The Preterist Blog ~ 100% Hyperpreterist Free|we can haz rezurekshun?

Recently Sam Frost wrote a blog entitled, “Theology 101:Glorification.” http://thereignofchrist.com/theology-101-glorification/  Frost quotes a Christian stalwart of the 20th Century, Dr. J. Gresham Machen, the founder of Westminster Seminary in Philadelphia, PA. In this instance, Frost’s use of Machen is accurate however it is disingenuous. 

Sam begins by pointing out Dr. Machen’s position regarding the meaning of man made in the image of God, “Machen is in line with positing that the soul is a substance in and of its own self. “The ‘image of God’ cannot well refer to man’s body because God is a spirit; it must therefore refer to man’s soul. It is man’s soul which made in the image or likeness of God” (145). However, this is where Frost misrepresents by a incomplete citation of Machaen’s argument in his own dialogue that follows. Frost, after pointing out that Dr. Machen held to an intermediate state, transitions from Machen’s view straight into the concept of glorification while never explaining the condition required for glorification to be complete as argued by Machaen. Let me explain how this works: Let’s say Sam Frost says “I do believe in a Resurrection.” He then further develops what the concept of “resurrection” means. Then I come along and say, “Sam Frost also admits to a resurrection and as we all know, a biblical view of the resurrection must include a physical body.” In this I would be giving the appearance that Frost actually validates my view. If I wrote such a statement, then I would be hounded to death by other Preterists. They would be defending Frost by saying that I did not fully represent Frost’s view. What would they say? Paul, you are disingenuous and deceptive, and that would be the kinder words. But they never say that to their own. Why is that? Frost has already admitted that Reformed theology does not fit with hyperpreterism, “Full”.  Why does he try to trap his readers in to the false delusion of blending two systems of theology that are antithetical to one another. Dr. Talbot settled that issue.

Now let me give you Frost’s statement to show you how this “name dropper” tries to make it seem that Machen is, acknowledge not to be, but with misrepresentation, has the appearance of supporting the CBV. This is subtle. Kind of like in the Garden of Eden (no, I am not comparing Sam to the serpent, but using it as a good example of subtlety):

Someone might want to tell our detractors that one does not need a “new body” in order to glorifiy God, be made perfect in holiness, or worship God. The problem here is one of confusion.

Mr. Frost, the confusion is totally by design, and you are the designer. Why not quote those “Great” theologians in history who agree with your view? Let say, those who existed prior to 1950. What did you say? The silence is deafening! This is the old parlor trick. If Frost had to quote those who held to a CBV position, he would be silenced! So what does he need to do to give “validity” and “respectability” to his position, quote a “Stanch Confessionalist” who would have called him a “heretic” for his teaching. Are you listening. Do you see others doing this? No, they argue the Bible. Why, because quoting a theologian from ‘history,’ especially a ‘confessionalist’ who is ‘staunch’ in his views, is seeking validation, respect, while being disingenuous in his scholarship. If you are a follower of Samuel, start reading the theologians of the Reformation. They stand one after another in condemnation, not support and adoration for Frost’s heretical teaching. I am beginning to believe that you would quote Satan himself if you thought it would be to your advantage!

Frost continues,

Machen, who knew the WCF backwards and forwards, wrote that the soul is “naked” until we are glorified at the Second Coming. However, this “naked” soul is perfect in righteousness and holiness enjoying the presence of God in the highest heaven before the resurrection and redemption of his body. It would seem, then, that the redemption of the body, in all actuality, adds very little to the fullness of salvation a soul has in Christ.

It is this statement that misrepresents Machen’s view, “It would seem, then, that the redemption of the body, in all actuality, adds very little to the fullness of salvation a soul has in Christ.” Machen does not minimize the view of the physical resurrection, if he did, then why would he have called you a “heretic” for your CBV view?

Frost continues,

What does it add to “perfect holiness” if, in fact, it is PERFECT holiness? Does it bring “more perfection” to an already “perfect” soul? What does it add in terms of being in the “highest heaven”? What does it add in terms of the “image of God” being entirely renewed in the “image of Christ, the heavenly man”? http://thereignofchrist.com/theology-101-glorification/

Again, let me state that Frost does recognizes Dr. Machen was a stalwart defender of the faith however he leaves the impression that while Machen didn’t hold the body was intended as a part of the whole man in which the image of God would dwell in the “Kingdom of Glory”, thus image + body = self same identity (the whole man) being called to the whole Christ (God/man). Are you implying that Dr. Machen did not think a body was required for man to be “glorified”.  I say, Na Na Mr. Frost, Dr. Machen wrote:

We Christians expect, do we not, the resurrection of the body; we look for a life of man, in the body, that shall have no end. (The Christian View of Man, J. Gresham Machen, Banner of Truth Trust, pg 157)

Another scholar Mr. Frost has recommended makes a similar point. Oscar Cullman a Lutheran Theologian of the mid 20th Century writes in his work, “Immortality of the Soul or Resurrection of the Dead?”

If we want to understand the Christian faith in the Resurrection, we must completely disregard the Greek thought that the material, the bodily, the corporeal is bad and must be destroyed, so that the death of the body would not be in any sense a destruction of the true life. For Christian (and Jewish) thinking the death of the body is also destruction of God-created life. No distinction is made: even the life of our body is true life; death is the destruction of all life created by God. Therefore it is death and not the body which must be conquered by the Resurrection.” http://www.religion-online.org/showchapter.asp?title=1115&C=1215

Indeed Frost is attempting to capitalize on Dr. Machen’s understanding of what the image of God in man means. While Machen discounts the “body” as a component part of man bearing the image of God, the fact is he understands the Christian view of the “man” is in “body”, which is why Dr. Machen understanding of a fully redeemed life must necessarily include a physical resurrected body.  While Machen reconciles the Christian view of man through the resurrection of the dead others recognize that the “body” is a component part of man whose whole person is equally created by God, that is, soul and body, in their perfect state all reflecting God.  John Calvin in his commentary on Genesis 1 writes,

Therefore by this word the perfection of our whole nature is designated, as it appeared when Adam was endued with a right judgment, had affections in harmony with reason, had all his senses sound and well-regulated, and truly excelled in everything good. Thus the chief seat of the Divine image was in his mind and heart, where it was eminent: yet was there no part of him in which some scintillations of it did not shine forth. For there was an attempering in the several parts of the soul, which corresponded with their various offices. 89     “Erat erim in singulis animae partibus temperatura quae suis numeris constabat.” In the mind perfect intelligence flourished and reigned, uprightness attended as its companion, and all the senses were prepared and moulded for due obedience to reason; and in the body there was a suitable correspondence with this internal order.http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom01.vii.i.html

C.F.H. Henry in Walter A. Elwell’s Evangelical Theological Dictionary, Second Edition writes:

Nor does Scripture detail a science of psychology in the modern sense, although it presents a consistent view of human nature. Its emphasis falls on humanity as a unitary personality of soul and body. Their disjunction is due to sin (Gen 2:17); human reconstitution as a corporeal being in the resurrection is part of the human destiny.  While the soul survives in the intermediate state between death and resurrection, this is not the ultimate deal (2 Cor 5:1-4), in sharp contrast to Greek philosophy. The dispute over dichotomy or trichotomy too often loses sight of the unitary nature of human personality. It is not possible to assert separate distinctions within human nature simply of the basis of the different scriptural terms for soul, spirit, mind and so forth. (Evangelical Dictionary of Theology Second Edition, Walter A. Elwell, Baker, pg. 593,594)

Anthony A. Hoekema in his work, Created in God’s Image writes similarly:

One of the most important aspects of the Christian view of man is that we must see him in his unity, as a whole person. Human beings have often been thought of as consisting of distinct and sometimes separable “parts”, which are then abstracted from the whole. So, in Christian circles, man has been thought of as consisting either of “body” and “soul,” or of “body,” “soul,” and “spirit.”  Both secular scientists and Christian theologians, however, are increasingly recognizing that such an understanding of human beings is wrong, and that man must be seen in his unity. (Created in God’s Image, Anthony A. Hoekema, Eerdmans, pg 203)

Reformed theologian Herman Bavinck in volume two of his Reformed Dogmatics writes:

The human body is a part of the image of God in its organization as instrument of the soul, in is formal perfection, not in its material substance as flesh (sarx).  Just as God, though he is spirit (pneuma), is nevertheless the Creator of a material world that may be termed his revelation and manifestation, with the revelation coming to its climax in the incarnation, so also the spirit of man is designed for the body as its manifestation. The incarnation of God is proof that human beings and not angels are created in the image of God, and that the human body is an essential component of that image (Reformed Dogmatics, Vol. Two, Bavinck, Eerdmans, pg 559-560).

Clearly, there is a variation in thought between some of the Dutch and Reformed / Presbyterian theologians. What needs to be emphasized here is that the body as man’s manifestation of the spirit which resides within is a part of the whole Person that does image God, which is why Dr. Machen recognizes the Christian hope is looking for man in body manifesting himself in the glory and honor of God eternally.

Frost would have you confirm the Greek concept as pointed out by Dr. Hoekema:

Plato, for example, advance the view that the body and soul are to be thought of as two distinct substances: the thinking soul, which is divine, and the body. Since the body is composed of the inferior substance called matter, it is of lower value than the soul. At death the body simple disintegrates, but the rational soul (or nous) returns to “the heavens” if its course of action has been just and honorable, and continues to exist forever. (Created in God’s Image, Anthony A. Hoekema, Eerdmans, pg 209)

When Frost writes, “Someone might want to tell our detractors that one does not need a “new body” in order to glorifiy God, be made perfect in holiness, or worship God.”, he is just plain wrong! His detractors are lined up for the last 20 centuries. If I walked down through the line of theologians who taught the ‘physical’ resurrected body, I would see thousands of scholars and forever be shaking their hands. The line representing Mr. Frost would, be few, primarily made up of Liberals.  

Dr. Bavinck point’s out, “It is of the essence of humanity to be corporeal and sentient” (Reformed Dogmatics, Vol. Two, Bavinck, Eerdmans, pg 559-559 ), which is why the Apostle Paul went out of way to write,  “Christ. For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily”, Col 2:8,9, shutting the door on the protoGnostic Greek view that the material and spiritual were not compatible.  A body formed from the dust of creation sits on the throne of Glory ruling. We shall also rule with him in a glorified physically resurrected body.