# The Cultural Mandate vs The Great Commission



## KMK

Which is more foundational to the church? Or are they essentially the same?


----------



## jogri17

I do not believe there is a mandate to change the culture unless you mean the church is to bring the gospel to a sinful world and they will be converted and changed but using political means is not the job of the church. Kuyper was wrong in other words and Michael Horton is right.


----------



## Beoga

I have just always assumed that they were the same...


----------



## smhbbag

> I have just always assumed that they were the same...



I guess it would depend on one's definition of culture, which would begin to overlap with a lot of other theological areas.

If culture is the external manifestation of a society's religion, then they would indeed be the same, although there would be an order to the process - new faith -> new culture. But one would necessarily follow the other.


----------



## Hungus

Evangelism is our priority, and in doing so we are part of changing the culture one espousal at a time.


----------



## Scott1

Huge topic, and lots of assumptions are underlying.

I don't think we could rightly say which is more foundational because they are both related and dependent on one another.

The Gospel is part of the cultural mandate and vice-versa. We would not say the Gospel is an island unto itself, either in the life of a person, his family, his community, his nation, etc.

That's one of things that is often not clearly understood in broad evangelicalism today. The Word disciples us under God's authority, before, during and after our salvation and the greater process of redemption (election, inner calling, justification, adoption, sanctification, glorification).

It's not as if the "Gospel" is our understanding of four items and nothing else matters. Once we see how God values life, detests those who take innocent human life, we better be "pro-life" and that better affect the way we vote, what we represent to others about it, or we are sinning.

The reality is the Gospel begins a process of bringing the whole of life, every aspect of it under the Lordship of Christ and under the authority of God's Word- all of it. That's why the Christian life is so difficult, so reflected by repentance and faith.


----------



## Christusregnat

KMK said:


> Which is more foundational to the church? Or are they essentially the same?



If you are referring to the Church as a living organization (the visible Church), then I would say that the Great Commission is more foundational.

If you are referring to the Church as the company of saints (the invisible Church), then it would depend on which sphere of government you are addressing. If you are addressing men as private persons, or as public figures in their families, and businesses, then the charge to take dominion, to be fruitful and multiply, etc. is primary. If you address the visible Church and her ministers, then the Great Commission is primary. If you address the saint as a magistrate, then neither of these is primary, but the Noaic and Mosaic commissions are primary.

As an example, the family has not been commissioned to baptize. Why? Because the GC is given to the Church.

As another example, the Church has not been commanded to be fruitful and multiply. Why? Because God has entrusted the procreation of children to the family.

Therefore, each commission/mandate is more foundational to the sphere to which it is addressed. And, no, I do not believe that they are the same.

Cheers,


----------



## Michael Doyle

jogri17 said:


> I do not believe there is a mandate to change the culture unless you mean the church is to bring the gospel to a sinful world and they will be converted and changed but using political means is not the job of the church. *Kuyper was wrong in other words and Michael Horton is right.*



Can you explain this for me? Its pretty vague


----------



## dr_parsley

KMK said:


> Which is more foundational to the church? Or are they essentially the same?



I have never before heard the phrase "cultural mandate". Going by the posts following the OP, they know what it means straight away and I can infer something about it. Perhaps part of my cultural mandate should be to influence your (sub-)culture to change its mind concerning ideas regarding it calls its "cultural mandate"...? 

We are strangers and aliens, just passing through, and we want to take others with us. To think beyond that, into the realm of victorian-style social engineering, would lose our focus on that core and we might start to think of ourselves as a part of a society part-changed instead of as living men in a sea of tragic zombies.

Lord Jesus, come! (but use us to save just one more first..)


----------



## Christusregnat

dr_parsley said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is more foundational to the church? Or are they essentially the same?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have never before heard the phrase "cultural mandate". Going by the posts following the OP, they know what it means straight away and I can infer something about it. Perhaps part of my cultural mandate should be to influence your (sub-)culture to change its mind concerning ideas regarding it calls its "cultural mandate"...?
> 
> We are strangers and aliens, just passing through, and we want to take others with us. To think beyond that, into the realm of victorian-style social engineering, would lose our focus on that core and we might start to think of ourselves as a part of a society part-changed instead of as living men in a sea of tragic zombies.
> 
> Lord Jesus, come! (but use us to save just one more first..)
Click to expand...


Paul,

Do you think that being a stranger and aliens was true of Moses, Abraham, Jacob, the children of Israel, the godly Kings, etc.?

Cheers,


----------



## N. Eshelman

[video=youtube;i1Q6Zun2v-8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1Q6Zun2v-8[/video]

Tim Keller does a nice job (in 3 minutes) to show the balance between Christians being counter-cultural and redeemers of culture. I think that this answers the question well. Why does there need to be such a gap between saving sinners and bringing the Gospel to a sinful society.


----------



## he beholds

Isn't the cultural mandate to be fruitful and multiply? If so, I think, since we are covenant people, that should be and is more foundational to the church. Especially considering that we are to be making disciples of our children, which would place them under the direction of the Great Commission.

Edit: OK. After reading more replies, I must be off of what the mandate is. I think my answer still works.


----------



## Peairtach

The Cultural or Creation Mandate which is found in Genesis 1:28 and renewed in Genesis 9, is overlaid by the Great Commission ( Matthew 28:18-20) because there need to be converted people to carry out the Cultural Mandate properly to God's glory.


----------



## dr_parsley

Christusregnat said:


> dr_parsley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is more foundational to the church? Or are they essentially the same?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have never before heard the phrase "cultural mandate". Going by the posts following the OP, they know what it means straight away and I can infer something about it. Perhaps part of my cultural mandate should be to influence your (sub-)culture to change its mind concerning ideas regarding it calls its "cultural mandate"...?
> 
> We are strangers and aliens, just passing through, and we want to take others with us. To think beyond that, into the realm of victorian-style social engineering, would lose our focus on that core and we might start to think of ourselves as a part of a society part-changed instead of as living men in a sea of tragic zombies.
> 
> Lord Jesus, come! (but use us to save just one more first..)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Paul,
> 
> Do you think that being a stranger and aliens was true of Moses, Abraham, Jacob, the children of Israel, the godly Kings, etc.?
> 
> Cheers,
Click to expand...


Absolutely, even exemplifying it. Moses was an exile because he obeyed God; Abraham left his deeply sinful homeland to go a-wandering; Jacob and his the children were strangers and aliens in Egypt, the godly Kings were short-lived isolated pillars in a sea of hostile tribes.


----------



## Christusregnat

dr_parsley said:


> Christusregnat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dr_parsley said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have never before heard the phrase "cultural mandate". Going by the posts following the OP, they know what it means straight away and I can infer something about it. Perhaps part of my cultural mandate should be to influence your (sub-)culture to change its mind concerning ideas regarding it calls its "cultural mandate"...?
> 
> We are strangers and aliens, just passing through, and we want to take others with us. To think beyond that, into the realm of victorian-style social engineering, would lose our focus on that core and we might start to think of ourselves as a part of a society part-changed instead of as living men in a sea of tragic zombies.
> 
> Lord Jesus, come! (but use us to save just one more first..)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paul,
> 
> Do you think that being a stranger and aliens was true of Moses, Abraham, Jacob, the children of Israel, the godly Kings, etc.?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolutely, even exemplifying it. Moses was an exile because he obeyed God; Abraham left his deeply sinful homeland to go a-wandering; Jacob and his the children were strangers and aliens in Egypt, the godly Kings were short-lived isolated pillars in a sea of hostile tribes.
Click to expand...


Very good. Therefore, since Moses was a stranger and an alien, the conclusion that being one means that we can't build nations with wholesome laws and cultures that glorify God is not accurate. Or, did you intend something else by discussing "victorian-style social engineering"? Perhaps I have misunderstood, but this thought is generally used to depricate or oppose cultural activity.

Look forward to your thoughts.

Cheers,


----------



## Knoxienne

I think if we just obey the Word of God, that covers both.


----------



## Hamalas

I'll hopefully post a real response later but for now let me just recommend some thought-provoking works that could help us discuss this topic:

Amazon.com: Culture Making: Recovering Our Creative Calling (9780830833948): Andy Crouch: Books


Amazon.com: Christless Christianity: The Alternative Gospel of the American Church (9780801013188): Michael Horton: Books


----------



## dr_parsley

Christusregnat said:


> dr_parsley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christusregnat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Paul,
> 
> Do you think that being a stranger and aliens was true of Moses, Abraham, Jacob, the children of Israel, the godly Kings, etc.?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely, even exemplifying it. Moses was an exile because he obeyed God; Abraham left his deeply sinful homeland to go a-wandering; Jacob and his the children were strangers and aliens in Egypt, the godly Kings were short-lived isolated pillars in a sea of hostile tribes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very good. Therefore, since Moses was a stranger and an alien, the conclusion that being one means that we can't build nations with wholesome laws and cultures that glorify God is not accurate. Or, did you intend something else by discussing "victorian-style social engineering"? Perhaps I have misunderstood, but this thought is generally used to depricate or oppose cultural activity.
> 
> Look forward to your thoughts.
> 
> Cheers,
Click to expand...


Adam,

Of course we can and should be an influence where possible to bless our cultures. I don't think anyone could ever deny that without falling into some sort of corporate gnosticism, if you catch my meaning.

But to legislate and encourage God honouring behaviour in people who are an offense to God in their very being can only ever be to put a plaster on an open flowing sore. "They honour me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me and their fear of me is a commandment taught by men". God is not pleased with darkness masquerading as light. What people need is to be aware of the sin in their innermost being, so that in repentance their innermost being can be transformed. If our society is legislated and influenced to be identical to us outwardly, we will no longer be the odor of death unto death to those who are perishing. I would question how much God and Christ would be glorified in the absence of that fragrance.

The question was not whether or not to do it, but how fundamental it is. I'm shocked and even disturbed that the question in the OP can even be asked. To compare influencing and legislating society to be ordered along God honouring lines, like lining up a group of corpses in shiny military gear for inspection, to compare that with the Great Commission and even to say they are the same thing! Wow.


----------



## KMK

Richard Tallach said:


> The Cultural or Creation Mandate which is found in Genesis 1:28 and renewed in Genesis 9, is overlaid by the Great Commission ( Matthew 28:18-20) because there need to be converted people to carry out the Cultural Mandate properly to God's glory.



I am interested in your use of the word 'overlaid'. You also used this word in another thread:



> In the New Covenant the cultural mandate is overlaid by the great commission, because the cultural mandate cannot be properly followed without converted people doing God's will.



Obviously, your view is that these are not mutually exclusive, but which is more foundational to the church? Is the GC the 'basis' of the CM? Is the GC an 'administration' of the CM? Is the CM the mandate of a pre-fallen world, and the GC its counterpart in a fallen world?


----------



## Spinningplates2

We are to fill the earth with the Cultural Mandate. I think this means we are to have children and this means every family have some children. It does not mean that it is a contest to see how many a family can have and then be the winners of some spiritual contest. But Christians who can have children but decide not to for some reason could be considered as not listening to God.

The Great Commision calls us to change nations. God the Son did not say we are to go and find people (although that is implied and expected) He said we are to and baptize the nations in His wonderful Name. This does not say we are to go there and change the laws but laws will change when people and nations convert to Christ. Read Scott1 post from above and tell me where he is wrong. He is right, how can a people called to the Lord and not vote to change Laws that or evil and wrong? A true convert is a vote for rightousness to rule the land and only God tells us what is right.

I don't think the are the same, but you can't have one without the other.


----------



## Christusregnat

dr_parsley said:


> Adam,
> 
> Of course we can and should be an influence where possible to bless our cultures. I don't think anyone could ever deny that without falling into some sort of corporate gnosticism, if you catch my meaning.



I think I do. You're seeking to avoid inactivity in culture because we're too "spiritual", if I'm not mistaken. And I quite agree.



dr_parsley said:


> But to legislate and encourage God honouring behaviour in people who are an offense to God in their very being can only ever be to put a plaster on an open flowing sore. "They honour me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me and their fear of me is a commandment taught by men". God is not pleased with darkness masquerading as light.



So, is your major concern with the hypocrisy of a victorian-style culture?




dr_parsley said:


> The question was not whether or not to do it, but how fundamental it is. I'm shocked and even disturbed that the question in the OP can even be asked. To compare influencing and legislating society to be ordered along God honouring lines, like lining up a group of corpses in shiny military gear for inspection, to compare that with the Great Commission and even to say they are the same thing! Wow.



Paul, the shock you feel is based upon your starting point. In a cursory reading of the Bible, one can easily see that much attention and space is paid to the cultural mandate. 

Also, from a specific look at the Great Commission, it is clear that Christ is commanding for the _*nations as nations *_to become His disciples. He is King of kings, and Lord of lords (a political title, among other things). This is where the concept of Christendom is derived, as well as from the plain teaching of Scripture throughout (see, for example, the Mosaic law, Psalm 2, Isaiah, Daniel, Revelation, Romans 13, etc.).

If Christendom shocks you, then you may need to consider whether you have a Reformed understanding of the civil state.

Cheers,


----------



## KMK

Christusregnat said:


> dr_parsley said:
> 
> 
> 
> Adam,
> 
> Of course we can and should be an influence where possible to bless our cultures. I don't think anyone could ever deny that without falling into some sort of corporate gnosticism, if you catch my meaning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think I do. You're seeking to avoid inactivity in culture because we're too "spiritual", if I'm not mistaken. And I quite agree.
> 
> 
> 
> dr_parsley said:
> 
> 
> 
> But to legislate and encourage God honouring behaviour in people who are an offense to God in their very being can only ever be to put a plaster on an open flowing sore. "They honour me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me and their fear of me is a commandment taught by men". God is not pleased with darkness masquerading as light.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, is your major concern with the hypocrisy of a victorian-style culture?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dr_parsley said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question was not whether or not to do it, but how fundamental it is. I'm shocked and even disturbed that the question in the OP can even be asked. To compare influencing and legislating society to be ordered along God honouring lines, like lining up a group of corpses in shiny military gear for inspection, to compare that with the Great Commission and even to say they are the same thing! Wow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Paul, the shock you feel is based upon your starting point. In a cursory reading of the Bible, one can easily see that much attention and space is paid to the cultural mandate.
> 
> Also, from a specific look at the Great Commission, it is clear that Christ is commanding for the _*nations as nations *_to become His disciples. He is King of kings, and Lord of lords (a political title, among other things). This is where the concept of Christendom is derived, as well as from the plain teaching of Scripture throughout (see, for example, the Mosaic law, Psalm 2, Isaiah, Daniel, Revelation, Romans 13, etc.).
> 
> If Christendom shocks you, then you may need to consider whether you have a Reformed understanding of the civil state.
> 
> Cheers,
Click to expand...


Oh boy, here comes the word 'Christiandom'. I hope there is a way we can discuss this without entering into a debate on Theonomy (which is not at this time allowed on PB).


----------



## Christusregnat

KMK said:


> Oh boy, here comes the word 'Christiandom'. I hope there is a way we can discuss this without entering into a debate on Theonomy (which is not at this time allowed on PB).



Theonomists are not the only people who believe in Christendom; try calling Rev. Winzer a Theonomist. 

Cheers,


----------



## Spinningplates2

Where can I read the reasons that the board has not allowed debate on Theonomy?


----------



## TimV

Bad call, Ken.



> But to legislate and encourage God honouring behaviour in people who are an offense to God in their very being can only ever be to put a plaster on an open flowing sore. "They honour me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me and their fear of me is a commandment taught by men". God is not pleased with darkness masquerading as light.



That's a longish way of saying "you can't legislate morality".

And the the no-brainer answer is to ask yourself if all penalties were removed from, say, stealing, would stealing increase or decrease?

If you say "well, if it were to become legal to steal, there would be not a whit more stealing than there is now" you make yourself out to be naive. 

If you say "yes, of course, if there would be more stealing if there were no penalties" then you admit morality can be legislated.


----------



## Prufrock

Spinningplates2 said:


> Where can I read the reasons that the board has not allowed debate on Theonomy?



*There is simply a "temporary breather" of sorts on going straight for the heart of the issue while various matters are sorted out or cooled off. It's only been in effect for a few days.*


----------



## KMK

Christusregnat said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh boy, here comes the word 'Christiandom'. I hope there is a way we can discuss this without entering into a debate on Theonomy (which is not at this time allowed on PB).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theonomists are not the only people who believe in Christendom; try calling Rev. Winzer a Theonomist.
> 
> Cheers,
Click to expand...


Relax. I wasn't saying there is anything wrong with using the word, only that its appearance in a thread often marks a turning point.


----------



## KMK

TimV said:


> Bad call, Ken.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But to legislate and encourage God honouring behaviour in people who are an offense to God in their very being can only ever be to put a plaster on an open flowing sore. "They honour me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me and their fear of me is a commandment taught by men". God is not pleased with darkness masquerading as light.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a longish way of saying "you can't legislate morality".
> 
> And the the no-brainer answer is to ask yourself if all penalties were removed from, say, stealing, would stealing increase or decrease?
> 
> If you say "well, if it were to become legal to steal, there would be not a whit more stealing than there is now" you make yourself out to be naive.
> 
> If you say "yes, of course, if there would be more stealing if there were no penalties" then you admit morality can be legislated.
Click to expand...


To whom are you addressing this post?


----------



## Christusregnat

KMK said:


> Relax.



Relax yourself. Did you notice the wink?


----------



## KMK

Christusregnat said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Relax.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Relax yourself. Did you notice the wink?
Click to expand...


Sorry, but this is a wink:


----------



## dr_parsley

TimV said:


> Bad call, Ken.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But to legislate and encourage God honouring behaviour in people who are an offense to God in their very being can only ever be to put a plaster on an open flowing sore. "They honour me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me and their fear of me is a commandment taught by men". God is not pleased with darkness masquerading as light.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a longish way of saying "you can't legislate morality".
> 
> And the the no-brainer answer is to ask yourself if all penalties were removed from, say, stealing, would stealing increase or decrease?
> 
> If you say "well, if it were to become legal to steal, there would be not a whit more stealing than there is now" you make yourself out to be naive.
> 
> If you say "yes, of course, if there would be more stealing if there were no penalties" then you admit morality can be legislated.
Click to expand...


Morality is not the goal though is it? Your summary of what I wrote would have been better as "you can't legislate pleasing God". Producing well behaved devils has nothing to do with the Great Commission.

Perhaps I have come over as black and white about this, but I'm just fighting a particular corner. I think Americans are doing a great job in sustaining the Christian character of their nation - all power to you! I wouldn't do it like that on principle, but then my country is in a right mess.


----------



## Archlute

nleshelman said:


> YouTube - Being Salt & Light in Culture
> 
> Tim Keller does a nice job (in 3 minutes) to show the balance between Christians being counter-cultural and redeemers of culture. I think that this answers the question well. Why does there need to be such a gap between saving sinners and bringing the Gospel to a sinful society.



This will be a little off topic, but I think that it needs to be pointed out that Keller's use of Matt. 5:13 is without justification. I find that passage frequently used to support the idea of "preserving/transforming culture", but there is no exegetical support for that use.

Calvin certainly didn't use it that way, and for good reason. The Greek term used in that verse does not refer to the preserving qualities of the salt, but specifically to the loss of its taste, its flavor. It is therefore rightly understood by Calvin as speaking of the ability of the doctrines of Scripture to enliven the souls of the hearers. It is bringing its "savor" to the heart of men, and when that savor is diluted it becomes "tasteless" and ineffective.

When Keller and others use this passage to support a transformationalist agenda they are misusing it. It has nothing to do with powers of preservation, and therefore nothing to do with preserving culture. Do they know better than to use it in that manner? I think they should, having had their Greek studies. Are they purposefully misinterpreting the meaning in order to justify their approach to doing church? I hope not, but I doubt that they would change their misuse of that verse even were it to be pointed out to them. Too much is riding on it.


----------



## dr_parsley

*Saltiness?*



Archlute said:


> This will be a little off topic, but I think that it needs to be pointed out that Keller's use of Matt. 5:13 is without justification. I find that passage frequently used to support the idea of "preserving/transforming culture", but there is no exegetical support for that use.
> 
> Calvin certainly didn't use it that way, and for good reason. The Greek term used in that verse does not refer to the preserving qualities of the salt, but specifically to the loss of its taste, its flavor.



Is it appropriate to start a new thread about that? My exegetical commentary doesn't allude to anything like what you say and the salt as preservative has a lot to recommend it. Salt that loses its flavour doesn't get thrown outside to be trampled on. Salt as flavouring gets eaten and either continues to have flavour or it never did. On the other hand, as a preservative I have a vivid understanding of how salt can lose its "saltiness" from when I worked in an abattoir in my school holidays many years ago.


----------



## Peairtach

KMK said:


> Richard Tallach said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Cultural or Creation Mandate which is found in Genesis 1:28 and renewed in Genesis 9, is overlaid by the Great Commission ( Matthew 28:18-20) because there need to be converted people to carry out the Cultural Mandate properly to God's glory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am interested in your use of the word 'overlaid'. You also used this word in another thread:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the New Covenant the cultural mandate is overlaid by the great commission, because the cultural mandate cannot be properly followed without converted people doing God's will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously, your view is that these are not mutually exclusive, but which is more foundational to the church? Is the GC the 'basis' of the CM? Is the GC an 'administration' of the CM? Is the CM the mandate of a pre-fallen world, and the GC its counterpart in a fallen world?
Click to expand...


This is an expression that was used by the late Dr Gregory L. Bahnsen. Maybe he was meaning that evangelism took a degree of precedence over culture, because the cultural mandate cannot be _truly _ carried out by unbelievers (?)

If the cultural mandate was to be carried out properly, it had to be carried out by Adam and Eve and their children in their unfallen state of original righteousness.

Redemptively speaking, the New Adam and Eve are Christ and the Church. Christ has completed the period of probation that Adam failed. Now Christ and His Church must carry out the cultural mandate. But the church is not yet complete and is not yet fully sanctified. Therefore evangelism and the cultural mandate must go on together, with evangelism having a slight precedence. I suppose aspects of fulfilling the cultural mandate can be a form of evangelism.

All Christians should make room in their lives (their lives should be characterised by) evangelism and the cultural mandate. Every area of life must be cosecrated to Christ and every area of life must be ruled by God's law and Christian liberty.

We receive a lot of "things" - for want of a better word - from the work of unbelievers, in God's providence, that must be consecrated to a holy use.


----------



## Christusregnat

KMK said:


> Christusregnat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Relax.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Relax yourself. Did you notice the wink?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, but this is a wink:
Click to expand...


Yeah, but I like the lame gray-face wink


----------



## The Calvin Knight

Here is an earlier thread about neo-Calvinism and the cosmonomic/Amsterdam philosophy with 2 good links pertaining to problems with neo-calvinism, specifically the cultural mandate: http://www.puritanboard.com/f50/sphere-sovereignty-differentiated-responsibility-43841/ Go to the third post and the first and third links. The third link by Cornelis Pronk is very good on dealing with the cultural mandate.


----------



## Zac Wyse

Both the creation mandate (I don't like "cultural mandate") and the Great Commission have the same goal in mind, i.e., the spread of God's glory, expressed in His image-bearers, across the earth.

*Creation mandate:*
In the Garden, Adam's mandate was temple building. He was called to "keep it and guard it" (2:15, cf. Num. 3:7-8) like a priest. No unclean thing was allowed to enter that temple, including Satan. Adam was not called to build culture as we know of it. This same mandate was republished after the Flood, because Noah was reenacting the Fall of Adam. He was placed in a Garden, abused the fruit, and fell. He wasn't the one that would bring rest (Gen. 5:29).

*Great Commission*
I think it's more accurate to say that the Great Commission is the outworking of Jesus' temple-building. He accomplished the temple-building on the cross but it working it out from His heavenly throne (applying it). This temple is partially constructed during this age through the Great Commission (already) and fully realized when the saints receive resurrection bodies and the earth is renewed (not yet), all of which will form God's consummate temple. It is at that point when the Second Adam's temple-building will be fully finished. God's glory will cover the earth and His image-bearers will be confirmed in perfect righteousness.

I think that neo-calvinists (think "cultural mandate") neglect to recognize both holy land (temple) and theocracy in the Garden (and Canaan), which is distinct from the period from the Fall until Moses and during the new covenant age.


----------



## Peairtach

_This same mandate was republished after the Flood, because Noah was reenacting the Fall of Adam. He was placed in a Garden, abused the fruit, and fell. He wasn't the one that would bring rest (Gen. 5:29)._

Interesting connection. That one had never occurred to me. Thanks for the thought. 

I'm not sure I follow all you say. Surely Adam was a prophet and king, as well as priest, as is Christ, and also all His followers in a lesser sense.

Eden was a kingdom and sanctuary, Israel was a kingdom and sanctuary. The whole earth is the kingdom and sanctuary.

Please feel free to correct/modify these random thoughts.

-----Added 8/7/2009 at 08:18:28 EST-----

*Quote from Ken*
_Oh boy, here comes the word 'Christiandom'._

I believe in Christendom and am not "a t", or at least not "a T."

Christendom is Christ's Kingdom. It will eventually incorporate all nations and peoples on Earth - including the Jews. Christ's Kingdom cannot be identified with any particular nation on Earth.

Christian love  will reign by Christ's Spirit throughout the World.


----------



## Zac Wyse

RT:
Between His first and second advents, Christ's kingdom is not physical, although it becomes visible on Sundays when the covenant people assemble. It is a spiritual kingdom and extended through covenant (Word and Sacrament). While Christ is Lord over all the earth, He has not sanctified the earth yet (thus, it is not part yet part of His Messianic kingdom). We are still living "east of Eden", outside the physical kingdom. It is connected with the fact that Christ is not bodily present. He is seated in heaven, having ascended. Once He returns in bodily form, heaven earth will be transformed (the consummation).

Christ is prophet, priest, and king (as you say), but we need to recognize the "already" and "not yet" of His reign. It comes in two stages. During this time between the advents, He is gathering His people into His kingdom. In the future, the whole earth will be His kingdom and sanctuary.

Hope that helps! Let me know if anything doesn't quite add up. I'm off to bed for now, though!


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

Here's an excerpt from my paper on the covenant of works:

We must avoid making too large a dichotomy between creation and redemption. Redemption should not be understood as an entirely new plan devised by God to replace his original intentions for humanity. Nor should redemption be viewed merely in terms of the restoration of the original state of affairs. John Milton did not have it completely right when he wrote of “Paradise Lost” and “Paradise Regained.”[1] On the contrary, there was eschatology before the fall. As Rowland Ward appropriately observes,
We must not idealise conditions in the world before sin. The state of innocence in paradise is far surpassed by the state of glory in the New Jerusalem. Put another way, we can say _there was an eschatology before there was sin_, that is, a glorious destiny was in view of which the tree of life in Genesis 2 was also a token. Creation at the beginning was not like it will be in the end. Then it will be richer and more enduring.[2]
​Therefore, redemption should be interpreted as God’s reparation of Adam’s failure and fulfillment of his original creation mandate through the Second Adam, Jesus the Messiah. Whereas the first Adam betrayed his heavenly Father and fell into sin by snatching after divinity (Gen. 3:4-6), the Second Adam proved his perfect loyalty by assuming the posture of a servant and humbling himself even unto the death of the cross (Matt. 4:1-11; Phil. 2:5-11). And by his perfect live and spotless sacrifice Jesus became a vicarious atonement for sin and undid the evil that the first Adam initiated. Moreover, the Second Adam is currently fulfilling the original mandate God had given to humanity. God had commanded Adam and Eve to be fruitful, to multiply, to fill the earth, and to subdue it for God’s glory. Jesus has taken up that task. And just as the First Adam had a bride to serve as his helper (Gen. 2:18-24), so too the Second Adam has chosen a bride to serve as his helper, namely, the church (Eph. 5:31-32) whom we may view as the Second Eve.[3] Together with His bride Jesus is fulfilling the original mandate God had given to Adam by filling earth with regenerated images of God who are in turn are submitted to God’s rule and are subduing the earth for His glory. To state it differently, the creation mandate God gave to the First Adam and his bride has now become the Great Commission, which God has given to Christ (Isa. 42:1-12; 49:1-26) and through Christ to the church (Matt. 28:18-20; Luke 24:45-49; Acts 1:8; 13:47-47; Rom. 15:18).[4] 

 [1] I am referring here to John Milton’s two epic poems, the first depicting man’s fall into sin, and the second portraying God’s restoration of man to the original Edenic state of affairs. See John Milton, _Paradise Lost and Regained_, ed. Christopher Ricks, Signet Classic Poetry Series (Signet Classics, 2001). 

 [2] _God & Adam_, 23. Emphasis his. Or, in the words of K. Rengstorf, “The con*summation of God’s dealings with creation and man thus takes up and transcends what was given in Paradise.” _TDNT_, 4:604, cited in Geoffrey Wilson, _Revelation _(Herts, U.K.: Evangelical Press, 1985), 179. For more on this subject, see Howard Griffith, “Eschatology Begins with Creation,” _WTJ_ 49 (1987): 387-396.

 [3] Thanks to John Fesko for this observation. _Last Things First_, 167-68. 

 [4] A number of writers have noted the oft-missed connection between the original creation mandate and the Great Commission. Meredith Kline, for example, warns against dichotomizing the creation mandate into secular and religious spheres. “There were mandates that defined man’s role in the advancement of God’s kingdom and there were ordinances that established the institutional structures of man’s historical existence. These covenant stipulations were concerned with both the vertical and horizontal dimensions of man covenant life. They dealt with man’s cultural task, his commission with respect to this horizontal relationship to the world that was his environment and to all his fellow creatures. They dealt also with man’s cultic role, his duties in his directly vertical relationship to his Creator-Lord. Man’s theocratic commission involved a dual priest-king office…. This unity of the royal-cultural and the priestly cultic functions as alike a covenantal service rendered to the heavenly Suzerain prohibits any dichotomizing of man’s life into religious and nonreligious.” _Kingdom Prologue_, 66-67. John Frame notes the similarities between the cultural mandate of Genesis 1:28 and the Great Commission of Matthew 28:18-20, concluding, “So in the Great Commission Jesus renews God’s original purpose to fill the earth with worshipers of the true God.” _The Doctrine of the Christian Life__ Last Things First_, 173. Gregory Beale provides an indepth and thorough study that connects the Garden sanctuary in Eden with the NT church and links the creation mandate with the Great Commission. _The Temple and the Church’s Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God_, New Studies in Biblical Theology, ed. D. A. Carson (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2004). (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian & Reformed, 2008), 307-08. John Fesko develops the link between the creation mandate and the Great Commission along typological lines: “Christ has taken up the work of the dominion mandate [i.e., Gen. 1:26, 28] and with the assistance of his helpmate, his bride, the second Eve, the Church, is now fulfilling it.


----------



## Peairtach

Zac Wyse said:


> RT:
> Between His first and second advents, Christ's kingdom is not physical, although it becomes visible on Sundays when the covenant people assemble. It is a spiritual kingdom and extended through covenant (Word and Sacrament). While Christ is Lord over all the earth, He has not sanctified the earth yet (thus, it is not part yet part of His Messianic kingdom). We are still living "east of Eden", outside the physical kingdom. It is connected with the fact that Christ is not bodily present. He is seated in heaven, having ascended. Once He returns in bodily form, heaven earth will be transformed (the consummation).
> 
> Christ is prophet, priest, and king (as you say), but we need to recognize the "already" and "not yet" of His reign. It comes in two stages. During this time between the advents, He is gathering His people into His kingdom. In the future, the whole earth will be His kingdom and sanctuary.
> 
> 
> Hope that helps! Let me know if anything doesn't quite add up. I'm off to bed for now, though!



Yeah. I agree that Christ's Kingdom won't reach its consumation until the end of the world and the Second Advent. But being a Postmillennialist I also believe that it will be manifested in greater scope and depth in history, as greater and greater proportions of the world's population get converted and obey Christ. That doesn't make Christ's Kingdom "physical" in history, because our souls won't be morally perfected, our bodies won't be glorified, and the creation won't be transformed in history.

But I'm sure you agree that the greater and greater the proportion of believers there are in the world, putting into practice God's Word, the more the Kingdom of Heaven comes on Earth. Although our bodies and the cosmos aren't made incorruptible and undefiled, the lives of individuals and families are transformed; schools, congregations and denominations are transformed; businesses, society, economics, government and international relations are transformed. 

This is all achieved by Christ reigning _from_ Heaven _on_ Earth, by His Word, Spirit, Church and Providence.

-----Added 8/8/2009 at 07:51:18 EST-----



Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> Here's an excerpt from my paper on the covenant of works:
> 
> We must avoid making too large a dichotomy between creation and redemption. Redemption should not be understood as an entirely new plan devised by God to replace his original intentions for humanity. Nor should redemption be viewed merely in terms of the restoration of the original state of affairs. John Milton did not have it completely right when he wrote of “Paradise Lost” and “Paradise Regained.”[1] On the contrary, there was eschatology before the fall. As Rowland Ward appropriately observes,
> We must not idealise conditions in the world before sin. The state of innocence in paradise is far surpassed by the state of glory in the New Jerusalem. Put another way, we can say _there was an eschatology before there was sin_, that is, a glorious destiny was in view of which the tree of life in Genesis 2 was also a token. Creation at the beginning was not like it will be in the end. Then it will be richer and more enduring.[2]
> ​Therefore, redemption should be interpreted as God’s reparation of Adam’s failure and fulfillment of his original creation mandate through the Second Adam, Jesus the Messiah. Whereas the first Adam betrayed his heavenly Father and fell into sin by snatching after divinity (Gen. 3:4-6), the Second Adam proved his perfect loyalty by assuming the posture of a servant and humbling himself even unto the death of the cross (Matt. 4:1-11; Phil. 2:5-11). And by his perfect live and spotless sacrifice Jesus became a vicarious atonement for sin and undid the evil that the first Adam initiated. Moreover, the Second Adam is currently fulfilling the original mandate God had given to humanity. God had commanded Adam and Eve to be fruitful, to multiply, to fill the earth, and to subdue it for God’s glory. Jesus has taken up that task. And just as the First Adam had a bride to serve as his helper (Gen. 2:18-24), so too the Second Adam has chosen a bride to serve as his helper, namely, the church (Eph. 5:31-32) whom we may view as the Second Eve.[3] Together with His bride Jesus is fulfilling the original mandate God had given to Adam by filling earth with regenerated images of God who are in turn are submitted to God’s rule and are subduing the earth for His glory. To state it differently, the creation mandate God gave to the First Adam and his bride has now become the Great Commission, which God has given to Christ (Isa. 42:1-12; 49:1-26) and through Christ to the church (Matt. 28:18-20; Luke 24:45-49; Acts 1:8; 13:47-47; Rom. 15:18).[4]
> 
> [1] I am referring here to John Milton’s two epic poems, the first depicting man’s fall into sin, and the second portraying God’s restoration of man to the original Edenic state of affairs. See John Milton, _Paradise Lost and Regained_, ed. Christopher Ricks, Signet Classic Poetry Series (Signet Classics, 2001).
> 
> [2] _God & Adam_, 23. Emphasis his. Or, in the words of K. Rengstorf, “The con*summation of God’s dealings with creation and man thus takes up and transcends what was given in Paradise.” _TDNT_, 4:604, cited in Geoffrey Wilson, _Revelation _(Herts, U.K.: Evangelical Press, 1985), 179. For more on this subject, see Howard Griffith, “Eschatology Begins with Creation,” _WTJ_ 49 (1987): 387-396.
> 
> [3] Thanks to John Fesko for this observation. _Last Things First_, 167-68.
> 
> [4] A number of writers have noted the oft-missed connection between the original creation mandate and the Great Commission. Meredith Kline, for example, warns against dichotomizing the creation mandate into secular and religious spheres. “There were mandates that defined man’s role in the advancement of God’s kingdom and there were ordinances that established the institutional structures of man’s historical existence. These covenant stipulations were concerned with both the vertical and horizontal dimensions of man covenant life. They dealt with man’s cultural task, his commission with respect to this horizontal relationship to the world that was his environment and to all his fellow creatures. They dealt also with man’s cultic role, his duties in his directly vertical relationship to his Creator-Lord. Man’s theocratic commission involved a dual priest-king office…. This unity of the royal-cultural and the priestly cultic functions as alike a covenantal service rendered to the heavenly Suzerain prohibits any dichotomizing of man’s life into religious and nonreligious.” _Kingdom Prologue_, 66-67. John Frame notes the similarities between the cultural mandate of Genesis 1:28 and the Great Commission of Matthew 28:18-20, concluding, “So in the Great Commission Jesus renews God’s original purpose to fill the earth with worshipers of the true God.” _The Doctrine of the Christian Life__ Last Things First_, 173. Gregory Beale provides an indepth and thorough study that connects the Garden sanctuary in Eden with the NT church and links the creation mandate with the Great Commission. _The Temple and the Church’s Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God_, New Studies in Biblical Theology, ed. D. A. Carson (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2004). (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian & Reformed, 2008), 307-08. John Fesko develops the link between the creation mandate and the Great Commission along typological lines: “Christ has taken up the work of the dominion mandate [i.e., Gen. 1:26, 28] and with the assistance of his helpmate, his bride, the second Eve, the Church, is now fulfilling it.



Very good. The original creation was "good" and "corruptible". The New Creation will be the best of all possible worlds for Christ and His people and will be "incorruptible"

Before the Fall the Seven Day week with the Sabbath of rest and worship at its end, pointed towards a more perfect order, being imposed by special revelation on the general revelation of imperfect time: days, months and years. Each Sabbath was a stepping stone towards that new order, as Adam and Eve completed their period of Probation, had morally perfect children (imagine that!) and fulfilled the Creation Mandate without spot or stain.

All about as hypothetical as you can get: At what point in their carrying out of the Creation Mandate, would their world have been transformed into that more perfect state?

You say that "the creation mandate has now become the Great Commission." But in some senses surely not. Indeed isn't the Creation Mandate part of "the all the things" that Jesus has commanded.

E.g. Many Christian couples would take the teaching from the Creation Mandate that it is wrong to seek a childless marriage, unless you've got good reasons for so doing. That teaching isn't _explicitly_ in the Great Commission.

Christ has gloriously and perfectly carried out the Probation of the Covenant of Works for His people by His life and death. In what sense will the Great Commission and Creation/Cultural Mandate have been completed before the Second Advent?

Just some random thoughts and Qs.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

Richard Tallach said:


> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's an excerpt from my paper on the covenant of works:
> 
> We must avoid making too large a dichotomy between creation and redemption. Redemption should not be understood as an entirely new plan devised by God to replace his original intentions for humanity. Nor should redemption be viewed merely in terms of the restoration of the original state of affairs. John Milton did not have it completely right when he wrote of “Paradise Lost” and “Paradise Regained.”[1] On the contrary, there was eschatology before the fall. As Rowland Ward appropriately observes,
> We must not idealise conditions in the world before sin. The state of innocence in paradise is far surpassed by the state of glory in the New Jerusalem. Put another way, we can say _there was an eschatology before there was sin_, that is, a glorious destiny was in view of which the tree of life in Genesis 2 was also a token. Creation at the beginning was not like it will be in the end. Then it will be richer and more enduring.[2]
> ​Therefore, redemption should be interpreted as God’s reparation of Adam’s failure and fulfillment of his original creation mandate through the Second Adam, Jesus the Messiah. Whereas the first Adam betrayed his heavenly Father and fell into sin by snatching after divinity (Gen. 3:4-6), the Second Adam proved his perfect loyalty by assuming the posture of a servant and humbling himself even unto the death of the cross (Matt. 4:1-11; Phil. 2:5-11). And by his perfect live and spotless sacrifice Jesus became a vicarious atonement for sin and undid the evil that the first Adam initiated. Moreover, the Second Adam is currently fulfilling the original mandate God had given to humanity. God had commanded Adam and Eve to be fruitful, to multiply, to fill the earth, and to subdue it for God’s glory. Jesus has taken up that task. And just as the First Adam had a bride to serve as his helper (Gen. 2:18-24), so too the Second Adam has chosen a bride to serve as his helper, namely, the church (Eph. 5:31-32) whom we may view as the Second Eve.[3] Together with His bride Jesus is fulfilling the original mandate God had given to Adam by filling earth with regenerated images of God who are in turn are submitted to God’s rule and are subduing the earth for His glory. To state it differently, the creation mandate God gave to the First Adam and his bride has now become the Great Commission, which God has given to Christ (Isa. 42:1-12; 49:1-26) and through Christ to the church (Matt. 28:18-20; Luke 24:45-49; Acts 1:8; 13:47-47; Rom. 15:18).[4]
> 
> [1] I am referring here to John Milton’s two epic poems, the first depicting man’s fall into sin, and the second portraying God’s restoration of man to the original Edenic state of affairs. See John Milton, _Paradise Lost and Regained_, ed. Christopher Ricks, Signet Classic Poetry Series (Signet Classics, 2001).
> 
> [2] _God & Adam_, 23. Emphasis his. Or, in the words of K. Rengstorf, “The con*summation of God’s dealings with creation and man thus takes up and transcends what was given in Paradise.” _TDNT_, 4:604, cited in Geoffrey Wilson, _Revelation _(Herts, U.K.: Evangelical Press, 1985), 179. For more on this subject, see Howard Griffith, “Eschatology Begins with Creation,” _WTJ_ 49 (1987): 387-396.
> 
> [3] Thanks to John Fesko for this observation. _Last Things First_, 167-68.
> 
> [4] A number of writers have noted the oft-missed connection between the original creation mandate and the Great Commission. Meredith Kline, for example, warns against dichotomizing the creation mandate into secular and religious spheres. “There were mandates that defined man’s role in the advancement of God’s kingdom and there were ordinances that established the institutional structures of man’s historical existence. These covenant stipulations were concerned with both the vertical and horizontal dimensions of man covenant life. They dealt with man’s cultural task, his commission with respect to this horizontal relationship to the world that was his environment and to all his fellow creatures. They dealt also with man’s cultic role, his duties in his directly vertical relationship to his Creator-Lord. Man’s theocratic commission involved a dual priest-king office…. This unity of the royal-cultural and the priestly cultic functions as alike a covenantal service rendered to the heavenly Suzerain prohibits any dichotomizing of man’s life into religious and nonreligious.” _Kingdom Prologue_, 66-67. John Frame notes the similarities between the cultural mandate of Genesis 1:28 and the Great Commission of Matthew 28:18-20, concluding, “So in the Great Commission Jesus renews God’s original purpose to fill the earth with worshipers of the true God.” _The Doctrine of the Christian Life__ Last Things First_, 173. Gregory Beale provides an indepth and thorough study that connects the Garden sanctuary in Eden with the NT church and links the creation mandate with the Great Commission. _The Temple and the Church’s Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God_, New Studies in Biblical Theology, ed. D. A. Carson (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2004). (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian & Reformed, 2008), 307-08. John Fesko develops the link between the creation mandate and the Great Commission along typological lines: “Christ has taken up the work of the dominion mandate [i.e., Gen. 1:26, 28] and with the assistance of his helpmate, his bride, the second Eve, the Church, is now fulfilling it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All about as hypothetical as you can get
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes. But nothing wrong with hypothesizing. Jesus did it (Matt. 11:23).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At what point in their carrying out of the Creation Mandate, would their world have been transformed into that more perfect state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When Adam (and his seed) finished subduing the earth and handed over the kingdom to his heavenly Father--then God would be all and all, and Adam would have been exalted and would have taken his seat at God's right hand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say that "the creation mandate has now become the Great Commission." But in some senses surely not. Indeed isn't the Creation Mandate part of "the all the things" that Jesus has commanded. E.g. Many Christian couples would take the teaching from the Creation Mandate that it is wrong to seek a childless marriage, unless you've got good reasons for so doing. That teaching isn't _explicitly_ in the Great Commission.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Both the "curse" and "redemption" have altered the First Creation Mandate. As a result of the curse, some are eunuchs from birth (by way of extension, some can't get married or have children). As a result of redemption, some make themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom (that is, they may, like Paul and Barnabas, choose not to marry [a creation ordinance] and/or, by way of extension, choose not to have children [a creation ordinance]). The curse and redemption have similarily introduced modifications to the ordinances of labor and Sabbath.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christ has gloriously and perfectly carried out the Probation of the Covenant of Works for His people by His life and death. In what sense will the Great Commission and Creation/Cultural Mandate have been completed before the Second Advent? Just some random thoughts and Qs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God commanded Adam and Eve to be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth, and subdue it. Presumably, this would have entailed extending the boarders of Eden's sanctuary garden-temple to cover the entire earth. God has commissioned the Second Adam and his Bride, the Church, to be fruitful (i.e., bear spiritual children, Heb. 2:13), multiply, fill the earth with renewed image-temples, and subdue the kingdom of darkness. When the gospel is preached throughout all the earth and the earth is covered with temples of the Holy Spirit, i.e., regenerate believers and churches, then the Son of Man will return to bring God's kingdom plan to final completion, setting up a New Heavens and New Earth where only righteousness dwells.
Click to expand...


----------



## greenbaggins

I was hoping that someone would bring Greg Beale into this discussion. Thanks, Bob, for doing that. 

The way I see it is this: the cultural mandate was not only about multiplying and filling the earth. It was about _filling the earth with image-bearers of God_. Once we recognize this, we can see that of course it would be repeated after the Fall (as someone has pointed out with respect to Noah). However, in a fallen state, all that can be replicated is the sad, twisted, distorted image of God in man. There needed to be a way to redeem this sad state of things. Enter Christ. 

Now, the cultural mandate becomes wrapped up in the Great Commission. The gradually unfolding nature of biblical revelation shows us that the cultural mandate is still operative, but needs the redemptive element of the Great Commission in order to achieve its goals. The seed of the cultural mandate becomes the flower of the Great Commission. The Great Commission does not "supercede" the cultural mandate, it redeems it. Now, once again, the image of God can be replicated and multiplied throughout the earth. People have to be born, but people also have to be saved.


----------



## Scott1

Isn't it also fair to say God redeems not only individuals, but families, cultures and nations by application of His Word in all of life? Both salvation, redemption broadly and living by light of and application of His revealed Word.


----------



## Peairtach

*Bob*
_renewed image-temples_

More essential theological jargon 


*Scott*
_Isn't it also fair to say God redeems not only individuals, but families, cultures and nations by application of His Word in all of life? Both salvation, redemption broadly and living by light of and application of His revealed Word._ 

The more genuine born again individual Christians you have the easier this should be. That's the theory anyway.


----------



## mvdm

Michael Doyle said:


> jogri17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do not believe there is a mandate to change the culture unless you mean the church is to bring the gospel to a sinful world and they will be converted and changed but using political means is not the job of the church. *Kuyper was wrong in other words and Michael Horton is right.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you explain this for me? Its pretty vague
Click to expand...


I believe he's referring to Horton's Lutheran-esque 2k theology in which the kingdom of God is reduced to the church, with little impact is the so-called "common realm":

_…we begin the story with one creation, one covenant, one people, one mandate, one city. Then after the fall, there is a covenant of creation (with its cultural mandate still in effect for all people, with the law of that covenant universally inscribed on the conscience) and a covenant of grace (with its gospel publicly announced to transgressors), a City of Man (secular but even in its rejection of God, upheld by God’s gracious hand for the time being) and a City of God (holy but even in its acceptance by God, sharing in the common curse of a fallen world). Just as the failure to distinguish law covenant from promise covenant leads to manifold confusions in our understanding of salvation, tremendous problems arise when we fail to distinguish adequately between God’s general care for the secular order and his special concern for the redemption of his people.…[But] the human race is not divided at the present time between those who are blessed and those who are cursed. That time is coming, of course, but in this present age, believers and unbelievers alike share in the pains of childbirth, the burdens of labor, the temporal effects of their own sins, and the eventual surrender of their decaying bodies to death…there is in this present age a category for that which is neither holy nor unholy but simply common.”
Michael Horton, “God of Promise”._

In contrast to standard {and Kuyperian} Reformed theology:

_“The Kingdom of God on earth is not confined to the mere ecclesiastical sphere, but aims at absolute universality, and extends its supreme reign over every department of human life….It follows that it is the duty of every loyal subject to endeavor to bring all human society, social and political, as well as ecclesiastical, into obedience to its law of righteousness….It is our duty, as far as lies in our power, immediately to organize human society and all its institutions and organs upon a distinctively Christian basis. Indifference or impartiality here between the law of the Kingdom and the law of the world, or of its prince, the devil, is utter treason to the King of Righteousness. The Bible, the great statute-book of the kingdom, explicitly lays down principle which, when candidly applied, will regulate the action of every human being in all relations. There can be no compromise. The King said, with regard to all descriptions of moral agents in all spheres of activity, ‘He that is not with me is against me.’ If the national life in general is organized upon non-Christian principles, the churches which are embraced within the universal assimilating power of that nation will not long be able to preserve their integrity.”
Dr. A. A. Hodge – An Outline of Evangelical Theology – pp. 283-284_


----------



## Zac Wyse

Mark,
I recognize that many Reformed writers have articulated what AA Hodge wrote (in your quote). Thanks for posting those, btw. I think it gets to the heart of the matter. Could you explain to me how Hodge (and you?) would relate the new covenant to the kingdom of God? In other words, how does covenant administration relate to Christ's kingdom?


Scott,
How does a nation live in light of the Word if it's not within the covenant community, receiving the Word through preaching and sacrament? They must be within the "kingdom of Christ" before that would happen.


Neo-calvinists,
How do you understand Paul's use of the phrase "the present evil age"? Doesn't that have reference to the entire old order of creation?

-----Added 8/8/2009 at 05:31:00 EST-----

*Mark*
_I believe he's referring to Horton's Lutheran-esque 2k theology in which the kingdom of God is reduced to the church, with little impact is the so-called "common realm":_

"little impact" may not be fair. It depends on how you define "impact". If we're looking for general equity for all persons, then the church may have a great impact at certain times and less at others. But, by "impact", you may mean "redeeming/baptizing the culture". No 2K'er expects that, to my knowledge.


----------



## Peairtach

*Quote from Zac*
_Neo-calvinists,
How do you understand Paul's use of the phrase "the present evil age"? Doesn't that have reference to the entire old order of creation?_

Thanks for the interesting posts. I don't know if I'm a _neo_-Calvinist, but I'm a Calvinist and postmil. Maybe you can say what a neo-C is?

This age will always be evil compared to the next, because of the presence of sin and the curse. That does not mean it can't improve as the devil is progressively bound and a larger percentage of the world population is regenerated. The powers of the new creation - particularly God's Spirit - are here to transform men's hearts and the world.

See post numbers 56 and 63 here, for the progressive binding of Satan:-

http://www.puritanboard.com/f46/what-key-text-your-millennium-position-51076/index2.html

*Zac*
_Scott,
How does a nation live in light of the Word if it's not within the covenant community, receiving the Word through preaching and sacrament? They must be within the "kingdom of Christ" before that would happen._

Richard here,
The whole earth is Christ's Kingdom, although only church members are citizens, and of these only believers are true citizens. No nation on earth is the heir of God's typological Kingdom of Israel. But members of the covenant community can be salt and light by applying God's Word prophetically to the surrounding nation(s). Obviously the larger the proportion of (true) Christians there are in a nation, the greater the scope and facility there is for this. Eventually Christianity is recognised appropriately in the national constitution and in all the laws and various departments of life in the land.

I don't agree with t*e*n*my as usually expounded by the "t. s" We can't discuss that at present, there's a moratorium on this MB.


----------



## mvdm

Zac Wyse said:


> Mark,
> I recognize that many Reformed writers have articulated what AA Hodge wrote (in your quote). Thanks for posting those, btw. I think it gets to the heart of the matter. Could you explain to me how Hodge (and you?) would relate the new covenant to the kingdom of God? In other words, how does covenant administration relate to Christ's kingdom?



I'd answer similarly to what Rev. Keister and Dr. Gonzales have already provided in their good answers above. 

On the flip side, I'd avoid like the plague answering it as a dispensationalist who so separates the OT from NT, or like neo-Lutheran gnostics who separate grace from nature.

The answer is simply confessionally Reformed theology, to wit:

_ “Finally the thought of the Kingdom of God implies the subjection of the entire range of human life in all its forms and spheres to the end of religion. The Kingdom reminds us of the absoluteness, the pervasiveness, the unrestricted dominion, which of right belongs to all true religion. It proclaims that religion, and religion alone, can act as the supreme unifying, centralizing factor in the life of man, as that which binds all together and perfects it by leading it to its final goal in the service of God.”
Dr. Geerhadus Vos
The Teaching Of Jesus Concerning The Kingdom and the Church – pg. 103_

_Christ has indeed stated that his kingdom is not of this world, but he is not a spiritual king in the sense that he has absolutely no interest in external and earthly things. On the contrary, he assumed a fully human nature and came into the world not to condemn the world but to save it. Christ planted his kingdom in that world and made sure that it could exist in it, and, like leaven, have a transforming impact in all areas of life.”
Herman Bavinck._


----------



## The Calvin Knight

*Neo-Calvinism*



Richard Tallach said:


> Thanks for the interesting posts. I don't know if I'm a _neo_-Calvinist, but I'm a Calvinist and postmil. Maybe you can say what a neo-C is?



Go to post #36 and follow the link to the two articles I mentioned. Read the article by Pronk first to get a basic understanding of neo-Calvinism and problems with it. Follow that up with the article by William Young who enters into disagreements beyond the Kuyperian/neo-Calvinist formation of common grace and the cultural mandate(which Pronk focuses on and Young deals with to an extent).


----------



## Peairtach

The Calvin Knight said:


> Richard Tallach said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the interesting posts. I don't know if I'm a _neo_-Calvinist, but I'm a Calvinist and postmil. Maybe you can say what a neo-C is?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Go to post #36 and follow the link to the two articles I mentioned. Read the article by Pronk first to get a basic understanding of neo-Calvinism and problems with it. Follow that up with the article by William Young who enters into disagreements beyond the Kuyperian/neo-Calvinist formation of common grace and the cultural mandate(which Pronk focuses on and Young deals with to an extent).
Click to expand...


I'm reading the articles. I would like to say that I'm the completely balanced Calvinist, but being a sinner I know I'm not.

I'm not a proper neo-Calvinist, as I believe in the vital importance of personal piety and experimental religion for a healthy and true Calvinist Christianity. 

I'll maybe make further comment on this once I've read all of the articles.


----------

