https://www.str.org/w/will-god-be-in-pain-for-eternity-as-he-watches-people-suffer-in-hell-
I will desist from an extended critique of Greg Koukl and the advice he dispenses on his programme. There are quite a few things that could be said about the other segments of this episode that I found problematic. In fact, I rarely find myself ever agreeing with him about much of anything. But one particular aspect of this show struck me.
At about 17 minutes a caller inquired about the Tree of Life and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. He asked about the tree and whether there was anything unique about it. Koukl had at some point in a previous show said it was effectively symbolic of the experiential knowledge of good and evil - it contained no inherent properties that would affect the eater.
The caller cites Genesis 3.22 which suggests that something had changed in Adam - that he had become 'like one of us' - which I would presume to be an elohim. Some think the plural pronouns here represent the plurality of majesty or intertrinitarian dialogue. I would argue instead that this is the context of the Divine Council and the reference is to the other elohim present.
Additionally in Genesis 3 there is concern expressed - now that Adam has partaken of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil that he might also partake of the Tree of Life and live forever. Now whether the Tree of Life was something he had not partaken of yet or whether it was a problem for him to eat of it in conjunction with the knowledge of good and evil - we're not told. But the passage seems to suggest that there was in fact something intrinsic to the Tree of Life (the caller speaks of properties) that would grant eternal life to the eater. As such Adam and Eve, now in possession of this knowledge, but due to their disobedience were reckoned unworthy to partake of the Tree of Life and thus were to be banished.
Koukl's theology cannot accommodate this sort of thinking because it is fundamentally sacramental - it involves means imparting grace. To be honest I think a lot of contemporary Reformed struggle with this to some extent in a way older generations did not. In America I mark the shift in the 19th century with Common Sense Realism which affected both Old Princeton as well as the theologians of the South.
Koukl tries to downplay this question by basically suggesting it's not important. It must be granted that one's salvation is not in question over one's view of the Edenic Trees. However his evident struggle to provide a coherent answer is indicative a larger and more basic problem within his theology.
Basically if we're saved by the merits of Christ and these are imputed to us by means of faith - all externals must be reckoned superlative and thus useless. It's a case of Justification being transformed into a Centraldogma that defines all other aspects of soteriology. It's coherent on a theoretical level but its not Scriptural. Justification is a glorious truth but when it's granted the primacy (or even absolutized) and becomes the lens through which all other facets of soteriology are viewed - the end result is a distortion. Union with Christ is the primary ground of salvation and out of this flow all the other soteriological concepts such as justification, sanctification, mortification, adoption, glorification, and the like. Election also factors in but is not referenced in the way dogmatic theologians are wont to employ it. But then all these categories defy the kind of would-be technical-scholastic approach Koukl advocated which comes up again later in the podcast during a speculative discourse about God's posture toward those suffering in Gehenna - another textbook example of how not to do theology.
All these facets of soteriology are presented in dynamic terms, sometimes they are spoken of in a corporate 'Church' sense and other times they applied to individuals. They are realities and yet not yet full realities. Often provisional language is employed with warnings and exhortations. We enjoy and experience them and yet await to do so in their fullness. This is where perseverance comes in and the utilisation of means. Our faith must be living and continuing, exhibiting ongoing repentance. God provides means to this end such as prayer, His word, and participation in the life of the Church which entails accountability, fellowship, union, and communion - and these are in part effected by the sacraments. This larger understanding has historically been at the center of what it means to be Reformed.
I suppose the New Calvinists might appeal to Zwingli, but even his theology was more developed than their own and his view is not really represented in the Confessional tradition. This among other things is why so many Reformed people chafe against the 'Reformed' claims of the New Calvinists who are in reality just Evangelicals that believe in a predestination or have adopted the truncated theology of TULIP.
For my part I would no longer count myself part of the Reformed camp and am certain no one in the camp would call me a 'brother'. And yet as one who spent years in that fold, I consistently find myself irritated by New Calvinists whether on a podcast like this or in person. For all their swagger, their theology lacks depth and that is on full display here. I know Koukl is respected in some circles for his apologetics but given what I've heard on the dozen or so episodes of 'Stand to Reason' that I've heard - I can't say I'm too interested in pursuing the question. Even his handling of Job later in this episode is highly problematic. The book contains poetry but is not a poem. He is mistaken.
Koukl
thinks it strange that there was something inherent in the fruit that
would have a metaphysical impact - exactly. This is because he is an
Evangelical and a Baptist and once again such categories are outside
the boundaries of his theology. Now whether the sacramental
properties should be spoken of as inherent or sacramentally applied
is an open question we cannot answer. In the context of the post-fall
sacraments, the significance is due to the presence of the Word -
which sets apart and sanctifies what is otherwise common. The Edenic
Trees seem (and I say 'seem') to be of a different order. It's
neither here nor there but the Genesis language suggests something
akin to what we might call 'sacramental efficacy'. And of course more could be said about the reappearance of the Tree of Life at the eschaton - once again in connection with eternal life. How all this works, we are not told and the Scriptures suggest we cannot grasp at present - but it is clear the tree and its fruit and leaves have a function in the redemption that is heaven.
As suggested, many today in the Reformed Confessional world also struggle with such questions. They may or may not have a little more depth to their theology than the thinkers of New Calvinism, and yet they are also affected by the rationalist patterns of 19th century thought and today's scientific/secular intuitions. As such this language of sacramentology smacks of Catholicism, superstition or even magic. And on a related note, many in the PCA and OPC will baptize infants but if you scratch past the surface-level form of their theology you'll find that they bleed Baptist. The rite is void of any real meaning. In the end they're just waiting for the same kind of age of accountability and conversion process that one finds with other Baptists. For them baptism is a wet dedication and confirmation is a dry baptism.
They baptise based on the Covenant promise - a promise they believe will involve a future conversion experience. The children are half-way members of the Church.
On the contrary, baptism is membership in the Church which itself is salvation - or union and communion in Christ. Baptised children are Christians and to be raised as such in the faith. Whether they persevere in that faith or not is a question we all must wrestle with in our walk.
At 21 minutes Koukl speaks of perhaps God choosing to act in light of an action. In other words if there's any significance to the fruit of either tree it's simply God's response to a human choice. Again, that means the objects (whether fruit, baptismal water, or bread and wine) are not means but only symbols.
The Reformed tradition has struggled with the question of subjectivity in the sense that the sacrament is only efficacious in the presence of faith. Christ is present in the Supper if it is partaken of in faith. Then the cup becomes the Cup of Blessing as it were. Otherwise the participant does not receive Christ.
Lutherans and Catholics argue for objectivity - obviously in different ways. Christ is present in the sacrament regardless of faith. If faith is present, then it is a blessing. If absent, His presence turns to judgment and the sacrilege results in condemnation or drinking damnation to one's self. People were dying we're told by Paul. That's no mere symbol nor can such an understanding be squared with the positive language of communion and blessing, the analogy with heavenly bread or angel's food - let alone the rich discourse of Christ in John 6. This 'real' presence is of a different objective order than that of traditional Reformed theology which in turn is itself quite different from the largely empty symbolism of Baptistic Evangelical theology.
And let it be noted that even though John 6 antedates the institution of the Supper - it's clear enough that the Supper is tied to the mystical theology of feeding in Christ's discourse. To read 1 Corinthians on communion and the gospel accounts of the Last Supper and not refer back to John 6 is an exercise of willful resistance, if not defiance. And if John 6 is rightly employed, the theology of the sacraments takes on what can only be described as a mystic element - and rightly so for they are a component of the mysteries which the apostles were called to steward. The Early Church fathers do not speak of the Eucharist or Baptism as mere symbols but as efficacious unto salvation and so if Koukl is right, then within only a generation or two of the apostles these doctrines were fundamentally re-cast into a doctrinal matrix diametrically opposed to the New Testament. In other words by the time of Ignatius, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus, not only was error being introduced but the very theology of the New Testament was (if this is the case) set aside and replaced by an entirely novel doctrinal paradigm. This is highly problematic at best.
The fear is of course that such thinking leads to a Roman Catholic understanding of such questions and once means and a provisional aspect is introduced into questions of soteriology - the whole Evangelical model collapses. And rightly so, but one need not go so far as Rome and its idolatrous errors concerning the Mass.
One of the problems with the Catholic understanding is that the rite becomes absolute and the baptized person automatically receives the blessing of the Sacrament ex opere operato. However it is possible to speak of an objective presence and an ex opere operato efficacy if this is understood as being either a blessing or curse on the basis of faith's presence or absence. And since this is the soteriological/sacramental view I came to some twenty-five years ago - I am outside the Reformed sphere, but certainly more sympathetic to it than what Koukl is arguing.*
I appreciate Koukl's desire to elevate Christ and the gospel of grace - truly. And we must never forget the wonders of that grace and the glory of this salvation. But rather than cast the question into a paradigm that we think glorifies God and is logically unassailable, we would do better to simply hear and obey what God has said and let Him worry about whether or not the doctrines give Him the proper glory that is due. The picture presented by Christ and the apostles is far more complex, dynamic, and nuanced than the Evangelical model presented by Koukl which degenerates into a confused philosophical mess the more he pursues the question. His is an exercise in truncated exegesis combined with rationalism. It makes sense to him, but how frustrating it must be to read the New Testament. I know, for I grew up under such teachers and such a system and it was liberating to say the least to read the Bible free from such limitations. I walked away from the Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism I grew up with and never looked back.
New Calvinism is not Reformed but it must be admitted that a growing number of Reformed pastors and teachers are tracking with it and functionally and practically have become Evangelicals. I can sit under Reformed preaching and teaching and benefit from it. I have little interest in sitting under such Evangelical teaching.
----
*For the record, I came to these opinions years before Federal Vision appeared on the scene. And when it did enter the Reformed public consciousness, I was filled with both optimism and despair. In terms of soteriology they were to be praised and yet I lamented the fact that it appeared in conjunction with the errors of Theonomic Postmillennialism and High Churchism. In my case, I have argued for Low Church and High Theology. If my thinking smacks of both Rome and Anabaptism it's not that I find the middle ground in the Reformed or Lutheran world but elsewhere - in a theology and tradition that was largely destroyed by the Magisterial Reformation with only hints of it reappearing in the centuries since. Both Catholicism and Anabaptism retain some aspects of the truth even while burying these truth under a mountain of errors and often holding them 'out of focus' we might say. They are incompatible with Confessional Protestantism and even more so with its wayward progeny - Evangelicalism.