. I don’t really think I have misunderstood the contemporary situation at this point. And what you have described doesn’t really change my critique.
I would be happy to have you clarify further.
Bobby,
Thanks for getting back to me.
regarding my mention of the advanced CT, I am not well read on all the particulars of the development of covenantal theology and from your description it sounded to me like you were saying that older CT has a “back to eden” eschatology, I did know that Klein does represent further sketching out of some CT ideas, like drawing out the biblical theological importance of common grace, thusly, I was trying to limit the discussion to the part of the CT tradition that I am most familiar with. I apologize for the confusion.
My question with your critique was with what appeared to be the assertion that CT depicts the work of Christ as a return to Eden.My main point is that it is not a return to Eden but a movement beyond Eden. If you were not saying that CT depicts the work of Christ as returning us to Eden, then could you please clarify.
I would guess that you would say that my point concerning Christ as moving beyond Adam through obedience is irrelevant, because creation is ultimately still simply returning to God.
With your language of becoming are you advocating some sort of panentheism such as process theology of whitehead?
Are you saying that unless creation becomes ontologically independent from God as creator, God’s word is returning void?
Yet, the bible represents are union with Christ and our entering into our trinitarian salvation, eternal life as knowing/loving the Father and Son, as in no way reducing our individuality or our personality. Thus, if we are remaining distinct and personal, in what way is it God’s word returning void.
If the eschaton has creation returning to God, as in dissolving into oneness, then that is certainly a pagan view and not representative of CT that I have run into. Our ending point is the new heavens and the new earth, which is not uncreation but consummation.
I would appreciate your thoughts, I am coming from a perspective, but not with an axe to grind. I have a sincere interest in trying to understand the issues related to this.
Hey David,
This post (which is quite old 😉 ) was really only responding to the point that Colin Gunton was making, and I agreed with him. The ultimate issue that I am interested, which is what my comment responding to Gunton in the body of the post was about, is the doctrine of God that shapes Federal Theology; of which I see the eschatological point as symptomatic and illustrative of.
No, I’m not even close to Whitehead, or Process Theology—I’m not totally clear where that idea came from—there is precedence theologically and historically for what I am saying found in the Scotist Thesis (e.g. that Christ was going to Incarnate as the telos of Creation with or without the Fall); and yet I would want to modify a bit of that as well (i.e. I am not a full-fledged Scotist).
The question is, I think, what is the order of the history of salvation; viz. is the classic Reformed creation, covenant, fall, or should we reverse this a bit (like Barth did) with covenant, creation, fall? So that in this case God’s life, and Covenant of Grace, finds its external reality and telos extended into creation and not shaped by creation as the classic approach does. So the “proton” of creation was always really shaped by the escaton of God’s life in Christ; the telos or purpose of creation was always already for Christ (w/o the ‘Fall’). Are you contending that this is what Federal Theology has and does articulate? If so, I don’t agree.
I appreciate the dialogue, David.
Btw, what is your approach? Are you URC, Pressie; some other kind of Reformed, OPC?