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

__________________


http://www.villagecommunitychurch.org/


"Preparing a sermon is like cooking a meal. You need pots and pans and utensils, but you don't bring them out to the table where people are eating." Derek Thomas


Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

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.

__________________
J. P. Grigoletti II * Lay-man * Église Réformée du Québec
Québec, Québec Canada * Member: Église Reformée St. Marc
http://Grigoletti.blogspot.com - blog
<<There are three things necessary for thee to know, that thou, enjoying this comfort, mayest live and die happily: the first, how great your sins and miseries are; the second, how thou may be delivered from all thy sins and miseries; the third, how thou shall express thy gratitude to God for such deliverance.>>

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

__________________
Brian Vandenburg
Member of Westminster Presbyterian Church (PCA)
Vancouver, WA
"The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, depends not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God."-Westminster Confession of Faith

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.

__________________
Jeremy Gage
First Baptist Church
Durham, NC

"No heart can conceive that treasury of mercies which lies in this one privilege, in having liberty and ability to approach unto God at all times, according to his mind and will." - John Owen

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

__________________
Robert K. "Kelly" Brumbelow
In Inquirer's class at Grace Presbyterian (PCA) Cedartown, GA
Cedartown, Georgia

Dear Lord and Father of mankind, Forgive our foolish ways;
Reclothe us in our rightful mind, In purer lives Thy service find,
In deeper reverence, praise. - John Greenleaf Whittier 1807-1892

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.

__________________
Scott
PCA
North Carolina


"Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised)"
Hebrews 10:23

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,

__________________
Adam B., Wine Country, California, PCA

"I fear not to hold with Junius, de Politia Mosis cap. 6, that he who was punishable by death under that Judicial law, is punishable by death still; and he who was not punished by death then, is not to be punished by death now."

Can you explain this for me? Its pretty vague

__________________
Michael P Doyle
Waukesha WI
Member of http://www.cornerstone-pca.com/
Attending http://www.lampseminary.org/

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
No denomination, affiliated with FIEC
"Deliver me from worldly dispositions, for I am born from above and destined for glory" - Valley of Vision
"They think it strange that you do not plunge with them into the same flood of dissipation" - Peter

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,

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.

__________________
Pastor Nathan Eshelman, Los Angeles, CA
Reformed Presbyterian Church
PRESBYTERIAN THOUGHTS
Los Angeles Reformed Presbyterian Church
RPCLA Sermons Online
Puritan Reformed Seminary

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.

__________________
Shalom,
jessi
PCA
Steelers fan exiled to Virginia


“Whatever your heart clings to and confides in, that is really your God.”
Martin Luther

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.

__________________
Richard
communicant member, FCoS
Perth, Scotland UK

His Name forever shall endure;
last like the sun it shall:
Men shall be blessed in Him,
and blessed all nations shall Him call (Ps. 72:17)

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.

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,

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

__________________
Toni Cunningham, Wife of Bill (Theognome)
Parkwoods OPC, Overland Park KS

"Vice is a monster of so frightful mien, As, to be hated, needs but to be seen; Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face, We first endure, then pity, then embrace." ~ Alexander Pope

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

Amazon

__________________
Ben Franks

I attend: Ketoctin Covenant Presbyterian Church (OPC)
in Purcellville, Virginia
I'm a member of: Heartland Community Church (PCA)
in Wichita, Kansas
I blog here (along with my Dad): http://rrfranks.blogspot.com/
And I'm a student here: www.phc.edu

"Remember the speeches we have spoken so often over our mead, when we raised boast on the bench, heroes in the hall, about hard fighting. Now may the man who is bold prove that he is."-Aelfwine at the Battle of Maldon

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.

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

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?

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.

__________________
Alan Hughes
PCA
Lake Zurich, Illinois

If you think I'm a Hyper-Calvinist, God planned that thought before the foundation of the Earth. If you try to tell me that God only planned some things and not all things, then your problem is with God not me.

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.

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


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,

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,

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

Bad call, Ken.

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.

__________________
Tim Vaughan
Member, Redeemer Presbyterian, OPC,
Santa Maria
California

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.

__________________
Paul Korte
OPC
Flint, MI

They who perceive in themselves discoveries of the divine goodness, so full and absolutely perfect, and who make them the subject of earnest meditation, will never embrace new doctrines, by which the very grace they feel so powerfully in themselves is thrown into the shade. --John Calvin

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

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.

To whom are you addressing this post?

Relax yourself. Did you notice the wink?

Sorry, but this is a wink:

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.

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.

__________________
Adam J. Myer
Slated for the Jan. 10th Chaplains Basic Officer Leadership Course
Estacada Christian Church
Sandy, Oregon

Soli Deo Gloria

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.

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.

Yeah, but I like the lame gray-face wink

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: Sphere Sovereignty / Differentiated Responsibility 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.

__________________
Noah
Calvin College (student)
CRC
Grand Rapids, MI

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.

__________________
Zac
Holy Trinity Platt (CofE)
Manchester, UK

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.

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!

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.

__________________
Bob Gonzales Jr., Dean
Reformed Baptist Seminary
Easley, South Carolina

"Persons need not and ought not to set any bounds to their spiritual and gracious appetites." Jonathan Edwards