Theology of Glory & Theonomy

turmeric · #1 (**permalink**) 01-19-2005, 09:37 PM

Someone mentioned the theology of the cross/theology of glory dichotomy on another thread. I liked what was said, but it got me wondering; what does the theology of the cross say to theonomy? Can we have the church triumphant right down here now?

[Edited on 20-1-2005 by turmeric]

[Edited on 20-1-2005 by turmeric]

Peter · #2 (**permalink**) 01-19-2005, 09:45 PM

I don't see the theology of the cross and the theology of glory as necessarily contradictory. The church will be victorious in history yet not without struggle and suffering on the part of every believer. We won't have a triumphant church until the return of Christ, but we can have a triumphing church here and now!

VirginiaHuguenot · #3 (**permalink**) 01-19-2005, 10:04 PM

Postmillenialism and theonomy are two different things, not necessarily connected.

Me Died Blue · #4 (**permalink**) 01-19-2005, 10:13 PM

The theology of glory/theology of the Cross distinction, as I have seen it presented, deals basically with the means by which we attain the ends. In other words, is it by the foolishness of preaching, the uncompromised proclaiming of the Gospel, a high view of the Church and her ordinances, a realization of the true depth of our sin, and an embracing of sacrificial service modeled after Christ? Or is it by prosperity preaching, self-esteem tips, seeker-sensitive services, psychological self-help books, little evangelical one-liners that make us feel good, getting emotionally hyped-up and expressive in service on a regular basis, and reading our own personal meanings into the Scriptures? The former would constitute living the Christian life by means of the theology of the Cross, while the latter, the theology of glory.

So the theology of the Cross has no problem with aspiring to the coming of the kingdom "on earth as it is in heaven." It has a problem with getting there by worldly means such as the theology of glory. That is why we can pray for the kingdom to come on earth as in heaven, and yet acknowledge that the kingdom is not "of the world." Thus, I fully and heartily embrace the theology of the Cross as a theonomist, recognizing the biblical means by which God brings about true revival.

Michael Horton gives some excellent explanation and application of the theology of glory versus the theology of the Cross in his book In the Face of God. Meg, I remember awhile back you saying you'd consider getting that book when I recommended it for getting out of the charismatic mindset and concept of what "being spiritual" really means. Did you ever have a chance to get it yet?

Me Died Blue · #5 (**permalink**) 01-19-2005, 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
Postmillenialism and theonomy are two different things, not necessarily connected.

Indeed. And while both point toward the establishment of God's kingdom on this earth, neither one really "needs" the other to hold up.

openairboy · #6 (**permalink**) 01-19-2005, 10:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by turmeric
Someone mentioned the theology of the cross/theology of glory dichotomy on another thread. I liked what was said, but it got me wondering; what does the theology of the cross say to theonomy? Can we have the church triumphant right down here now?

[Edited on 20-1-2005 by turmeric]

[Edited on 20-1-2005 by turmeric]

Yes, that is a whole can of worms. Short of the long, we can only have our triumph through the cross, so there is no glory without it. There are so many issues connected with this that it is difficult to really address without taking each worm as it comes out. For example, Micah and Isaiah's vision of the nations streaming to the Mt. of the Lord and learning His Torah and beating their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks, where does this fit in? The postmil. theonomist is going to read them one way and the other side is going to read them another way. When an issue cuts against your governing hermeneutic ("theology of the cross") then there is no way for it to be right, so if the "cross guy" sees postmil-theon as being "glory" there is no way for it to be right. So, when one reads Murray's "Puritan Hope", do they get the notion of "glory" or "cross"? I get both.

To say the least, Luther and Bahnsen, I believe, looked at the law much, much differently and all of this is tied in.

In my view, Christ rose from the dead. We are participating in both his death and resurrection. Both His humiliation and his glory. Unfortunately they are set up as a dichotomy, so the two shall never meet when that is the hermeneutic.

openairboy

P.S. I read Forde's "On Being a Theologian of the Cross". Very good in some ways and wanting in others.

[Edited on 20-1-2005 by openairboy]

openairboy · #7 (**permalink**) 01-19-2005, 10:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Me Died Blue

Michael Horton gives some excellent explanation and application of the theology of glory versus the theology of the Cross in his book In the Face of God.

This, I believe, is one of Horton's best. It's been about 7 or 8 yrs, but I devoured this book and it radically changed my "spirituality", especially Horton's views of the sacraments. I can't recall tons about it, but I remember loving it. (As an aside: Horton sent me the book for free, b/c a friend of mine was dating a friend of his and said, "Some guy my girlfriend knows loves your work" or something like that. Yea Horton!")

openairboy

crhoades · #8 (**permalink**) 01-19-2005, 10:39 PM

Another point I haven't seen discussed (could've missed it...) is that the state and church are separate institutions with separate swords i.e. means of bringing its goals to pass. Theonomy draws distinctions. Shall the church, even the church triumphant, bring the kingdom to pass by the sword? Only if you mean the sword of the Spirit.

The state should not fall under either the theology of the cross or glory. It is to uphold the law and punish lawbreakers. It in effect helps to keep society orderly so the church can go about its business of teaching and evangelizing.

Do theonomists want to see reformation and revival? Of course. How? Through law and gospel.

Remember, Bahnsen's book was titled: Theonomy in Christian Ethics. I.e. God's Law in Christian ethics. In his book he also brought out the need for transformed hearts and the right goal. The theonomic thesis is in regard to the normative aspect of ethics - the standard we use. Hopefully we all agree that the perfect rule of faith and life (doctrine) is God's infallible Word.

The debate lies elsewhere I believe. Cross and glory lies more in the church sphere rather than the civil sphere.

turmeric · #9 (**permalink**) 01-19-2005, 11:02 PM

Chris,
Haven't had a chance to get the book yet, plan to soon. Now I want to read it even more.
I may be badly misunderstanding theonomy and mixing it up with other things. I see the conversations about the Confederacy, about Paul White et al, and I think to myself; What has this got to do with the Gospel? We have enough trouble getting that right without insisting everyone line up w/our political agenda in order to be saved. I don't think anyone on this board does this, BTW, but the mistake lies, I think, in thinking we can have the Kingdom now in this life by some political maneuvre. It's the same mistake the liberals make. A lot of my politics are colored by ignorance of the facts and depravity, and will not be corrected except by hindsight. I would hate God to be judging me on the basis of my grasp of national affairs & the Constitution. END OF RANT

crhoades · #10 (**permalink**) 01-19-2005, 11:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by turmeric
Chris,
Haven't had a chance to get the book yet, plan to soon. Now I want to read it even more.
I may be badly misunderstanding theonomy and mixing it up with other things. I see the conversations about the Confederacy, about Paul White et al, and I think to myself; What has this got to do with the Gospel? We have enough trouble getting that right without insisting everyone line up w/our political agenda in order to be saved. I don't think anyone on this board does this, BTW, but the mistake lies, I think, in thinking we can have the Kingdom now in this life by some political maneuvre. It's the same mistake the liberals make. A lot of my politics are colored by ignorance of the facts and depravity, and will not be corrected except by hindsight. I would hate God to be judging me on the basis of my grasp of national affairs & the Constitution. END OF RANT

rant on!

Here's a question for you: Abortion - should we be doing what we can within the law to make it illegal? Why? Hopefully we would point to biblical standards that God is the creator and guarantor of life and that it is taking the life unlawfully of a person created in the image of God.

If I read a lot of books on the subject, get into conversations with my friends and co-workers, fast and pray for our nation, am I trying to live a theology of glory? No, I'm trying to get our society to uphold God's law. At certain levels this is almost pragmatic as well as theological.

Now how are we going to have a society that wants to follow God's law in relation to abortion and homosexuality? By having many more converted thinking people walking around the streets, voting, and holding office.

Quote:

We have enough trouble getting that right without insisting everyone line up w/our political agenda in order to be saved. I don't think anyone on this board does this, BTW, but the mistake lies, I think, in thinking we can have the Kingdom now in this life by some political maneuvre.

No theonomist believes this. Don't ask me to prove a universal negative though..:P

Come on...what are you waiting for? Buy the book...It's only 20 bucks and you get a ton of lectures on a cd plus his other books in pdf format as well as articles.
http://www.cmfnow.com/product.asp?3=674

openairboy · #11 (**permalink**) 01-19-2005, 11:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by turmeric
Paul White et al

Who is Paul White?

crhoades · #12 (**permalink**) 01-19-2005, 11:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by openairboy

Quote:

Originally posted by turmeric
Paul White et al

Who is Paul White?

Possibly meant Paul Hill?

turmeric · #13 (**permalink**) 01-19-2005, 11:17 PM

Oops, I meant Paul Hill, my bad!

When I turn on Christian radio, just about ALL I hear about is abortion or gay marriage. I hardly ever hear the Gospel. Even James Kennedy hardly ever preaches about anything on radio but abortion, that our country really was started by Christians, or some other very earthly theme. We all know that until a person's heart is changed he can't do right. What changed my mind about abortion was the Word of God, not someone's well-crafted argument repeated ad nauseum on Christian radio. I'm not blaming theonomists for modern Christian radio, that would be unforgivable, it just seems that the whole church has gotten off track on this as well. The position is correct, but we were sent to preach Christ crucified...

I'm sorry about my bad argumentation, and for being worked up about this.

[Edited on 20-1-2005 by turmeric]

Me Died Blue · #14 (**permalink**) 01-19-2005, 11:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by openairboy
In my view, Christ rose from the dead. We are participating in both his death and resurrection. Both His humiliation and his glory. Unfortunately they are set up as a dichotomy, so the two shall never meet when that is the hermeneutic.

The terms "theology of glory" and "theology of the Cross" are not contrasting glory and the Cross in themselves, which are both of course vital parts of the Christian life. They are simply convenient terms for tendencies that exist in modern evanjellyfish and Reformed circles, and have always existed in the Church, since error and truth have always existed as such. On pages 69-70 of In the Face of God, Horton describes the two theologies as such:

Quote:

We are climbing, climbing, climbing, Jacob's ladder, ladder, ladder....

Do you remember singing that popular old Sunday school song? As you hum the familiar melody, you may even find yourself inadvertently making the hand-motions, climbing a make-believe ladder to heaven. Meanwhile, you're probably wondering what "Jacob's Ladder" has to do with Gnosticism.

The fact is, climbing is one of the leading metaphors for attainig spirituality, from medieval mysticism to the New Age. By ascending from matter to spirit, the gnostic believes he will finally attain union with the divine. Gnosticism encourages us, in its various forms, to set the spirit free to climb a ladder of emotion, meditation, or self-effort in order to escape the material world.

Whether we're evangelical, Roman Catholic, or New Age, techniques abound in the supermarket of spirituality, offering new heights of self-fulfillment and nearness to the divine. The spirituality of the medieval church was similarly reliant on ladder-climbing. Recalling his life as a devoted and scrupulous monk, Martin Luther called attempts to climb into God's presence a "theology of glory." Against this brand of spirituality, the Reformer called for a return to the "theology of the cross," which he found clearly laid out in Scripture.

The ancient church apologists, in their opposition to Gnosticism and related heresies, defended the Incarnation as God's descent to us rather than our ascent to him. The Protestant Reformers recovered this emphasis. And we, too, need to renew our appreciation for this essential principle of biblical spirituality.

On pages 79-80, he continues, talking about Luther's definition of

Quote:

two radically different religions: a theology of glory and a theology of the cross. Everything he had known had been a theology of glory, an attempt to see "God in the nude," as Luther put it, an attempt to experience God directly as he is in all of his majesty. Luther knew the texts that we considered in our second chapter. He knew that God was good, but that humans were not. He also recognized that God was not, as Eckhart suggested, standing at the heart's door, waiting patiently to enter. He was a judge, intending to execute his wrath.

If this is the case, then, how can a sinner ever come to know God's salvation? How can a sinner know God as a loving father rather than as a wrathful judge? The only way, Luther discovered from Scripture, was through the theology of the cross. As Walther von Loewenich points out, the word of the cross was not merely one topic of conversation among many, but was quite literally the crux of the whole Christian message and every subject was to turn on its meaning. "The theologian of glory sees God everywhere present," says von Loewenich, but for Luther, "God can be found only in suffering and the cross." Did Isaiah not declare, "Truly you are a God who hides himself, O God and Savior of Israel" (Isa. 45:15)?

Both Martin Luther and John Calvin opposed the theology of glory with a theology of God's own self-revelation. This is why sola Scriptura--"only Scripture," one of the Reformation's battle-cries--was so important. The Christian is to find God only as he has revealed himself in Scripture, not through direct experience, nor as one deduces things about his nature from that which is visible. Unlike the theology of glory, where the pious and zealous climbers find God through their own experience, "surrender," meditation, and ecstasy, the theology of the cross points to the zeal of God, who descends to sinful humanity by becoming one of us. The cross is a real event in human history. It is not a private spiritual experience. The cross is God's chosen method of saving sinners and bringing them into his family.

While paganism in all of its forms is concerned with human ascent, Christianity is concerned with divine descent. The Reformers learned from the biblical writers the radical nature of human depravity: "There is no one righteous, no not even one" (Rom. 3:10). Gone is the ladder of merit.

"There is no one who understands" (v. 11). Gone is the ladder of speculation.

"There is no one who seeks God" (v. 11). Gone is the ladder of mysticism.

That is what the "theology of glory" refers to.

Me Died Blue · #15 (**permalink**) 01-19-2005, 11:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by openairboy

Quote:

Originally posted by Me Died Blue

Michael Horton gives some excellent explanation and application of the theology of glory versus the theology of the Cross in his book In the Face of God.

This, I believe, is one of Horton's best. It's been about 7 or 8 yrs, but I devoured this book and it radically changed my "spirituality", especially Horton's views of the sacraments. I can't recall tons about it, but I remember loving it. (As an aside: Horton sent me the book for free, b/c a friend of mine was dating a friend of his and said, "Some guy my girlfriend knows loves your work" or something like that. Yea Horton!")

openairboy

That's great!

Quote:

Originally posted by crhoades
Another point I haven't seen discussed (could've missed it...) is that the state and church are separate institutions with separate swords i.e. means of bringing its goals to pass. Theonomy draws distinctions. Shall the church, even the church triumphant, bring the kingdom to pass by the sword? Only if you mean the sword of the Spirit.

The state should not fall under either the theology of the cross or glory. It is to uphold the law and punish lawbreakers. It in effect helps to keep society orderly so the church can go about its business of teaching and evangelizing.

Do theonomists want to see reformation and revival? Of course. How? Through law and gospel.

Remember, Bahnsen's book was titled: Theonomy in Christian Ethics. I.e. God's Law in Christian ethics. In his book he also brought out the need for transformed hearts and the right goal. The theonomic thesis is in regard to the normative aspect of ethics - the standard we use. Hopefully we all agree that the perfect rule of faith and life (doctrine) is God's infallible Word.

The debate lies elsewhere I believe. Cross and glory lies more in the church sphere rather than the civil sphere.

Ivanhoe · #16 (**permalink**) 01-19-2005, 11:26 PM

Look at theonomy this way: We are to suffer in this life. Does that mean that theonomy (and possibly postmillennialism) is wrong? Not necessarily. If we are put into a political situation where preaching the gospel and God's absolute standard will get us into trouble, then we MUST hold the antithesis! If we are to suffer, then we should suffer unto victory.

crhoades · #17 (**permalink**) 01-20-2005, 12:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by turmeric
When I turn on Christian radio, just about ALL I hear about is abortion or gay marriage. I hardly ever hear the Gospel.

When will Christians wake up? (not you Meg). Abortion should be cried down from the rooftops until it is abolished. We should be weeping and gnashing our teeth at the thought of 1.3 million babies being murdered this year for "choice". I think people are hardened to the prospect of changing the laws regarding abortion. If you haven't or haven't in a while, check out pictures of an aborted baby. Check out Scott Bushey's website. If the church militant, triumphant, or the church lukewarm would take God's creation and word seriously enough we would be able to end this abomination!

As far as not hearing the gospel on the radio, check out white horse inn, renewing your mind, etc. Better yet, rent tapes from Mt. Olive tape library for your car rides.

Quote:

Even James Kennedy hardly ever preaches about anything on radio but abortion, that our country really was started by Christians, or some other very earthly theme.

We are earthly people living in this world. We are called to think about more than heaven. We as citizens and especially Christian citizens should care about how our country is run. And yes we should think biblically about it and have a worldview approach. Heck, we can leave Bahnsen, Rushdooney et.al. out of this if we could get people to read Kuyper's Lectures on Calvinism...
We should also guard against a sacred/secular dichotomy.

Quote:

We all know that until a person's heart is changed he can't ]do right.

agreed. but we should also have laws on the books and enforce them. Murder should be illegal and should be punished with death (after a proper trial etc.) regardless if there is a converted soul in the whole state. The civil law and penalties do not look at the inward heart attitude and sin to punish but the outward breaking of the law.

Quote:

I'm not blaming theonomists for modern Christian radio,

That would have to be one of the worst attacks I have ever read against theonomy!

Quote:

that would be unforgivable, it just seems that the whole church has gotten off track on this as well. The position is correct, but we were sent to preach Christ crucified...

I'm sorry about my bad argumentation, and for being worked up about this.

[Edited on 20-1-2005 by turmeric]

Continue to preach Christ crucified and continue to be passionate about things. One thing I've learned from JohnV regarding theonomy is that a lot of times we stop too short when discussing the civil use of the law and don't take the opportunity to discuss Christ and His work and that he is King now.

I hope I didn't misuse your post to go hyper-analytical. I should be out having a beer right now with Paul Manata but he punked out on me... J/K Paul!!!

openairboy · #18 (**permalink**) 01-20-2005, 12:18 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Me Died Blue
The terms "theology of glory" and "theology of the Cross" are not contrasting glory and the Cross in themselves, which are both of course vital parts of the Christian life. They are simply convenient terms for tendencies that exist in modern evanjellyfish and Reformed circles, and have always existed in the Church, since error and truth have always existed as such.

I know they aren't contrasting the two in themselves, but I believe Luther would see Bahnsen's thesis as being a "theology of glory" (And Horton takes a few shots at 'theonomy' in other books, maybe that one as well, along these lines. "Made In America", I think was the title, took a swipe at North, but I read it a decade ago). The resurrection, I believe, changes all of this.

Can the church be triumphant here? I say, "YES! Due to the resurrection." Is that a theology of glory? I think Luther would say, "YES!"

openairboy

[Edited on 20-1-2005 by openairboy]

crhoades · #19 (**permalink**) 01-20-2005, 12:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by openairboy

Quote:

Originally posted by Me Died Blue
The terms "theology of glory" and "theology of the Cross" are not contrasting glory and the Cross in themselves, which are both of course vital parts of the Christian life. They are simply convenient terms for tendencies that exist in modern evanjellyfish and Reformed circles, and have always existed in the Church, since error and truth have always existed as such.

I know they aren't contrasting the two in themselves, but I believe Luther would see Bahnsen's thesis (the place of the law in Christian ethics) as being a "theology of glory" (And Horton takes a few shots at 'theonomy' in other books, maybe that one as well, along these lines). The resurrection, I believe, changes all of this.

openairboy

And the ironic thing is that lutheranism is the religion of the State Church for germany! Calvin held to a separation whereas Luther lagged. This also brings up the differences between Lutherans and reformed on the uses of the law in the Christian life. Theonomy holds that there is a place for the law in a Christian's life. There is also a place for it in the civil sphere as well.

From what I can tell of Horton, he is Klinean. I would be interested in more direct quotes. I did hear him make fun of theonomy on a WHI show. Robin?

Me Died Blue · #20 (**permalink**) 01-20-2005, 12:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by openairboy

Quote:

Originally posted by Me Died Blue
The terms "theology of glory" and "theology of the Cross" are not contrasting glory and the Cross in themselves, which are both of course vital parts of the Christian life. They are simply convenient terms for tendencies that exist in modern evanjellyfish and Reformed circles, and have always existed in the Church, since error and truth have always existed as such.

I know they aren't contrasting the two in themselves, but I believe Luther would see Bahnsen's thesis (the place of the law in Christian ethics) as being a "theology of glory" (And Horton takes a few shots at 'theonomy' in other books, maybe that one as well, along these lines).

I guess I'm just not seeing it at all. Despite my view in favor of theonomy, the two just seem like completely different issues to me. Theology of glory is about the errors in trying to be supposedly "close and intimate with God" by means of overly subjective, mystical and emotional means. How does theonomy, correct or incorrect, have anything to do with that?

Quote:

Originally posted by openairboy
The resurrection, I believe, changes all of this.

Could you elaborate some? I'm not quite sure what you mean here.