Dear Editor:
Following an introductory sentence which states, “On the basis of data found in Scripture we can assume the following so far as the intermediate state is concerned . . .” the Rev. J. Piersma writes, “We ought not to think of our children as children should they be taken by death [italics, J.P.I. They . . . live a life of glorious fulfillment, which does not mean that there is no progress or change in any sense, but that it is not the change from infancy to adulthood” [italics mine]. Would the Rev.
J. Piersma he so kind as to state the data found in Scripture which is the basis for this assumption regarding children who have (lie(l? And would the Rev. J. Piersma please explain what these two sentences mean, since it seems like the first sentence is contradicted by the second. (See especially the italicized words.)
The whole matter seems to be abstract, speculative, deductionistic theologizing, rather than sound biblical exegesis. Is not the Reverend going beyond the bounds of Scripture in this matter?
REPLY:
The biblical data I had in mind was that furnished under Lord‘s Day XXII, Question 57, the older version of the Heidelberg Catechism. Rather than “abstract, speculative deductionistic theologizing.” I think the Catechism employs a very sound type of biblical exegesis when it appeals to these passages to establish two things: (1) the reality of our Christ-like glorified resurrection bodies as a sure feature of our Christian hope; and (2) the distinction between our current “vile body” and the glorious body of Christ, cf. especially Philippians 3:21. (I like what Grundman says on this in the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, “The statement that this body (the body that is close to or in subjection to the humiliation of death, JHP) will be fashioned after the likeness of the body of His glory is governed by the resurrection of Jesus from the dead” (Vol. VIII, p. 21).
I think I know as a pastor who has often made the way through the valley of the shadow of death with people whose children were taken to glory what the Calvin College professor of Religion and Theology is concerned to uphold. It is that we must not think of the identity of God’s people as something which is lost in death. For that concern I have only the deepest sympathy!
It seems to me, however, that in the relatively few passages which bear on such things the biblical revelation is very simple. Rather than present some theoretical or philosophical view of the glorified life, it points to the Christ who rose from the dead and who appeared among us that we might know the comfort which follows from seeing and hearing our glorified Head through the testimony of them who were there during those wonderful forty days.
If I am to he accused of anything, I suppose it would have to be that I take what such passages as the Catechism cites very simply and literally. In other words, I think that all glorified saints will be and look like the resurrected Christ, I John 3:2. It is really too obvious for me to have to say that Christ appeared as a fully-developed human being—and I hope that I do not give tile impression of being insensitive to the questions believers have always raised in this connection when I say that.
I am perfectly willing to concede to Dr. Vos that my statement~ might be both too dogmatic and unclear. In a brief statement designed to serve as a review for discussion by Christians of Reformed persuasion this fault is hard to eliminate. But I think that all of us know that the idea of a limbus puerorum has been around for a long time, and that it has usually been resisted by our Reformed tradition—for excellent reasons, I‘m sure. I trust that Dr. Vos will agree that my observations here do relate to this wrong theory.
Anyone could ask all kinds of difficult questions of us if we would declare (upon the basis of sound biblical exegesis) that there is in heaven a kind of nursery for those who die as infants, etc. For such questions I have no interest because I share with Dr. Vos, I’m sure, a desire to preserve the biblical teaching concerning the future glory of all who die in the Lord, and to enjoy that comfort in terms of a very simple understanding of its reality for each one of us in the concrete circumstances of our lives. If Dr. Vos is reminding me that perhaps more ought to have been said along those lines, I am very willing to agree. Perhaps our very highly-educated and talented “Bible department” at Calvin College could provide us with a good book on such matters!
JOHN H. PIERSMA
