Jesus as Liberator

[Afterthought]

Did Jesus come to save and liberate both our body and soul and bring life, not only eternal, but temporal, which temporal life we are to work to help usher in, the poor especially being agents of bringing justice and peace to our world? Does eternal life have an earthly component, such that the saved have a right to political and earthly life, justice, and peace? Should this new life that Christ has brought into the world be the foundation upon which we struggle to have temporal life in this world? After all, Christ has saved us from sin and death and come to bring an entire and total salvation. Is any earthly liberation from tyranny we experience in this world brought about by the power of Christ subduing such tyrannical oppressors that bring sin (because the structures of such a government are created such that they can only be described as sinful) and death, since Christ defeated and saved us from sin and death? Is it not God's will for us to have a life in which we are oppressed by death and is God's will for Christians to truly live? Are all political oppressors who are agents of death, also agents of Satan and devils? Is God faithful in His promises of life to Christians, which includes earthly life, and will bring it to them eventually in this world, perhaps as a foretaste of the new heavens and new earth? And thus, if not working for liberation, should we have hope for it, on the basis of Christ's salvation and liberation that He brings?

I was reading something that seemed to be arguing in favor of a form of liberation theology from a neo-Calvinist perspective (Gordon J. Spykman, with plenty of quotations from one Archbishop Romero). Part of the argument was about answers to those questions. My guess, from looking around for Spykman on the internet (e.g., here) would be that if one were to claim that eternal life is not necessarily about or providing a foundation or motivation for earthly and political life, the reply would be that such is a dualism in Reformed theology that needs to be corrected by the insights of neo-Calvinism, which has a more holistic approach to life (e.g., no nature/grace or sacred/secular dualism).

For my own answer, it would seem to me such represents an "over-realized eschatology" of sorts. Christ did come to save body and soul, but Christ came to save our soul first, and that not all at once (e.g., still need sanctification, glorification), leaving our bodies to await redemption. It seems the life the Scriptures speak of Christ bringing is heavenly life, and such life may be forced to exist and bear up patiently under tyrannical circumstances, and so is not the basis of political action except insofar as Christians are to be salt and light in the world, obeying God's commandments according to their place and station.

Am I on to something in my answer? Any other thoughts on answers to these questions?

 

[Afterthought]

Bumping.

 

[Peairtach]

The social implications of Christianity can take time to work themselves out in history, as more and more are converted in a society, and Christian teaching is put into practice and political and economic and social structures are brought into line with Christian thinking.

It can be a painfully slow process, and this world will never be perfect before the Eschaton, so we are always encouraged to look beyond this world, even if you are a postmillennialist, as I am.

The work is constantly resisted by the Evil One and his angelic and human minions, by apostasy and lack of faithfulness in the Visible Church and by paucity of conversions. But it's a long term process in history which will result in triumph for Christ and the Church.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2

 

[Mushroom]

Oh, Richard... you're just being another post-mil trying to immanentize the eschaton...

 

[py3ak]

Raymond, I think your answer is fairly sound. We have to keep first things first. What will be true at the consummation will not be true, and sometimes should not even be sought, until that time: e.g., in the consummation all tears are wiped away from our eyes, but before the consummation, blessed are they that mourn; and sorrow is better than laughter.

That said, of course, Christians should be against oppression, slavery, tyranny, and unrighteousness. But the Exodus was a picture of salvation, not a blueprint for political advancement. We can recognize God's providence in the configuration of nations, and we can see illustrations from both Scripture and history of political realities in some way mirroring or resembling spiritual realities; but we should never confuse one with the other. Simón Bolívar is looked upon as the liberator of South America from bitter servitude to colonial Spain; whether that account is right or wrong, it is undeniably clear that the liberty he brought was no gospel jubilee.

 

[Peairtach]

Oh, Richard... you're just being another post-mil trying to immanentize the eschaton...

I don't see any conflict between postmillennialism and a true understanding of how the Eschaton is imminent. : )

(a) The Eschaton is imminent in that the end could come for any of us as individuals in death this very day, and then our destiny is sealed.

(b) The Eschaton is imminent in that it is the next and last major new intervention of God in history, the conversion of the nations being just the outworking and development of what Christ has already inaugurated.

(c) In being ready for Christ's Second Advent we are not asked to be on tenterhooks and to believe that there is a possibility that the world might end to day. You could believe that and not be spiritually and morally ready, and yet be a postmil, and be spiritually and morally ready.

It is clear from the Scriptural data that it is spiritual and moral readiness that is being emphasised, not the notion that the Second Advent could happen at any moment, which is held by some Premillennialists and some Amillennialists.

In e.g. II Thessalonians 2, the Apostle denies such a notion as being essential to the Christian view of the Second Advent.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2

 

[Afterthought]

Thanks all! I especially appreciate this point "We can recognize God's providence in the configuration of nations, and we can see illustrations from both Scripture and history of political realities in some way mirroring or resembling spiritual realities; but we should never confuse one with the other." It gives articulation to one of the things that was troubling me about the piece but could not quite put my finger on.

 

[MW]

the reply would be that such is a dualism in Reformed theology that needs to be corrected by the insights of neo-Calvinism, which has a more holistic approach to life (e.g., no nature/grace or sacred/secular dualism).

Sorry to comment after a satisfactory answer has been received, but it is worth pointing out that neo-Calvinists perceive a "dualism" only because they place a certain activity within the sphere of men which properly belongs to God. The cultural mandate, mixed with the creation-fall-redemption ethic, turns cultural pursuits into redemptive feats. In historic Calvinism redemption is God's work, not man's. So whenever the historic Calvinist speaks of grace and redemption as God's work the neo-Calvinist hears a nature/grace or creation/redemption dualism. Whether there is a genuine dualism, therefore, will depend entirely on the prior question as to whether there is any truly redemptive activity of men which is to bring the creation to its consummate state. As far as historic Calvinism is concerned, Jesus is our Liberator in the full sense of the term, namely, that we are freed from being our own redeemers and all the frustration which that entails.

 

[Afterthought]

Thanks for the additional comments! That explains a lot of things, including why such teaching would historically have been attractive to synergistic religious views and apparently some 20th century neo-Calvinists too (and it explains something that I did not mention from the article that quotes the Council of Medellin talking about avoiding the "dualism" between sanctification and temporal tasks). This comment "As far as historic Calvinism is concerned, Jesus is our Liberator in the full sense of the term, namely, that we are freed from being our own redeemers and all the frustration which that entails" articulates another problem that I was having difficulty putting my finger on.