Nostr Web Client

I have a thesis I want to run by my fellow #christians. Maybe I'm just rediscovering postmillennialism, or historic premillennialism, or something, but some of this seems original.

There are two halves of Biblical/world history: Creation and New Creation. Creation's head is Adam, whose commission is dominion. New Creation's head is Jesus, whose commission to evangelism. Dominion involves subduing physical reality to human ingenuity; i.e. technology. New creation involves subduing humanity to divine love.

We are told that this world is going to wear out like a garment, and be rolled up like a scroll, prompting apocalypticism throughout history. Yet Jesus says that the Kingdom is with you, and that it is the latter days. This is conventionally explained by the "already not yet", that New Creation is latent within our earthly lives.

But what if that is true beyond just the devotional? Jesus says the kingdom of heaven is like leaven, and we take that to mean that our souls are being saved. But what if the world itself is being saved? What if every rock, tree, ocean, cloud is being invisibly, slowly suffused by the Good News of Christ's immanent lordship over the earth? What if New Creation is slowly covering Old Creation like moss covering a rock, and when the rock crumbles away the moss will retain its shape? What if the new creation is already here, and is no less physical for it's being spiritual, and when "we see him face to face" and are changed, the rest of the world — including nature and the physical stuff we've built — are suddenly changed as well?

This fits with the idea of the "garden city" — in the Bible, cities come first, and then God irrupts into their center (for example Solomon's and Ezekiel's Temples), changing their entire nature, purpose, and organization.

This seems to me to reconcile God's apparent intention to discard this world in favor of a "new" one with his obvious love of what he has made. Thoughts? Hallucinations?

nostr:nprofile1qyd8wumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnwdaehgunrdpjkx6ewd4jj7qgmwaehxw309aex2mrp0yhxummnw3e8qmr9vfejucm0d5hszxmhwden5te0wfjkccte9e38y6t8dp6xymmvwshxuet59uq3zamnwvaz7tmwdaehgu3wwa5kuef0qythwumn8ghj7cnfw33k76twv4ezuum0vd5kzmp0qqstwf6d9r37nqalwgxmfd9p9gclt3l0yc3jp5zuyhkfqjy6extz3jcgxgpgh nostr:nprofile1qyt8wumn8ghj76rfwd6zumn0wd68ytnvv9hxgtcpz4mhxue69uhkzet8d9ejuat50phjummwv5hszenhwden5te0ve5kcar9wghxummnw3ezuamfdejj7mnsw43rzdr30gunyat9v36rqcfcdf6x2wr2w9nnvvm2wgehxdtrvvunjcm9dgenv6ng8qurx73kw3c8ymr4xv6ngat3w9jnyufjxclkyun0v9jxxctnws7hgun4v5qsuamnwvaz7tmwdaejumr0dshszrthwden5te0vfexytnfduhsqg92tekvl37t0s6rr5ftp6jts0jmx4p8vqjjyzq2d2rp39g9yluprv4slg5q nostr:nprofile1qy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnyv9kh2uewd9hj7qghwaehxw309aex2mrp0yh8qunfd4skctnwv46z7qghwaehxw309a3xjarrda5kuetj9eek7cmfv9kz7qgwwaehxw309ahx7uewd3hkctcpzemhxue69uhk2er9dchxummnw3ezumrpdejz7qpqmt8x8vqvgtnwq97sphgep2fjswrqqtl4j7uyr667lyw7fuwwsjgsuqu5qv nostr:nprofile1qyghwumn8ghj7mn0wd68ytnhd9hx2tcpzemhxue69uhkzat5dqhxummnw3erztnrdakj7qgnwaehxw309ac82unsd3jhqct89ejhxtcprpmhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuurvv438xarj9e3k7mf0qy88wumn8ghj7mn0wvhxcmmv9uqzpmdfdjun4mxavxk7ps0e62lal9d8uak0rj5fsgxr3ehye6j4crq9df29w9

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

arkinox 9mo ago

Very beautiful. I like it.

Xis10tial1 9mo ago

Are you familiar with Kierkegaard?

Xis10tial1 9mo ago

Wrong tgread

Jared Logan ☧ 9mo ago

God bless you nostr:nprofile1qqsf03c2gsmx5ef4c9zmxvlew04gdh7u94afnknp33qvv3c94kvwxgspz4mhxue69uhnzv3h9cczuvpwxyargwpk8yhszxthwden5te0dp38ytnrdaexzcmvv5h8xmmrd9skctc5nu09f ⚔️

Sascha-Oliver Prolić 9mo ago

We are building his kingdom and therefore expect perfection in our craft, because nothing is good enough.

Xis10tial1 9mo ago

Are you familiar with Kierkegaard?

Daniel Wigton 9mo ago

Romans 8:19-22 For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the children of God; for the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and will obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning in labor pains until now;

Chris Liss 9mo ago

I’m not a Christian but I relate to what you wrote — something is happening.

Here’s one version:

https://njump.me/naddr1qqxnzdesxu6rjwpcxqcnxdfnqgsx45lz5dyp3v2neq0533v0gnj3n8nmflydhcmczzsqph8rey9hwsqrqsqqqa28qyw8wumn8ghj7mn0wd68ytfsxyh8jcttd95x7mnwv5hxxmmdqy28wumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnyv9kh2uewd9hszrthwden5te0dehhxtnvdakqz8rhwden5te0dehhxarj95crytnev94kj6r0dehx2tnrdaksz8nhwden5te0dehhxarj95crytnydaexzenpvd6x7une9ehhyecyvmpyx

SuperDave 9mo ago

Family just finished a study of 2 Peter and it does say that this world will be destroyed by fire as the old world was destroyed by water, making room for the New Heavens and New Earth. I think the New Creation has been inaugurated as it says in 2 Cor 5:17, but we are awaiting the full consummation of that new Creation, as Christ is the 2nd Adam and takes dominion over the New Creation they the spread of the Gospel. It does seems to be a gradual process, so there's something going on there.

SuperDave 9mo ago

*”Thru the spread of the Gospel…”

Dikaios1517 9mo ago

I don't see any reason this would not be the case. The curse of the fall was not constrained to the spiritual, but affected the whole of human nature, and extended to the rest of creation as well.

It seems to me the same would likely be true of the effect of the gospel in redeeming sinners, now in part, but looking forward to its completion. There is no reason to think this would be constrained to the spiritual condition of man, either.

Otherwise, why would "the creation [wait] with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God" (Romans 8:19)? Creation is, in this same passage, described as looking forward with hope to the day when it "will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God."

If the gospel has made us a new creation in Christ Jesus, and the rest of creation is also eagerly awaiting the full reversal of that curse, and we have a down-payment on that now, though not the full consummation of it, why wouldn't the rest of creation experience similar benefits of Christ's redemption in this life?

the figtree 9mo ago

tldr

Kayne 9mo ago

Sounds like revisionism.

Sounds like "new age" Christianity where you ignore most of the Bible and cherry pick only the bits your leader tells you to.

I was raised in a Christian cult(like actual real Christians that live by the their sects version of the Bible and actually read the Bible themselves each day)

freeborn | ἐλεύθερος | 8r0gwg 9mo ago

Thanks for the shoutout, nostr:npub1jlrs53pkdfjnts29kveljul2sm0actt6n8dxrrzqcersttvcuv3qdjynqn. Been swamped latetly, but wanted to follow up on this thought. (Better late than never?)

Your description of the moss and the rock reminded me of Lewis' description of Spring bursting through the snow, flanking the Pevensies as they journeyed to Cair Paravel. (That's a 'speech in favor,' if that wasn't clear, ha.)

It's certainly a compelling thought-picture, but the question is: are we preparing a place for Christ, or is Christ preparing a place for us? I think it's the latter. Post-mil has a tendency (in my opinion) to drift toward the former--and if it goes too far, can lead to serious errors like Dominionism, or Theocracy, etc. (And, as Rothbard was excellent at pointing out, when you mix post-mil with secularism, you get progressivism and statism a la Wilson.) We're pilgrims--'in the world' but not 'of the world' precisely because we're 'of the kingdom' but not yet 'in it' (in a geopolitical sense). We are as Rahab in a cosmic Jericho; having renounced our citizenship in 'the world' and declared allegiance to the 'coming king,' praying 'thy kingdom come,' while 'Joshua' approaches the gate.

The dominon mandate (read: Covenant of Works) given to the first Adam is not given to us; it was given, however, to the Last Adam--and where the first failed, the last succeeded. Then enters the already/not-yet paradigm you mentioned: first is the 'already' the ethical rule ("the kingdom is in your heart"), the 'not yet' is the geographical realm ("the kingdom is coming"). Only souls will survive the 'great conflagration' when--as others have pointed out--the 'world that now is' is, as it were, 'baptized by fire' as the 'world that then was' was baptised by water. (But now I'm just rehashing the amil position.) But this top-level thought has downstream consequences: what, then, qualifies as 'kingdom-building'? I say it limited to discipling our children, missions/evangelism, winning the hearts and minds of those who join us in 'waiting for Joshua'. In the meantime, we buy and sell (as though not), marry and are given in marriage (as though not) (1 Cor. 7), and--since 'here we have no continuing kingdom' we 'look for a better, one with foundations, that is, an heavenly' - etc. But, again, just rehashing a-mil now.

Unlike the First Adam's mandate to 'be fruitful and mulitply,' our mandate is the Last Adam's 'go into all the world and make disciples.' Under periods of theocracy (the garden, under the Mosaic economy), the mandate was 'go forth and conquer', but now our mandate is Jer. 29:7 - "work and pray for the peace and prosperity of the cities into which I've driven you--for in its peace shall you have peace.' Many of Paul's exhortations fit well with this--he didn't say 'take over the institutions' he said 'stay where you are, but do it as unto the Lord,' etc.

Side note: if you've never read David VanDrunen, I think you'd appreciate him. Check out _Living in God's Two Kingdoms: A Biblical Vision for Christianity and Culture_ as an appetizer. But then move to his trilogy involving natural law, especially the last two: _Divine Covenants and Moral Order: A Biblical Theology of Natural Law_ (astonishing!), and then _Politics After Christendom: Political Theology in a Fractured World_ (very helpful).

hodlbod 9mo ago

This is the answer I was looking for, thanks!

I swim in mostly post-millennialist circles, and have lately started to feel the effects of over-realized eschatology you identified above. At the same time, I feel like God must have a place for our work, just because we spend so much time doing it. The amil answer isn't completely satisfying to me, because it seems to limit the scope of the effect our new identity as Christians has on our whole lives, but I think your reference to Jeremiah is also a good answer to that — we "mind our own business and work with our own hands" to build up the city of man not as such, but for the peace of the people within it (either evangelistically, or for the Church as a separate enclave).

Thanks for your thoughts, I'll check out those VanDrunen books.

freeborn | ἐλεύθερος | 8r0gwg 9mo ago

🤯 wut. Brother, that fat zap is blowing my mind and, while very much appreciated, not at all necessary...I will slowly distribute it around to the devs and others who are working toward nostr adoption. (But still...🤯!) sats stacked -> humbled!

One quick follow-up--I see Jer. 29:7 as a tangible, actionable way to 'love our neighbors' -- as Luther said, 'make a good shoe, and sell it at a fair price.' I love thinking about our market activity in this way--as serving those around us in the best way we can (and see the WLC on the 5th, 6t and 8th commandments on this...it all fits...) Which is to say, our market activity is not a purely mercenary affair.

hodlbod 9mo ago

If you're right, I think I'm in danger of committing the sort of democratic "change the world" fallacy, where everything you do has to have global significance. I recognize that this isn't possible for everyone (and so can't be a prerequisite for a meaningful life), or even necessarily healthy for people who adopt it, but it's hard for me to let go of, and a big part of why I'm here on nostr. At the same time, I think we should have a cosmic view of the meaningfulness of our actions. How do you reconcile those two things? I'm probably just restating the question, but puzzling over this has been a challenge for me for years.

freeborn | ἐλεύθερος | 8r0gwg 9mo ago

It's a good question. Didn't have an immediate answer, but thought about it over lunch, and a little bit this afternoon.

I think there are two flavors of 'changing the world': 1) the Marxist 'everything that exists deserves to perish' borne out of of envy, greed, ingratitude, and rebellion against the 'natural order'; and 2) the very human 'let's make this better' (or restore something that has been lost) that is borne out of love for neighbor and for what is good, beautiful, and true. The former coerces (and steals and destroys), the latter persuades (and builds and attracts). I don't think there's anything wrong with the latter--the question is, I think, 'by what means?'

I also think there's nothing wrong--and much right--with having grand visions for positive change: we should be bold, we should think big. And we should work hard toward those goals. (That's right in line with Jer. 29:7.) Where we go wrong, I think, is categorizing that work as _redemptive_ work, or as so valuable that God must accept it in the new creation (you can see what I'm hinting at there, I think). Christ is the alone Redeemer of the world; and that redemption is accomplished already, and is being applied through the ministry of the Word and Spirit. We cannot add to his work of redemption, nor can we apply that work by other means than those which he has authorized (and blessed). As for the rest of what we do, I think we need to content ourselves with it being just plain _good and faithful human work_ that helps our families and benefits our neighbors. Though never pleasing to God apart from faith, what's done 'as unto the Lord' is acceptable in him.

But our work being temporary/provisional shouldn't detract from the importance of it. Building systems, tools, processes that clear the path for our neighbors to be more free, more peaceful, more prosperous--this is no small thing. Feeding a family--is no small thing. Persuading one neighbor at a time that there's a better way--this *is* changing the world. Anything else is somewhat abstract, isn't it? (Like the story of the guy who had A Heart for The World and The Lost but was rude to his own mailman.) Quite a few years ago James D. Hunter wrote a very popular book, _To Change the World_ in which he argued for "faithful presence." I never read it, but got the basic thrust of his arguments from other little works like Mike Horton's _Ordinary_. As a former 'world-changer' (that's a Teen Mania Ministries reference, for those not familiar), I've come to embrace that God 'does extraordinary things through ordinary means,' and that (as Bavinck put it) the covenant household is the 'ordinary groove of grace' through which the world is eventually changed. I suppose what I'm saying is we shouldn't think too highly of our work (setting it beside Christ's) nor too lowly of it either (e.g., the anabaptistic "it's all going to burn").

I'm not sure if that is either coherent or relevant, but those are my thoughts.

freeborn | ἐλεύθερος | 8r0gwg 9mo ago

oh, and lastly--don't

#m=image%2Fjpeg&dim=500x415&blurhash=%23GI%2340%3F%5E%24jXSogxZNy%251kVE2%251R%2B%252bbxafQW%3Ds%3A01nOR%2Br%3DR*oLj%3FR%2Bn%25IARPj%3FNFaKWUWBaeR*IURPnhNHs-RjWCR*ayIANGt7WBjZWCayofofM%7BjFs%3AW%3Ds%3AfkbHjtWV&x=46a952461fcfaa9e271156d7be4ca8f0f34b90f57d26fabde4b2cf0f10186a7a

hodlbod 9mo ago

😂💯

hodlbod 9mo ago

I agree strongly with your point about "faithful presence", while at the same time mostly failing to content myself with it. The humility and diligence that being "ordinary" requires of us is way beyond what's required to have higher (and more abstract) aspirations.

I also agree with the idea that "we need to content ourselves with it being just plain _good and faithful human work_ that helps our families and benefits our neighbors", but I also see that often becoming a reason for complacency in practice. For example, Christians often just invest in index funds without thinking about what kind of activities they are becoming complicit in.

The balance between grand vision and being "faithful in little" is so difficult I feel like I can't fit both in my head (let alone heart) at once.

freeborn | ἐλεύθερος | 8r0gwg 9mo ago

Well said; no disagreement here. Darryl Hart has written about the inherent 'tension' of being 'heirs of the world' (the 'already') and yet pilgrims on our way (the 'not yet')--holding these two at once certainly creates tension, and requires patience and endurance. Same with having a grand vision and yet being 'faithful in little,' perhaps?

I think 1 Cor. 7 is instructive for this time of tension--yes, "build great things," but do it "as though not." Yes, "whatever we do, do it unto the glory of God," which means--go big, do it excellently. But in all our doing, don't let those "big ends" become or eclipse our "chief and highest end" (WLC 1). "For the present form of the world is passing away." That probably goes without saying.

Either way, "thy kingdom come!"

freeborn | ἐλεύθερος | 8r0gwg 9mo ago

PS - to illustrate how much I relate, I have a very hard time singing [this hymn](https://www.trinitypsalterhymnal.org/hymns/father-i-know-that-all-my-life/) when it comes up in the "rotation," and I'm not entirely sure my aversion to it is entirely unfounded... 😅 -- I mean, what would Abraham "every square inch!" Kuyper say about this hymn? 😄

hodlbod 9mo ago

Nice, that's a good one, I hadn't heard it before.

"content to fill a little space, if thou be glorified." is brutal 😂 but in line with John B's "he must increase, and I must decrease"

freeborn | ἐλεύθερος | 8r0gwg 9mo ago

I don't mean this to be a criticism, but it _was_ written by a woman in the mid 19th c., and I think that comes through a bit. It's a tad sentimental; probably a time and a place for it. But contrast that with, say, [Onward, Christian Soldiers](https://hymnary.org/text/onward_christian_soldiers_marching_as#Author) -- clearly written by a man, also in the mid-19th c., and pretty clearly with men in mind.

HYMNS! WE GOT HYMNS, HERE! HYMNS FOR HER, HYMNS FOR HIM, HYMNS FOR ALL KINDS 😄

Jordan 9mo ago

The problem with the supposition that the Church is back in exile mode (and to pray for peace of the city) is that the typological symmetry of Christ, the new and better Joshua, sees the church entering the land and dispossessing the unrighteous inhabitants of the world.

“The gates of hell” (or any other nation delineating border) will not stand against the happy, insisting, forward march of the people of God.

Also, trying to separate the mandate given to the first Adam and restatement of that mandate given by the Last (who is in fact the one who mandated it in the first place) simply won’t do. God’s mind and place are one, from beginning to end.

freeborn | ἐλεύθερος | 8r0gwg 9mo ago

> The problem with the supposition that the Church is back in exile mode (and to pray for peace of the city) is that the typological symmetry of Christ, the new and better Joshua, sees the church entering the land and dispossessing the unrighteous inhabitants of the world.

Not quite: the typolgoical symmetry I'm pointing at is that the Church is Rahab, waiting in a "cosmic Jericho" for his return--not marching with him in the attack. The Church is in the walls, not marching around them. (This is what I mean by saying we are in the world but not of the world precisely because we're of the kingdom but not yet in it [in a geographical sense] -- the ethical rule precedes the geographical realm).

> “The gates of hell” (or any other nation delineating border) will not stand against the happy, insisting, forward march of the people of God.

...well, to mix the metaphor a bit, yes, exactly, but this happens by preaching and persuading the faith once delivered: "faith comes by hearing, and hearing comes by the Word of God." This "forward march" which comes by the word (and not by the sword) is the essence of the Great Commission--don't you think? In this analogy, Rahab goes about Jericho telling others the good news - "he's coming!" Again, in this analogy, "Jericho" is the entire world (cf. Matt. 28:18-20). (Maybe I missed your point?)

> Also, trying to separate the mandate given to the first Adam and restatement of that mandate given by the Last (who is in fact the one who mandated it in the first place) simply won’t do. God’s mind and place are one, from beginning to end.

I'm confused by this. Yes, God's plan is one. But, are you saying there's no progressive unfolding of that one redemptive plan through history? A seed-gospel in Genesis 3:15 that slowly blossoms through various covenants until its first flowering in the first advent of Christ? Are you saying, as well, that we should all be following Levitical law today (since his mind is one)? Or have the civil and ceremonial laws of the Mosaic economy "expired along with that state", since "the old is passing away," and "with a change in priesthood comes a change in law, also"? I think what you've said here may preclude the very idea of a 'new' creation ([Rev. 21:5](https://esv.org/Rev12.5)). There is not 'one Covenant' given for all creation and all history--thankfully:

> Q. 30. Doth God leave all mankind to perish in the estate of sin and misery?

> A. God doth not leave all men to perish in the estate of sin and misery, into which they fell by the breach of the first covenant, commonly called the covenant of works; but of his mere love and mercy delivereth his elect out of it, and bringeth them into an estate of salvation by the second covenant, commonly called the covenant of grace.

-- [WLC 30](https://opc.org/lc.html)

Having said all this, I wonder if I've missed your point(s) entirely. If I have, my apologies. I'm still on my first cup of coffee. 🤙

Marakesh 𓅦 6mo ago

Interesting thoughts, nostr:nprofile1qqsf03c2gsmx5ef4c9zmxvlew04gdh7u94afnknp33qvv3c94kvwxgspr9mhxue69uhkscnj9e3k7unpvdkx2tnnda3kjctv9uq32amnwvaz7tmjv4kxz7fwv3sk6atn9e5k7tcppemhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mp0g4rts7! Sorry, I barely saw this message today, and only when I used a different client.🙃 It also came during my 40-day Lenten hiatus from Nostr. I think nostr:nprofile1qqswm2tvhyawehtp4hsvr7wjhl0etfl8dncu4zvzpsuwdexw54wqcpgpzfmhxue69uhhwmm59e6hg7r09ehkuegpz4mhxue69uhkummnw3ex2mrfw3jhxtn0wfnsz9nhwden5te0wfjkccte9cc8scmgv96zucm0d5hfguqn handled it all rather eloquently with erudition. I'll just add that a former pastor of mine once said that in the New Earth he has dibs on Hawaii 😄 That would imply that Hawaii has to still be there even after the regeneration, after everything is burned up and then renovated.

Have you had any further developments in your thinking on this since you posted it over three months ago?

hodlbod 6mo ago

The idea still holds up for me, although I haven't read the Van Drunen book (it's on my shelf). As I've thought more about work, it seems to me essentially vain and impermanent, whether you think of it as a response to God, an invocation of God into creation, or a sacrificial offering up of self. In each case, human work is secondary, at best a vessel which God fulfills. But in each case it's a part of the dialectic.

freeborn | ἐλεύθερος | 8r0gwg 6mo ago

This article may or may not be of interest in your thought processes (I really appreciated it): "[Decline of Christianity in the West? A Contrarian View](https://www.opc.org/os.html?article_id=44)" by T. David Gordon. TL;DR: more "2K" perspective.

hodlbod 6mo ago

I didn't read the whole thing, but IMO this is straight up loser talk. His identification of the outward decline of Christendom with the hidden advance of the gospel is gnostic bunk. To be fair, I think this position comes from a reaction against Christians who do exactly what he's condemning, i.e. trying to advance God's kingdom primarily or exclusively through human effort. This is doomed to fail because it's an explicit rejection of the empowerment and direction of the Spirit.

But to me, Constantine was very much the tail — Christianity didn't become established because it was adopted by the emperor; it was adopted by the emperor because it had become established. And having been adopted by the emperor, certain fruit necessarily ensued — the character of the empire changed as a result of its adoption of Christian values. See Leithart's "Defending Constantine" for more details.

When Gordon claims "What Christianity needs is competent ministers, not Christian judges, legislators, or executive officers," he's overstating his case. In one sense, I agree — Jesus is the vine from which the branches grow, and we know Him through the preaching of the gospel. But does this mean the branches don't have a role in producing fruit? Preaching is not a one-sided activity, the word is meant to go out and have an effect in the lives of the judges, legislators, and execs sitting in the congregation. This effect is not abstract or ephemeral, it takes shape in actual human action.

Christian workers produce Christian work, which is evidence of the advance of the gospel, not evidence against it.

freeborn | ἐλεύθερος | 8r0gwg 6mo ago

Rev. Gordon is nowhere near a gnostic, for what it's worth. He's also using the word 'established' in a more technical sense (as in, the anti-establishment clause of our 1st Amendment). I'm familiar with Leithart and the 'Federal Vision' crew and find their rejection of the distinction between the invisible church (election) and the visible church (covenant) to be massively incorrect (mainly because of the implications on justification by faith alone) -- and based on a misunderstanding/misreading of recent Dutch Reformed (like Schilder) who had a slightly different understanding of covenant and election than we tend to. "Who says covenant says history, who says election says eternity." This all goes back to one's Covenant Theology, which is why I so appreciate Kline and VanDrunen. Get the beginning wrong and--like a pilot that starts off 1° off course--the further one goes, the further from the target desination one strays.

There is no such thing as "Christian work" unless you mean Word and Sacrament ministry. The gospel is _news_ it is not _action_. There is good work and there is poor work. That the work is good does not make it Christian--and often Christians produce work just as shoddy as the world (if not worse -- ever listened to CCM?). A pagan can deliver a just ruling. A pagan can fix my plumbing. A pagan can represent me well in court or give me an accurate diagnosis for a malady. This is due to common grace. A Christian who does good work does it 'as unto the Lord' but that doesn't make it "better work" per se. Being a Christian may give me a higher motivation to improve my working, a different motivation for pursuing excellence--but that doesn't make it 'Christian' work.

We are pilgrims here, not conquerors. That's not "loser" talk--it's the talk of the faithful (Heb. 11) whose affections are set on heaven (Col. 3). We do not overcome by capturing institutions and all of culture for Christ. He has already conquered all things (having accomplished the Covenant of Works for us, having already inaugurated the kingdom, yet we wait for its full consummation at his return). There is _nothing left to be done_ except what is provisional, earthly, and--dare I say--_secular_ (i.e., temporary) and of the common kingdom. Unless we're talking about Word and Sacrament ministry which is the work of the redemptive kingdom and stands alone as _sacred_ work.

I do hope you'll consider giving the three VanDrunen books a read, even if only to gain a full understanding of what (it seems) you're rejecting (2K).

hodlbod 6mo ago

Yep, definitely planning to read Living in God's Two Kingdoms when I have a chance.

Some of what you said is above my head (parsing Dutch Reformed terminology for one), some of it I think is equivocation downstream of our different views. But I don't see how being a Christian would fail to affect your work — either in its purpose or quality (which is what I mean by "Christian work" — still secular, but qualitatively different). I understand there is frequently a disconnect, but I see that as a failure of integrity, not a result of inherent decoupling between faith and works.

Playing devil's advocate, the dominion mandate was given to all mankind through Adam, not specifically to Christians, which makes sense of that fact that unbelievers are capable of doing good work. I also see how 1 Corinthians 3:12 is in the context of evangelistic work.

freeborn | ἐλεύθερος | 8r0gwg 6mo ago

Appreciate the dialog, brother.

...is qualitatively excellent work solely achievable by Christians? (I don't mean _morally_ excellent--that is obvious, I mean work that is excellent _within its own discipline_.)

The 'dominion mandate' was given to Adam as a specification of the Covenant of Works, which he failed. Where he failed, Christ, the Last Adam, succeeded: "All authority in heaven and on the earth is given unto me." Whatever 'echo' of that mandate remains, it remains in a modified, provisional sense--and is non-redemptive. See Irons, "[Meredith Kline's View of the Cultural Mandate](https://www.upper-register.com/papers/kline-cultural-mandate.pdf)"

At no point are we, as Christians, placed back in the 'garden' and/or given some kind of renewed 'dominion mandate' in the sense it was given to either the First or the Last Adam. Christ's work is completed and it is sufficient. Our subsequent 'mandate' is to preach the gospel to all nations, making disciples, baptizing them, etc. Again, we are _pilgrims_ - in the world not of the world precisely because we are of the (inaugurated) kingdom but not yet in it (in its consummated state).