Haeralis
Puritan Board Freshman
Recently, I had an interesting and important Christological discussion with a Reformed friend that has left me a little confused. The initial context of the discussion was political theory. I suggested that Abraham Kuyper was wrong to say that government only came into the world because of the existence of sin. There is certainly a "government" in heaven, though how it interacts with the saints will certainly be different. Sin undoubtedly changes the task of politics, but even in a world where there had been no Fall I can imagine that governments would have arisen organically to fulfill the pre-Fall creation mandate, among other things. Regarding this point, I would point out that Jonathan Edwards, Johannes Althusius, Hermann Witsius and a host of other historically orthodox Reformed theologians rejected the Thomas Paine Radical Whig position, one affirmed by Kuyper, that "government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil."
My friend's criticism of this position really took me aback, and I don't really know what to make of it. He implied that I was deviating from orthodox Reformed Christology with this position. As you all undoubtedly know, Christ has the three Mediatorial offices of "prophet, priest, and king." Calvin maintained that these three offices are, in fact, one single Mediatorial office. Christ can only be a prophet and a priest in a world with sin, my interlocutor said, and since these three offices are completely united we can infer that he also only became king with the entrance of sin into the world.
This sounds really questionable to me. The same book of Hebrews which speaks of Christ's three offices also speaks of his "throne" and "scepter" (terms which invoke a kingly image) as being "forever and ever, Oh Lord." Additionally, we know that Jesus Christ is the "same yesterday, today, and forever." Isn't it a little strange to suggest that Christ, the eternal member of the Trinitarian Godhead, only gained his role as Mediator because of the human decision to eat of the tree? My initial instinct would be to say that the three offices are indeed united in one single Mediatorial office, but that each role would have been fulfilled differently in a world without the Fall. But I don’t really know how to argue that Christ was our priest prior to the Fall, since that office seems to presuppose the existence of sin.
For his part, John Calvin argued that Chist would be our Mediator (and presumably prophet, priest, and king) even without sin and the Fall:
"Even if man had remained free from all stain, his condition would have been too lowly for him to reach God without a Mediator."
What are your thoughts?
My friend's criticism of this position really took me aback, and I don't really know what to make of it. He implied that I was deviating from orthodox Reformed Christology with this position. As you all undoubtedly know, Christ has the three Mediatorial offices of "prophet, priest, and king." Calvin maintained that these three offices are, in fact, one single Mediatorial office. Christ can only be a prophet and a priest in a world with sin, my interlocutor said, and since these three offices are completely united we can infer that he also only became king with the entrance of sin into the world.
This sounds really questionable to me. The same book of Hebrews which speaks of Christ's three offices also speaks of his "throne" and "scepter" (terms which invoke a kingly image) as being "forever and ever, Oh Lord." Additionally, we know that Jesus Christ is the "same yesterday, today, and forever." Isn't it a little strange to suggest that Christ, the eternal member of the Trinitarian Godhead, only gained his role as Mediator because of the human decision to eat of the tree? My initial instinct would be to say that the three offices are indeed united in one single Mediatorial office, but that each role would have been fulfilled differently in a world without the Fall. But I don’t really know how to argue that Christ was our priest prior to the Fall, since that office seems to presuppose the existence of sin.
For his part, John Calvin argued that Chist would be our Mediator (and presumably prophet, priest, and king) even without sin and the Fall:
"Even if man had remained free from all stain, his condition would have been too lowly for him to reach God without a Mediator."
What are your thoughts?