The Gospel Call and The Effectual Call
Let us continue on the subject as noted in the title of this post. The following are Scriptures which apply to each of the two categories identifying the distinctions of the Gospel Call and the Effectual Call from a biblical perspective.
The Gospel Call is universal and general because it is given to all sinners:
Matthew 28:19-20
“Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold I am with you always, to the end of the age.”
Mark 16:15
“And He said to them, “Go into all the world and proclaim he gospel to the whole creation.”
The Effectual Call is particular and special
Matthew 22:14
“For many are called, but few are chosen.”
John 6:37-40, 44, 65
“All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of my father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life and I will raise him up on the last day.”
“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him and I will raise him up on the last day.”
“This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father.” (Note in the Scripture how it declares that “after this many of his disciples turned away and no longer walked with him. So Jesus said to the twelve, ‘Do you want to go away as well?)
Our response to this should be as Peter’s “Lord to whom shall we go? You have the words to eternal life.” Shamefully many sneer out, “if this is the God you serve, it is not the God I serve!”
Here are more Scriptures for the Gospel Call as it is outward and objective to all sinners:
Matthew 28:19, Mark 16:15-16; Acts 17: 22-34
The Effectual Call being inward and subjective taking place in the heart of elect sinners:
John 6:44, 65; Acts 16:14; 1 Cor. 1:9
The Gospel Call can be resisted:
Acts 7:51; 13:46; 17:22-34; 2 Thess. 1:8; 2:12; Hebrews 4:1; Jude 4
The effectual Call is irresistible:
John 6-37-44, 65; Acts 16:14; Romans 8:28-30; 11; 29; 1 Cor. 1:9, 30; Gal 1:15; 1 Thess. 2:12
The Gospel Call can produce temporary blessings of common grace and thus act as a restraint against sin:
2 Thess. 2:7; 1 Tim. 1:8-11
The Effectual Call produces eternal blessings:
John 10:10, 27-29; 17:2; Heb. 9:15
It should be further noted that the Gospel Call is based on the Creator-creature relationship. In Scripture, it is revealed that all sinners everywhere should repent. See Acts 17:22-34 and Romans 1:18-32.
The Effectual Call is based on the redemptive work of God. Those chosen by the Father, and purchased by the Son will be called into eternal salvation. See John 6:37-44, 65; 10:10, 27-29; Heb. 9:15; Jude 1; Rev. 17:14.
This is solid biblical material that is taken from Studies In the Atonement by Dr. Robert A. Morey. This is one of the most thorough works which explains what ripples Christ set in motion when He laid His life down at Calvary! May God be glorified as a result of the study of this material.
171 Comments, Comment or Ping
Mario Herrera
The ripple effects are the blessings to the chosen! Remember salvation is special, unique, particular! It is not a cheap, sloppy, nasty love poured out for all!
Jun 10th, 2008
the BOC
Mario-
Do you believe in predestination?
Jun 11th, 2008
Mario
THE BOC,
What prompts you to ask?
Jun 11th, 2008
the BOC
Mario-
Because in your post you stated: “The Gospel Call is universal and general because it is given to all sinners”
I thought you guys believed in predestination out here and that statement doesn’t sound like it backs that theology. No debates, no arguments– just wanted to know where you are coming from.
Shalom!!
Jun 11th, 2008
Mario
THE BOC,
The Gospel call goes out to all sinners in the world! This is exactly what the post is about. The gospel call can be rejected by humans, but the effectual call is for those who are appointed to believe. Review the post and tell me what you think…..
Jun 11th, 2008
Denise
I just heard this sermon today and it was excellent! http://www.gty.org/Products/AudioLessons/GTY114
MacArthur’s message on a “Biblical Response to the Church-growth Movement” was the opening sermon at this year’s Shepherd Conference.
Its on ecclesiology and how God builds His church, the gospel, what a real church is, & “churches” that really are not churches b/c they are not an assembly of the Regenerated but Unregenerated. He discusses how we are not to change The message of the Gospel because it is transcendant: it reaches across every language, culture, and nation, yet it remains the same. Whether Jew or Greek, Slave or Free, fisherman or King, the ONLY Gospel is the same for all and indeed it is good news!
I thought I might also post this notation on the thread re: Tim Keller and his two gospels, because it seems to apply in both sections. I hope that’s ok.
Jun 11th, 2008
Brad B
The imperative “repent and believe” is a universal command by God to all men. It’s willingly disobeyed continously by those who do not have the Spirit of God, those not born again. To some of those who are blessed to hear the word preached, the good news delivered by the faithful in obedience to the great commission, it is a more personal general Gospel call. Not everyone gets the opportunity of the second instance. A third case exists that is the power of God unto salvation–to them that believe those who have the Spirit of God.
Brad B
Jun 11th, 2008
Brad B
I think I ought to have said in the last sentence, “to them that believe, those who *receive* the Spirit of God.
Jun 11th, 2008
Johnny B
Here are some Scriptures that will help. The call goes out to all.
Mark 16:15 And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.’
Acts 17:30 “Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent,”
These have the general call and effectual call in them.
Acts 13:48 “Now when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of the Lord. And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.”
Acts 16:13-15 “And on the Sabbath day we went out of the city to the riverside, where prayer was customarily made; and we sat down and spoke to the women who met there. Now a certain woman named Lydia heard us. She was a seller of purple from the city of Thyatira, who worshiped God. The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul. And when she and her household were baptized,”
Here’s the problem I had, with understanding predestination or election. We tend to look at the Scriptures, that say, believe or repent, and think that we have the power to do these, or the free will to do them. God created all things, including the tree of good and evil, that was hard for me to understand at first. because that would mean God created sin, in my mind anyway.
God created man with a free will, to choose between good and evil. because He wanted man to worship Him freely, not roboticly (if that’s even a word). When Adam and Eve, used that free will, to sin, we became slaves to sin. I heard the question asked it God is morally responsible for sin, no, man is. Now mans free will is in bondage in sin, by heredity. Romans 5:12 “Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned”
So we are all by nature sinner, we don’t desire God. Romans 3:10-18 As it is written: “There is none righteous, no, not one; There is none who understands; There is none who seeks after God. They have all turned aside; They have together become unprofitable; There is none who does good, no, not one.” “Their throat is an open tomb; With their tongues they have practiced deceit”; “The poison of asps is under their lips”; “Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness.” “Their feet are swift to shed blood; Destruction and misery are in their ways; And the way of peace they have not known.” “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”
The good that is in this passage, is in relation to God, we are enemies of God. Because of that, we are the objects of His wrath, by nature. Ephesians 2:3 “among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others.”
I asked a question here, just a few months ago, I asked. If I can’t believe unless God calls my and I am commanded to believe. that would be like me taking a man into the middle of the ocean. Cutting off his arms and legs and telling him, he needs to swim to shore if he wants to life. Would that make my evil?
I asked the question from a wrong prospective, look at my question, I put myself as the responsible one for the mans legs being cut off. When in fact, he was born in the ocean, without legs or arms. But not only that, while I was telling him, he needed to swim to shore, to live. He was spitting and cursing at me, while I was telling him what to do, to live.
That’s us, we, have no ability to come to God in belief or repentance. While the call comes to us, we curse Him and hate Him with all that we are, because we love our sin. Yet, God in His compassion, pulls some of us out of the ocean, that we can live. Why does he choose some and not others, I have no idea. I don’t question why, I praise Him for choosing me, to believe and repent. Does that mean he chooses some to hell, I don’t see it that way, I could be wrong, I did just figure out the way I asked the question. Here’s something to think about, if you’re at the beach, you see five people drowning. You swim out and save two of them. Did choose for the other three people to drown or did you cause them to drown?
I remember my stuggle with these things, I believed in election, but thought man had something to do with it.
Jun 12th, 2008
WA
…seems like a a deconstructed splirk of wild proof-texting…hardly any substantive exegesis. The NT teaches ontological apostasy which assumes, by definition, that regenerate believers can apostasize, which in turn presupposes that election is conditional. Where can the term “effectual” be exegeted? The post seems to equivocate between exegesis and an a-contextual approach. Or is it a an eisegetical theologizer (i.e., “effectual”) required to even get your post-renaissance theology off the starting gate?
Jun 12th, 2008
Mario
WA said:
“The NT teaches ontological apostasy which assumes, by definition, that regenerate believers can apostasize, which in turn presupposes that election is conditional.”
Explain how the NT teaches ontological apsotasy, exegetically. How does it assume by definition regenerate believers can apostasize?
Then explain exegetically that it presupposes election is conditional.
Jun 12th, 2008
the BOC
Mario-
Is choice a factor in these calls?
Jun 12th, 2008
Brad B
Hi Johnny B [I want to add Good sooo bad:)], I like Jeremiah when he asks “can the Etheiopian change his skin color or the leopard his spots? Then let them who are accustomed to evil do good”.
It is in the nature, all the rebellion, disobedience and enmity toward God and the love of darkness comes from within the being, it is not external. This is why we say inability in regards to belief, not inability from without but from within. Men do not repent and believe in the natural state because they dont “want” to. Men are limited in their real choices like the Ethiopion and the leopard from the Jer. passage.
Brad B
Jun 12th, 2008
Mario
BOC said:
“Is choice a factor in these calls?”
BOC choice is definitely a factor! God’s choice!
Jun 12th, 2008
the BOC
Mario-
I know it is God’s choice, but do we have a choice? Can we refuse the call?
Jun 13th, 2008
Stephen Macasil
The BOC,
I know you are addressing Mario, but I think this topic can grow into something fruitful. Would you please clarify which call you are referring to in asking about the role of man’s choice?
In an earlier comment you said “these calls,” then said “the call.”
Jun 13th, 2008
Jean Cauvin
Hi Boc,
The issue of choice is not under dispute. We all can choose whatever. However, the nature of that person dictates the response of the choice. Thus, our choices are bound by our nature (II Corinthians 2:14-16).
The reprobate will always choose “no” to God’s call because their nature is ungodly/evil (Luke 11:13; Jeremiah 17:3) and thus, the elect will choose yes always to God’s call because God transforms their nature. We are bound by are nature.
Truth corresponds to reality. And choice corresponds to nature. And since the nature of the elect are godly, logic dicated via Scripture tells us that the elect cannot say no to the nature God has transformed (regenerated) within them.
Jean Cauvin (Jude 3)
Jun 13th, 2008
WA
I appreciate the questions. Frankly, you’re making—if not supporting—the claim that the “call” in the NT is “effectual.” Schreiner is typical when he wants to make 2 Pet. 1.3 to mean that the audience was “effectual called” (irrevocably chosen by God [Schreiner 2003: 330-31]). But this is not what the language of “calling” means here or elsewhere in the NT. One has to import the idea of “effectual” into it to make it mean “irrevocably chosen” (Witherington 2007: 361n. 200). Again, I ask you, where can the term “effectual” be exegeted? What is the Greek word? Otherwise, it is patently a theological interpolation. The burden of proof is on you.
You asked, “How does it assume by definition regenerate believers can apostasize?” Well, what alternative can you offer? Might you suggest the bizarre idea that unregenerate/unbelievers apostasize? How is this rational at all? Apostasy presupposes to go from one spiritual state of affairs to another, does it not? We have this unintelligible remark come down as early as Augustine: “Since they did not have perseverance, they were not truly children of God, just as they were not truly disciples of Christ, even when they seemed to be such, and were called such” (Admonition and Grace, 22). Call this the all too famous Calvinism adage. My question is simple: If they were allegedly professing or fraudulent Christians, they apostasize from unbelief to_____ (to what exactly[?] you fill in the blank). Granting their true status, did they go from unbelief to unbelief (tautology)? Did they apostasize from unbelief to true belief? Or did they “fall away” from church attendance? Help me understand, for , it seems unreal to give apostolic warnings to pretentious frauds and propel them to persevere in a faith which cannot, and does not, exist!—(Marshall 1990: 311)—that is, of course, if the warnings are directed to genuine believers.
The upshot to all this is that the apostolic warnings in the NT pose a difficult to the classic doctrine because either the warnings are superfluous or real believers can in fact fall away from grace. I may provide an exegetical discourse after you deal with these questions. Nibble on this in the meantime: God himself assumes that the elect can neglect, not an alleged profession of faith but, expressis verbis, “salvation” (Gk. sot?ria, Heb. 2.3). If God assumes such, the implications are monumental, and how then can your alleged doctrine be “special and particular?”
Jun 13th, 2008
Brad B
Hi WA, given what you said above, what do you make of this scripture?
“Mat. 13: 10 And the disciples came and said to Him, “Why do You speak to them in parables?”
Mat 13:11 Jesus answered them, “To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been granted.
Mat 13:12 “For whoever has, to him {more} shall be given, and he will have an abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has shall be taken away from him.
Mat 13:13 “Therefore I speak to them in parables; because while seeing they do not see, and while hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.
Mat 13:14 “In their case the prophecy of Isaiah is being fulfilled, which says, ‘YOU WILL KEEP ON HEARING, BUT WILL NOT UNDERSTAND; YOU WILL KEEP ON SEEING, BUT WILL NOT PERCEIVE;
Mat 13:15 FOR THE HEART OF THIS PEOPLE HAS BECOME DULL, WITH THEIR EARS THEY SCARCELY HEAR, AND THEY HAVE CLOSED THEIR EYES, OTHERWISE THEY WOULD SEE WITH THEIR EYES, HEAR WITH THEIR EARS, AND UNDERSTAND WITH THEIR HEART AND RETURN, AND I WOULD HEAL THEM.’
Mat 13:16 “But blessed are your eyes, because they see; and your ears, because they hear. ”
This sounds pretty special and particular to me.
As to other of your points, let me ask you, do you hold to the definition of being born again to be synonymous with “born from above”? Indicating that being born again is an act of God toward man or does man regenerate himself somehow?
If yes, do you propose then that God erred in such a way as to have to repent and take back the life He gave-the indwelling of the Holy Spirit?
Brad B
Jun 13th, 2008
WA
Hey Brad…it sounds “pretty special and particular to me” too. This ventures into a different aspect of what I wrote, though there is minimal-minimal overlap. I do not wish to play scripture volly-ball here, but Matt. 13 buttresses my point even more still. There are the “dull at heart” and on the other hand, there are those that “see.” It is the latter in which the apostolic warnings logically apply. You wouldn’t say the “dull at heart” (presumably unbelievers) apostsize, would you? If so, how can they apostize when they are ALREADY in unbelief? They went from their “dulness” to what _____? Please fill in the blank.
As to your other question, YES I believe that God sovereignly and solely regenerates depraved man from his sinful slumber. I request: do not be a rationalist from the confines of your preconceived system. Ironcally, does this website not refute natural theology? Anyhow, if God himself assumes that believers can “neglect their salvation” (Heb. 2.3), then most certainly God can “take back” what He has given. God warns about not “erasing his name from the book of life” (Rev. 3.5). “The warnings in Rev. 2-3 against committing moral or intellectual apostasy and warnings that a Christian’s name can even be blotted out of the Book of everlasting Life are not mere idle threats, since the author/God believes that disaster could happen to true Christians. They could, under pressure and persecution commit some sort of apostasy. It would be pointless to talk about having one’s name blotted out of the Lamb’s Book of everlasting Life, if one’s name was never in there in the first place”–that is my point.
Hopefully you and Mario can answer my original post straight-on, and give me your comments on Heb. 2.3 (or Hebrews altogether), and Rev. 2-3 (esp. 3.5).
Jun 13th, 2008
Samuel Garcia
WA,
I probably won’t come back to check on this post for a long while, but I just wanted to throw out here that I’ve been thinking about this issue the last couple of days and I think it makes a lot of sense to see the warnings in the New Testament as heartfelt and not superfluous However, I see these as referring to the professing believers within the church (they blend in quite well). This still may sound to you as superfluous, but it is quite sobering to think that the godliest person you know in your life may actually be playing the Christian role and speaking the Christian lingo to perfection. It is even more grave to think that I myself am one of those, so I see Paul’s call for Christians to test themselves to see if they are in the faith as wholly genuine. If you think this is “superfluous” from the exterior (of my viewpoint that is) I at least want to assure you that I see it as one of the more weightier statements in Scripture. It is not a flimsy command in my book.
This I will leave for others to elaborate upon with biblical theology and exegesis if they so desire, not that I cannot do it myself, but I want to be real and say I probably won’t make time to come back and respond to you.
P.S. That the word “effectual” is an “interpolation” or (better) an inference from Scriptural teaching is obvious and no one would debate you about that. Neither is the word “trinity” in the Bible – and that is certainly not post-Renaissance
You seem to want to stick to Biblical language alone but that assumes that systematic categories are false because of their title and not their content. I wonder how consistent you yourself are in this, assuming you believe in “prevenient” grace, “libertarian” free will and in God’s “aseity”.
Jun 14th, 2008
Glen
WA,
You said “God himself assumes that the elect can neglect.”
Did you really mean that God assumes?
Jun 14th, 2008
Glen
Mario,
Thanks for what you have posted here. When I emailed you about this subject I was pretty sure that I was on the right track and now I know that I was. This post cleared up the terminology for what I knew to be Biblical truth.
Jun 14th, 2008
Mario
WA,
I am considering still your original post, however, the biblical teaching is clear. I am concerned about your presuppositions.
What is your view of Scripture in the life of a believer? You elaborate deeply, however, I wonder if your posting is to the glory of God?
Where do you stand in the faith? And how do you stand according to your own post?
Jun 14th, 2008
Mario
Sam,
I appreciate your post. It is encouraging you make very good points!
Jun 14th, 2008
Mario
Glen,
You make a great point on what WA said on God assuming.
God doesn’t assume, He ordains and is sovereign over what He ordains.
Unless of course God also assumed that Jesus would die?
Of course not! In the plan of the Triune God there is no room for “assumption.” History is moving along God’s determined plan believers are exhorted to examine themselves to see if they are in the faith.
Jun 14th, 2008
WA
…the feedback is good but severely tangential. But I’ll bite for a moment…Sam says that “he sees the warnings in the NT as *heartfelt* and not superfluous.” Interesting! Needless to say, indeed, it would be quite embarrassing to even ask which scriptural passage informed him of this concept…”Heartfelt???”…give me a break, sounds like you’re emoting (Is this what Mario refers to him having “ good points?”) I smell an emotional and intellectual attachment to his autonomy. He also thinks, autonomously and independently, that the function of the warnings are for *test of genuineness*. Where in scripture does it say that, THAT is the nature of the warning passages. Again, much is claimed, but little is demonstrated. Provide the verse or passage where this is cashed out and we can all be happy. I can’t help but think that there is a sparse of humanist residue that Sam & co. need to reckon with, despite Mario’s alleged pledge to “biblical truth.”
Of course “content” matters, not labels. But I have provided a logical argument showing that, on Calvinistic premises, the apostolic warnings become meaningless, thus nullify scripture. Your suggestion that *professing* believers can be commanded to maintain their faith is outlandishly incoherent. Again, no one can be warned to hold on to a faith which cannot, and does not, exist. This would have God jarring these frauds to persevere in a false faith, all things considered! The point in Rev. 3.5 is that God cannot warn believers to oust their names out of the Lamb’s book of life if their names are not there in the first place. Why is it that I can’t get anyone to deal straightforwardly with this verse and Heb. 2.3. Deal with them. If it is not clear, maybe I can stated another way.
All I meant by “assume” is that God also has basic non-falsifiable presuppositions (i.e., true beliefs) because He knows himself, and His character. God knows all true propositions and so it follows that He has beliefs as we see it propositionally revealed in scripture. The passages I’ve cited point to the fact that, fundamentally, God believes that true believers can apostasize into unbelief. Otherwise, the warnings loose their significance.
I believe that Scripture is our ultimate source of authority in all things, and Calvinism is a novel late-medieval autonomous attempt to rid of anything the smacks of Roman Catholicism even if it amounts to throwing out books out of the canon, just as Luther wanted to do with James and Revelation.
For the record: I think that liberterian freedom is incoherent, and if by “aseity” one means that God’s existence is not dependent on anythin outside of him, then, I certainly believe that; and “prevenient grace” has to be defined and demonstrated before anyone can accepted it biblically. All I’m after here is the truth of said doctrines.
Jun 14th, 2008
Stephen Macasil
Hello everyone,
I’ve been preoccupied in other threads and assignments, but I’ve peaked in here a few time over the past few days. I want to draw some focused attention to WA’s “ontological apostasy.” Hang in there with me and allow for me to lay out some thoughts on this.
a) Ontological apostasy assumes genuine conversion. b) Genuine conversion assumes regeneration. c) Regeneration assumes election.
This is sound (logically), but is it true?
Scripture reveals that election is the act of God the Father in eternity wherein he chose whom the Christ would save (and more, but…).
Scripture reveals that regeneration is the sovereign act of God the Holy Spirit wherein, according to the sovereign election of God the Father, He subjectively applies the work of Christ in space and time by miraculously raising the elect from spiritual death unto spiritual life at the appointed time. This regeneration is also referred to as a “new birth from above.” Regeneration takes place within the inner being of man on his unconscious level. In this, God is active and man is passive.
Scripture reveals that conversion is the subjective act of both man and God active, in distinction to regeneration where God only is active, wherein the regenerate person experiences the conversion from death unto life. Ontologically, the sinner is transformed to a genuine believer.
This is said to address the comment by WA that, “The NT teaches ontological apostasy which assumes, by definition, that regenerate believers can apostasize [sic], which in turn presupposes that election is conditional.”
The benefits of clarifying theological distinctions are many. They help us to locate the precise point of error in opposing views. For example, in WA’s chart he assumes that ontological apostasy is taught in the NT. I deny this premise outright on the basis of Jesus’ words:
“I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst. But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. *All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me *I will never cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, *that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have *eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.” (Jn. 6:35b-40 ESV)
Multitudes of passages demonstrate this truth, but this one is good enough for the Christian that looks to God’s Word with reverence and awe. It must be noted that any position that opposes this is in direct opposition to Christ’s words revealed in Scripture! Opposers, proceed with caution (my own warning passage!).
As we can see from my chart above, ontological apostasy ultimately undoes or reverses ontological conversion. So the real underlying question to be addressed is: Can a truly converted (elected, regenerated) Christian ultimately and permanently fall away?
My answer, based on what has been revealed in Scripture, is – no. From here on out we should be resolved. Scripture is the final judge and we should rest in its sentence (WCF).
Since the warning passages in question were written to professing believers (true and false), and since the apostles were not able to detect a false profession of faith and even baptized upon professions (true or false), through a chain of logical deduction based on revelation (which I will not show here) we believe that the warnings of apostasy are ordained by God as a means of his promised perseverance.
More exegetically verifiable distinctions can be made such as the types of apostasy (temporary, permanent, moral, doctrinal, etc.) in refuting the false teaching that the NT teaches ontological apostasy, but this should be enough for now to push this thread toward a fruitful resolution.
By rejecting ontological apostasy, we stand in line with Jesus and the apostles.
Example: “They [apostates] went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out [apostatized], that it might become plain that they all are not of us. But [in contrast to the apostates] you have been anointed by the Holy One, and you all have knowledge. I write to you, not because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and because no lie is of the truth.” (1 Jn. 2:19-21 ESV)
Jun 14th, 2008
Brad B
Hi WA, I see what your point is, and although I consider myself throughly Reformed, I dont have too much of a problem with considering the Roman view of participation or “working” so long as merit is not associated with it. Santification is done between 2 parties as I understand it. But, what would you think of the term “effectual warnings”?
I am still thinking about Rev 3:5, because of the word erase. It is a sticky situation, but the scriptural support for perseverance and ownership by Christ, that I am not persuaded to abandon OSAS. Mostly since it implies that God cannot deliver.
Brad B
Jun 14th, 2008
Brad B
Hi Steven, I didn’t see your post before I wrote my recent answer. Your treatment of this, I think, is very solid. One other scripture that came to mind to support what you said was this one:
Mat 7:21 Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven {will enter.}
Mat 7:22 “Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’
Mat 7:23 “And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS
“I never knew you”.
Brad B
Jun 14th, 2008
Danny Pelichowski
If Thomas is reading this I would like to formally request Dr. Morey’s lectures on Apostasy to be added to the download store at the Faith Defenders website. I will be the first to buy and download them. Steve, if you can relay this message to him I would appreciate it!
Jun 15th, 2008
Stephen Macasil
DP, I’ll see what I can do! It’s a short series, thirteen discs or so…
Jun 15th, 2008
Johnny B
WA, can you quote the scripture that this question stems from. “My question is simple: If they were allegedly professing or fraudulent Christians, they apostasize from unbelief to_____ (to what exactly[?] you fill in the blank).”
I need the Scripture, to know for sure. My understanding is that the apostatizing is from the Gospel. Like we have today, unregenerate men preaching a false gospel. To the unregenerate, itchy ears. The Spiritual (the Gospel), being apostatized, by the unregenerate. You have the spiritual truth, being made a spiritual lie, or none spiritual, but humanized.
Jude 3 “Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.” The true Gospel, contend for it, because there’s only one Gospel, all others are an apostatized gospel.
Here’s a Scripture that throws people off.
Colossians 1:21-23 “And you, who once were alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now He has reconciled in the body of His flesh through death, to present you holy, and blameless, and above reproach in His sight– if indeed you continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast, and are not moved away from the hope of the gospel which you heard, which was preached to every creature under heaven, of which I, Paul, became a minister.”
“If indeed you continue in the faith” needs to interpreted, through, 1 John 2:19. You stay, you are one of the elect, you leave and never come back, you never were elect.
Jun 15th, 2008
WA
Far from being a “fruitful resolution” Stephen has compounded the problem, hoisting himself and his Reformed dogmatiks on their own petard. I don’t have any quarrels with the first part of his post. Is the latter part in which he throws several claims without argument. His post, like others, resort to merely rehashing WCF autonomous enchantments, as if somehow this fallible confession has any binding authority. So what then? How is his statements self-refuting? I’ll tackle what I think is the gist and controversial aspect of his post, and show that he hasn’t resolved the compatibility between the apostolic warnings and his cherished commitment to WCF.
His most startling claim is that the warnings are *a means of his promised perseverance*. This is similar to the “test of genuineness” unproven hypothesis stated previously. This is a remarkable claim because it defines the *nature* of the warning passages, and so requires scriptural evidence. Stephen thinks that this is true because, well, just because he says so (WCF perhaps?). He just conjectures, and concludes without argument and decisive evidence that such is the case. Again I ask: Where in scripture, does it say that, THAT is the nature of the warning passages? I just want the source that is informing you of the function of the warnings: your rationlist autonomy or sola scriptura. If the audience here doesn’t believe in sola scriptura, then you can bypass the question.
But even if his assertion was to go through, this ingenious response is self-refuting. If the warning *themselves* bring about perseverance, then, believers’ perseverance is contingent upon the warnings, in which case, were it the case that they were NOT given, believers can fall away. In short, Stephen seems to say that: if the warnings had not been given, believers would have fallen away. Therefore, had the warnings not been given, then it presupposes that believers are capable of falling away, then the doctrine of perseverance as classically understood is false: believers can fall away, but their not falling away is dependent upon an external contingency, namely, the warnings. But then suppose Stephen might respond that it is God via his omnipotence that causally and efficaciously preserves believers. Well, in that case the warnings are superfluous. For, if God’s grace is efficaciously sufficient to preserve believers, then why give such warnings at all? Would they not be entirely superfluous? Neither would it be intelligible to posit both as condition, for such suggests that God’s grace is not sufficient. Rather, it is sufficient, and so the warnings, again, become meaningless. As I see it, my above question hasn’t been answered, and the dilemma presented exposes the doctrine as illogical and should be rejected.
Stephen, additionally proposes, again without argument, (this is a serious problem with all posts here), that “the warning passages in question were written to professing believers (true and false).” He just asserts this and is content to stop there. But the response doesn’t go far enough. Let us go a step further, apply the warnings to each group (true and false believers), and see if his claim is logical. Stephen alleges that the church contains both sheep and goats. If the elect (“sheep”) is ontologically and causally impossible from falling away (Stephen’s claim) via God’s omnipotent preservation, then no warnings are necessary and they become meaningless. Also, “if it had been decreed in eternity past that the elect necessarily will be saved, such exhortations would hardly be absolutely necessary.” On the other hand, if “goats” by definition are *a priori* not saved, why would God, and the author concursively, warn a “goat” not to loose a faith which cannot, and does not, exist? “One must ask what would be the urgency of warning reprobates if there was no possibility of their turning back anyway.” Indeed, this leaves me starkly befuddled—logic turned on its head it seems. One can continue to repeat the mantra “the warnings are a means…” but evidence is needed before this can be taken serious. You and yours are expected to grapple with this goaded dilemma that apparently dooms all strides of Johnny-come-late theology.
Along these same lines, he also asserts that “the apostles were not able to detect a false profession of faith,” and so by this the author cannot know who is saved. The problem with this is easy to spot. First, Stephen and co. require an obscure third person referent which minimizes certainty with respect to warning-audience correlation. In this way, by casting skepticism (even though the author is inspired) on the author, such strategy provides a wide opportunity such that, if someone apostasizes, then the Calvinist can arbitrarily pin the charge of apostasy on the fraudulent believer and not the true one. This may be convenient, but question begging. Second, the cast of skepticism or lack of omniscience on the author’s part to probe the exact spiritual nature of his hearers presupposes—if the argument is to have any force—momentary departure of inspiration and a complete relapse into the creaturely realm in which certain parts of the text ca be identified with the fallible experience of the author. On what grounds does Stephen limit the sphere of the Spirit’s work in inspiration to the psychic life of the apostles? Stephen’s proposal seems to lace scripture with a certain docetism, and reduces it a naturalistic account in which the text “is a natural product and sometimes does not play any role in the divine economy.” In contradistinction, Scripture “is a sanctified creaturely auxiliary of the communicative presence of God.” The text of scripture is such that, every jot and tittle are divine and sanctified speech-acts, and so it is God that knows for certain who is saved and the warnings are applied to them. So the sanctified creaturely reality should not be bifurcated from the divine economy, because the Spirit orders this economy to fittingly assist in the work that is proper to God. So Stephens’s suggestion is a false dichotomy: The claim to ascribe to scripture fallible properties within the text seems drastic, perhaps even desperate. But if you insist in this proposal of yours, where is the textual evidence that author fallibleness can creep into the text at times?
This is even more unlikely especially when apostasy is realizable for regenerate believers because the author applies the exhortation to HIMSELF by the first-person plural pronoun “we” (Heb. 10.26a; cf. e.g., 2.1-4; 3.14; 4.1, 14-16; 6.1; 10.19; 12.1-3, 25-29). “Further, it can be inferred from this that the author surely did not see the readers as pretentious fakes or he would have consistently addressed them at a greater distance.” Hebrews 12.8 refers to disciplining God’s sons. Even if granting that there are professing believers, Hebrews12.8 says nothing about them because 12.8 is talking only about genuine believers. Also as Rev. 3.5 teaches that, it would be pointless to warn erasing one’s name from the Lamb’s book of life unless one’s name is not there in the first place. Also, Hebrews 2.3 refers to believers capable of neglecting “salvation.” You cannot neglect what you don’t have in the first place—period. Therefore, ontological apostasy is realizable, and so ontological conversion can be reversed. Otherwise, the warnings become mere bluffs and meaningless, all things considered above.
To conclude, it seems Morey would be disappointed that His school contains representatives that are WCF rationalists. Stephen’s conjectures are just that, conjectures, and they don’t go far enough. No honest theologian can be easily hoodwinked by his false-dichotomy of textual-skepticism, and divine verbal communication. That the warnings can apply to professing believers, at a deeper level, is illogical so as to make no sense whatsoever. Adam and Eve apostized from perfect holiness when no sinful disposition was existent. Therefore, if past ontological apostasy is valid why cannot a future one be valid also?
1 Jn. 2.19 and Jn. 6.35b-40 should not be used to pit texts against the ones I’m citing. I would affirm wholly what these texts teach since, “both the reality of God’s sovereignty and ability to protect the believer from outside foes, and at the same time the human responsibility of the believer to keep on believing and behaving lest they give way to some sort of apostasy is affirmed at the same time, in the same breath.”
Jun 15th, 2008
Glen
WA,
You said “God knows all true propositions and so it follows that He has beliefs as we see it propositionally revealed in scripture.” Can you cite Scripture to back this up? As I see it there is a difference between belief and knowledge. You can believe something or you can know it. Does God believe or does God know.
From Noah Webster’s 1828 Dictionary
BELIE’VE, v.t. To credit upon the authority or testimony of another; to be persuaded of the truth of something upon the declaration of another, or upon evidence furnished by reasons, arguments, and deductions of the mind, or by other circumstances, than personal knowledge.
KNOW, v.t. 1. To perceive with certainty; to understand clearly; to have a clear and certain perception of truth, fact, or any thing that actually exists. To know a thing preincludes all doubt or uncertainty of its existence.
Jun 15th, 2008
Stephen Macasil
WA,
As I said in my previous post, I deny your unbiblical concept of ontological apostasy on the basis of Jesus’ words in Scripture that should suffice “for the Christian that looks to God’s Word with reverence and awe. It must be noted that any position that opposes this is in direct opposition to Christ’s words revealed in Scripture! Opposers, proceed with caution (my own warning passage!).”
Thanks for your thoughtful reply, but they must be flushed at this point because they do not address the issues. I’m also not interested in your straw-mans, red herrings, and ad hominems.
Through my fancy ex-ray goggles that allow me to see behind your Jesuitical reasoning, I see that you have severely flawed theology that stem from hermeneutical fallacies, and ultimately, the wrong starting point.
Seriously, all I can do at this point is waive my hand and say – NEXT.
Jun 15th, 2008
WA
Glen,
You are correct; there is a difference between knowing and believing. Perhaps I was quite loose with words, but specifically, the biblical portrait is that God has knowledge of everything. God as an omniscient being knows every truth and, furthermore, does not have any false beliefs. His knowledge is universal: “Great is our Lord, and mighty in power; his understand has no limit (Ps. 147.5); “he knows everything” (1 John 3.20).
So everything that God says in His word is true because of the extent of His knowability and so His word is true John 17.17). Relevant to the discussion, if the Lord himself knows that believers name can be “blotted out from the book of life” (Rev. 3.5), then it follows that ontological apostasy is true. Any denial of this is stark rebellion. Similarly, Ps. 69.20 states, “Let them be BLOTTED OUT of the book of the living, And not be written with the righteous.” As I said previously, “It would be pointless to talk about having one’s name blotted out of the Lamb’s Book of everlasting Life, if one’s name was never in there in the first place.”
Jun 16th, 2008
Johnny B
WA, Psalm 69:28, is not the Lamb’s Book of life, that David wants them blotted out of. It’s a reference to, him wanting them died, destroyed, never to be remembered again. For God wrath and indignation to be on them. David does mention, that, they “not be written with the righteous.” Which would lead me to believe this is the Lamb’s book of life. Not the one he is asking for them to blotted out of.
Jun 16th, 2008
Brad B
Hi WA, I have a few more questions for you concerning what you’ve written so far. You’ve rejected libertarian free will, but seem to be holding to views that depend on that very view. Correct me if I’m wrong, but you seem to be offended by implications that God can effect obedience to warnings by/in those who He has given “eyes to see and ears to hear”. This is the kind of person who is a new creation with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit to guide them into all truth. If you dont disagree with that, why sould it ofend you that those would obey, repent, etc. , and that the warnings are second causes by God meant to perfect the ends.
Are you a Molinist? Just because God’s word speaks of counterfatuals, it doesn’t necessarily follow that these are “actual” possibilities unless you deny the true sovereignty of God over His creation.
As far as the WCF, I dont think anyone here is equating it with scripture, but it is the most coherent source of biblical systematic thinking ever written and it has great value in reining in abberant thought. It isn’t the Bible, but unless one has comprehensive knowledge of the whole of the Word of God, the possibility of misinterpreting is high. I think your objections on this topic are thus short sided. Taking a few scriptures and even then only specific single words and building a whole case against an orthodox doctrine seems to be a desperate clinging to a remnant of human pride.
Brad B
Jun 16th, 2008
the BOC
Stephen said:
“In an earlier comment you said “these calls,” then said “the call.””
The BOC says:
Sorry I lumped them together, but my question is does man have a choice to accept or refuse either of these two calls Mario is blogging about?
Jun 16th, 2008
Mario
THEBOC,
When the Lord has sets His love on an individual before the foundations of the world and that individual is called, there is nothing that person can do to escape the Holy Spirit.
If we look at John chapter 1:12-13, the Scripture reads,
“But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.
In John 6:35-40, Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; he who comes will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst. But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe.”
Note in verse 37 Jesus says, “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.” 39 “This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day.” 40 “For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.”
It is clear from these passages that God the Father is doing His will. The Father, who is the first person of the Holy Trinity, fixed His plan in eternity. The Son, who is the second person of the Holy Trinity, accomplishes it at the cross, and the Spirit, who is the third person of the Holy Trinity is pursuing those who will come to Him. It is inevitable! The LORD will possess those for whom Christ died.
It cannot be denied that there are those whom the Father has given to the Son. These are definite names, my name, Stephen’s name, Reformed Mama’s name, Overcommitad’s name, your name, all of the names Christ would redeem were included when Christ died! The Spirit will take captive the rest of the saints who will come to Christ! There is no getting away from what the Lord has planned!
Note how Jesus says that those the Father has given to Him WILL come to Him. It is His will from eternity to eternity and His will is not contingent upon our own pathetic decisions.
Left up to us, we would never come to Him. It is grace, amazing grace that He subdues us and brings us into His glorious light. He did not let us go on our own way. He promise from of old stands! “They shall be My people, and I will be their God; and I will give them one heart and one way, that they may fear Me always, for their own good and for their children after them. I will make an everlasting covenant with them that I will not turn away from them, to do them good; and I will put the fear of Me in their hearts so that they will not turn away from Me.” Jeremiah 31:38-40
Ultimately, BOC, the General that all men everywhere should repent is can be rejected and is, however, when the LORD “effectually” calls a man and regenerates Him, that individual will comes and will experience the benefits of being in union with Messiah. Nothing of what He has done, but all of what God has done on his behalf.
He is the author and is the finisher!
Jun 16th, 2008
Mario
Christ explained it clearly! I can actually have George Bryson explain it again…….Let me quote George again here:
“The point here is you cannot come, you are not able to come unless He draws you, but being able to come and actually coming to Him in faith are not exactly the same thing. He enables you to come and if you come to Him and are drawn and you can’t come to Him unless you are drawn, then He will raise you up. But He doesn’t raise people up unless they come to Him. But the ability to come He gives, but making you able to come doesn’t mean you come.”
George,
You are right in saying that the point is you cannot come unless the Father draws you! But, if He draws any man, that man is blessed because he will come to the Son and the Son will not cast him out, nor lose him, but raise him up on the last day! Glory to God!
Jun 16th, 2008
WA
Johnny B,
You mention that Ps. 69.28 is not referring to “the Lamb’s Book of life,” so understood. The text doesn’t say this plainly, but there is conceptual overlap with “the book of the living” (actual words of Psalm 69.28; some translations say “book of life” KJV, NIV, NLT, NRS, NASB). The Psalm in plain language says: “Let them be BLOTTED OUT of the book of the living; let them not be enrolled among the righteous (NRS).” In a bona fide contradiction you state: “Not the one he is asking form them to blotted out of.” You misread the Ps. The elementary point is that it is no mere idle threat that, your name can be blotted or erased from the book of life as David believed. Given what we find in Hebrews 2, 6, and 10, Rev. 2-3, Rom. 11.17-25, etc., the alleged “effectual” call is a contrived WCF distinctive.
Even if this is a reference to the prophet, there is a duality in the text of scripture that we must not ignore. In other words, it is God’s very word communicated through human writers. You, and Stephen (I dealt with his ad hoc author-skepticism dichotomy above) want to inject these divisions in order to preserve WCF commitments. Extraordinary assumptions require extraordinary biblical evidence.
You didn’t comment on Rev. 3.5, or that Adam and Eve ontologically apostasized even though they were created in perfect holiness.
Jun 16th, 2008
Stephen Macasil
WA,
You can try all you want to make Jesus out to be a liar, but you will be unsuccessful. He sits in the heavens and laughs! (Ps. 2)
Jun 16th, 2008
Bob
Hey guys, great dialogue! I’m gonna side with Stephen on this one. Jesus’ words are far more authoritative and inspirational than Paul, John, and the prophet David. I have no problem with Paul and John being made liars. After all, he sits in the heavens and laughs (Ps. 2).
Jun 17th, 2008
Johnny B
WA, you misread my post. You got the short version, I lost two posts, before I posted that one. Psalms are poetic, so human emotion is involved in there writing, because it’s poetic. So to read and get the full meaning, you need to start, at the beginning to know what the Psalm is about.
Psalm 69:1-4 “1 To the Chief Musician. Set the ‘The Lilies.’ A Psalm of David. Save me, O God! For the waters have come up to my neck. I sink in deep mire, Where there is no standing; I have come into deep waters, Where the floods overflow me. I am weary with my crying; My throat is dry; My eyes fail while I wait for my God. Those who hate me without a cause Are more than the hairs of my head; They are mighty who would destroy me, Being my enemies wrongfully; Though I have stolen nothing, I still must restore it.”
You can see that David, is very troubled, he’s basically saying, I’m being over taken”. Then verse 4, he explains who is troubling him, “Those who hate me without a cause”, notice he said “those”, he carries this thought trough the Psalm, with, those, them, and they, in vss 11-12, 21-28. The, those, they, and them, are talking about the righteous. David prayer is for deliverance. So the THEM of vs 28 are David’s enemies which are over taking and troubling, him.
So my question is, are you saying that unregenerate people are in the Lamb’s book of life? David does make a distinction starting in vs 6
I did talk about Revelation 3:5, in the posts I lost. It’s always troubled me, that verse. But it’s one verse, He is not saying He will blot them out, “but I will confess his name before My Father and before His angels.” The one place that it does say that He would Exodus 32:33 “And the Lord said to Moses, “Whoever has sinned against Me, I will blot him out of My book.” The problem here is the past tense, is being used “has”, if He would of said, whoever will sin against me, I will blot him out of My book. Then I could see your point.
As far as Adam and Eve, let’s deal with one thing at a time, we don’t need rabbit trails to confuse the issue. I would like to go back to something you posted, that I replied to, that you seemed to have over looked, I believe, because you were talking with Stephen at the time.
WA, I’m new to Reformed Theology, so can you explain WCF, thanks. Don’t be so quick to make judgments on people, Stephen and I don’t always agree, on everything, we do have our differences. WA, just because we don’t agree, doesn’t mean we need to be hostile toward each other. We need to edify one another in love. I was where you are at. So, I have no ill feeling toward you. Do you consider us as Bothers in the Faith?
Jun 17th, 2008
Johnny B
I’m sorry, I left out “not” in what I wrote after “vss 11-12, 21-28. I wrote “The, those, they, and them, are talking about the righteous” It should read, “are not talking about the righteous” I wish there was an edit feature here.
Jun 17th, 2008
WA
Johnny B,
I sympathize with your last paragraph. If you guys claim to be evangelical Christians, then yes, we are all brothers in the faith. I know the tension can be quite heavy, but I hope you can see that I went after Stephen’s claims (not his character) and refuted them point by point. He didn’t quote scripture, but that’s o.k. because theology has to be logically valid and exegetical—he’s entitled to push his conclusions in that direction if he so chooses.
Frankly, the problem here is that there is no room to do an exegetical treatise on a passage. If it’s too long no one will read it, and there is no way to type in Greek in transliterated font to show my points. I promised to give one, but given space and time, I decided to work with single passages (I know this isn’t fair for everyone) given the strictures of the forum. I’m local here in Cypress, C.A., and I have a friend who attends Talbot seminary. If interested, I can formally present these larger exegetical papers (well documented) and brew up a nice discussion for edification at a nearby coffee shop. I can’t present them here because the script won’t allow it; plus there is documentation to make sure I’m not misrepresenting no one.
I am in totally agreement with you that Rev. 3.5 does not say “He will blot them out.” If it were God actualizing judgment then it would be phrased that way. But the nature of a warning, is not to declare or actualized judgment, but that it CAN happen, provided that one does not “overcome” as the apostle puts it. I could be mistaken, but as I see it, it would be pointless to give a warning of that sort, unless it can really happen. The alternative is to suggest that it is merely a bluff to jar Christians to “overcome,” but it would be more persuasive for someone to provide a biblical passage where scripture itself says that such is the nature of the apostolic warnings. I’m just trying to hold on to sola scriptura the best I can.
P.S. WCF stands for the Westminster Confession of Faith. Johnny, just to give you a heads up, don’t mind the text (what I have written); it doesn’t reflect how I am really. I’m more polemical in written form, but completely different in person. So no harm no foul. I know that it is unfair to work within these restrictions. Are you guys local her in orange county C.A.?
P.S.S. And no, I am not a molinist.
Jun 17th, 2008
Stephen Macasil
WA said:
“…I went after Stephen’s claims (not his character) and refuted them point by point. He didn’t quote scripture, but that’s o.k. because theology has to be logically valid and exegetical—he’s entitled to push his conclusions in that direction if he so chooses.”
This can’t be further from the truth. I addressed your first point and stated my rejection of its validity based on Scripture alone. Here again is the first exchange:
__________
This is said to address the comment by WA that, “The NT teaches ontological apostasy which assumes, by definition, that regenerate believers can apostasize [sic], which in turn presupposes that election is conditional.”
The benefits of clarifying theological distinctions are many. They help us to locate the precise point of error in opposing views. For example, in WA’s chart he assumes that ontological apostasy is taught in the NT. I deny this premise outright on the basis of Jesus’ words:
“I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst. But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. *All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me *I will never cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, *that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have *eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.” (Jn. 6:35b-40 ESV)
Multitudes of passages demonstrate this truth, but this one is good enough for the Christian that looks to God’s Word with reverence and awe. It must be noted that any position that opposes this is in direct opposition to Christ’s words revealed in Scripture! Opposers, proceed with caution (my own warning passage!).
As we can see from my chart above, ontological apostasy ultimately undoes or reverses ontological conversion. So the real underlying question to be addressed is: Can a truly converted (elected, regenerated) Christian ultimately and permanently fall away?
My answer, based on what has been revealed in Scripture, is – no. From here on out we should be resolved. Scripture is the final judge and we should rest in its sentence (WCF).
________________
P.S. The WCF was brought in to credit the source from which I lifted the articulation of the application of sola scriptura (The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture. WCF 1.10) Do you object to WCF 1.10?
Jun 17th, 2008
the BOC
Thanks Mario!
Jun 17th, 2008
Johnny B
WA, can you explain to me, how the “them” of vs 28 are in the Lambs book of life?
I think you may have, missed my correction, it’s just above your last post.
Jun 17th, 2008
Mario
Great explanation Stephen. It is amazing how when pressed with Scripture, it comes out that men want to trust more in their intellect than submit to what is revealed.
Jun 17th, 2008
Brad B
Hi WA, your view as I understand it, determins to make the point that a believer can lose his adoption, and in fact thwart a definate purposeful act by God. All because you cant accept that a warning cannot be effectual unless one can truely and actually fall away from life given by God to eternal death. The biggest problem I see is what you have do to God in order to hold onto this view. The implications are severe yet you are willing to go there-limiting Gods sovereignty over his creation and His creatures. The way you want to exegete these warning scriptures puts them in conflict with a truely Sovereign God and his ability to communicate in such a way that His purposes are performed by the spontaneous acts of the objects of His special affection as well as the spontaneous acts of those who are not to be known/loved by Him.
If our view of God has to suffer the loss HIs ability to effectively communicate with 100% of certainty to His beloved, I think your position is much too high a price to pay.
I want to say that in the mind of WA, it is not “logical” that a warning cannot be a warning unless there are real and actual occurances of ignoring the warning to suffer the consequence. Is it possible that your understanding in incomplete? Are you willing to mount and maintain this assault on the Creators Persons?
If I have a son and I have paid close attention to him and know him intimately do you think it odd that I’d be able to deliver effectual warnings to him? Gods intimate knowledge of us where “in Him we move and have our being” is so complete and our adoption so sure you’d have to adhere to libertarian free will and deny God’s ability to deliver, you said you reject that, but I dont see how your view survives without it. I think you would do well to explain yourself as to your view of the relationship of the Sovereign and His creatures free acts as it relates to your view on the warning scriptures.
Brad B
Jun 17th, 2008
Brad B
Hi WA, obedience to the warnings must have merit then since it is by the free act of the individual to heed them. This act / work is a condition to persevere in the faith anyway you look at it if man can *acutally* fall.
Brad B
Jun 17th, 2008
WA
Stephen,
….no, what I meant to say is that I broke down your unbiblical assumptions such as: (1) Your reducing the text of scripture to docetism by injecting fallibility and skepticism on the inspired author; (2) the false-unproven notion of the warnings as “means,” “secondary causes,” “test of genuineness” hypothetical, or what have you—you don’t provide biblical warrant for this claim, but toss it by bare assumption (what source informed you of this? I’d like to know. If you hold to WCF 1.10, then act like it); (3) you argue illogically that professing (false) believers can be warned—this is tantamount to warning bachelors not to divorce! How could they? They are not “really” married in the first place; How can the warning logically and coherently apply to them?; (4) I gave evidence that the inspired (saved) author at times applies the warnings to “himself” by the first-person plural pronoun “we” (Heb. 10.26a; cf. e.g., 2.1-4; 3.14; 4.1, 14-16; 6.1; 10.19; 12.1-3, 25-29). This goes to show that the author, through the superintending of the Holy Spirit, believed that he too is not free from the warning of ontological apostasy. Call this the self-referent argument. Therefore, these assumptions were not “based on scripture alone.” Any denial of this is are outright lies.
I’m aware that I haven’t given my take on Jn. 6.35-40. But I simply take this passage in its most plain sense. I agree with everything that’s therein said. That is because I believe that the scriptures teach BOTH God’s sovereign power to enable and protect believers, but also warns that believers can fall away, in the same breadth.
Stephen, I can turn the tables and ask you: Would you have a problem making Paul and John liars? Would this sit well with you? Are you using Jesus’ words as a key text to falsify every other scripture that doesn’t run in your favor?
I understand that many people project their doctrinal commitments onto the Bible and skate right over the embarrassing parts. You might want to stop beating around the bush, and attempt to tackle the passages I’ve cited head-on. See if you can get this: “For if the word spoken through angels proved unalterable, and every transgression and disobedience received a just penalty, how shall *we* escape if we neglect a PROFESSED salvation?* (Heb. 2.2-3). Bottom line: you cannot neglect what you don’t have, as the rest of Hebrews will argue.
Allow these texts to speak on their own terms without using John 6 as a decoder, so to speak, to swallow-up (or falsify) everything the bible says. Again: would you have a problem if Paul, John, and the author of Hebrews are turned to be liars by Jesus’ words?
Jun 17th, 2008
Stephen Macasil
You’ve got it backwards. The warning passages are, as I said earlier, a means to God’s promised perseverance. You’re refuting an argument I never made. You must have noticed this earlier since you criticized my alleged position that warnings were *the* means for perseverance. I said that they are *a* not *the* means.
On one hand you paint me as saying the warnings are to false professors (bachelors), and on the other you have me as saying the warnings *themselves* solely produce perseverance for believers. This confusion produces unwarranted conclusion leaps which lead to straw-men such as: “In short, Stephen seems to say that: if the warnings had not been given, believers would have fallen away.”
This is a very poor reading, WA. I have never even had such a thought.
This is one of the most basic logical fallacies. One that I am not going to labor to unravel. Hopefully you can see it and do something about it. Most everything afterwards flows from your decided position that I am illogical and huilty of extreme eisegesis. You are knocking down a straw-man that you have created and claiming triumphant victory as you so powerfully refute my arguments one by one.
Hardly.
Clean it up and we’ll discuss the issues.
Jun 17th, 2008
Mario
WA,
I’m trying to understand where you came up with the term “ontological apostasy”? Can you give the Scripture where this is revealed in Scripture?
WA said:
“(3) you argue illogically that professing (false) believers can be warned—this is tantamount to warning bachelors not to divorce! How could they? They are not “really” married in the first place; How can the warning logically and coherently apply to them?;”
You call what Stephen says illogical? How is this logical? You cannot explain everything Scripture reveals by human reason!
Can you explain the Holy Trinity logically? Your example of warning bachelors not to divorce is ridiculous.
You do not have a proper interpretation of Scripture.
Jun 17th, 2008
WA
…fine, if the warnings are “a means” (I stand corrected) I’d still like for you (still) to justify this claim to knowledge anyway. Just provide the scriptural passage to justify this claim that the warnings are “a means” as oppose to them being real (ontologically speaking)?….for the sake of argument, I’ll grant you that my argument is a strawman. So help me understand: What would become of believers’ preservation if the warnings were not given? Just tackle this for a moment and discuss how we would be preserved if it were the case that, the warnings were not given.
If we go at it this way, perhaps we can make more headway.
You said, “On one hand you paint me as saying the warnings are to false professors (bachelors)…” But this is exactly what you unequivocally said, here are your very own words: “Since the warning passages in question were *written to* professing believers (true and false)…,” Ah, you see! You may now see how illogical and incoherent it would be to apply the warnings to “professing believers” (false ones, at that), but you most certainly said it, and all I did was to go a step further and take it to its logical entailment. I conclude, then, (and hopefully you see this now), that the warnings are logically relevant only to true believers—correspondingly, as it would seem ridiculous to warn bachelors not to divorce!
And to Mario: by “ontological apostasy” I mean simply what Brad explains in his recent post. It just means that they are real and not hypothetical. Even in our day, just as in biblical times, warnings should be taken real and serious, unless there is evidence to believe othrewise. So by “ontology” describes more a type of action, and make no committments to what really can happen. We have to leave it up to scripture to find examples of an apostate who was regenerated. Hope this helps. If this is not clear I’ll take another stab at it.
Jun 17th, 2008
Stephen Macasil
RE: “Since the warning passages in question were *written to* professing believers (true and false)…,” Ah, you see! You may now see how illogical and incoherent it would be to apply the warnings to “professing believers” (false ones, at that), but you most certainly said it, and all I did was to go a step further and take it to its logical entailment. I conclude, then, (and hopefully you see this now), that the warnings are logically relevant only to true believers—correspondingly, as it would seem ridiculous to warn bachelors not to divorce!
*It does not follow that since the warning passages were written to professing believers which would include true and false professions, that election is conditional. I agree that it would be ridiculous to warn bachelors not to divorce. But that breaks down since a bachelor is one who isn’t married – yet. His bachelorhood does not imply immutability, nor does it exempt him from receiving the warning from a speaker at a marriage conference as authentic. The warning wouldn’t be superfluous or meaningless since it was given at a marriage conference from a lecturn on a stage without the speaker knowing if one, two, or however many bachelors were in attendance.
RE: So help me understand: What would become of believers’ preservation if the warnings were not given? Just tackle this for a moment and discuss how we would be preserved if it were the case that, the warnings were not given.
*I thought you said you weren’t a molinist!
I’ll deal with this “possible world” scenario
The doctrine of eternal security and the perseverance of the saints is not revealed in Scripture as being fully dependent on warnings. This idea arose on your end somewhere. It is revealed as based on promises, ultimately on the New Covenant.
Scripture reveals that we can be confident that God began our salvation and he will continue saving us until Christ returns (Phil. 1:6).
Scripture reveals that we are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation (1 Pet. 1:5).
Scripture reveals that NOTHING OR NO ONE can separate us from God (Rom. 8).
Scripture reveals that Christ will lose none that are given to him by the Father (John 6), and that he will give them eternal life, they shall never perish, and cannot be removed from his hand (John 10:28).
If the warnings were never made, these few of many passages would remain and warrant belief in the doctrine.
Jun 17th, 2008
WA
Stephen cites WCF and then asks: “Do you object to WCF 1.10?” Ans.: Yes(!) because the statement is self-refuting. That is, the statement does not include itself among those things that should be biblically evaluated. Neither am I under obligation to accept it since it is thoroughly fallible, autonomous, nor is it authoritative such that, it must be followed by all. “Only what is taught in scripture is authoritative,” and therefore binding on the conscious.
Speaking of WCF, Brad said earlier, “…it is the most coherent source of biblical systematic thinking every written, and it has great value in reining in abberant thought.”
What a case of narcissistic denominational hubris, really?…”ever written[!!!}”…First, “scripture is too richly textured and inexhaustible for any one system to speak in a final way all that the bible speaks.” Job 9:10 (NRS) “who does great things beyond understanding, and marvelous things without number.” Far from being “coherent” (see previous paragraph), I take offense that a late-medieval autonomous anti-Romanist confessional document can in any way supplant the scripture’s efficacy in “reining in abberant thought.” Brad (indirectly) seems to vouch for the utterances of sinful men and make secondary the Holy Writ to the ravages of those who are by nature its enemies. “If Christians submit the Revelation of God in any way to the analyses of [autonomous] men and their myriad disciplines, they truly “cast pearls before swine.”
“Any anthropological informing of the text is the pursuit of anthropocentric religion. It not only denies the fallen status of man’s faculties but also presupposes the autonomous omniscience of man via his ability to procure perfectly and exhaustively the “hidden knowledge” by which he will inform an insufficient bible. If the word eisegesis means anything at all, it is surely typified by such an approach,” such as proposed by Brad.
Jun 18th, 2008
Brad B
Hi WA, I guess I’m starting to see a pattern with your thinking and I’ve been wondering how it synthesizes with the whole of scripture and it seems from you last paragraph written above that you think that the scriptures are the only way that the truths revealed therein are delivered. Sounds like a solo scriptura-ist, but I think I know better by this sentence:”Far from being “coherent” (see previous paragraph), I take offense that a late-medieval autonomous anti-Romanist confessional document can in any way supplant the scripture’s efficacy in “reining in abberant thought.” “Would you please cite a trustworthy source for sound biblical coherency, I’m not asking for perfectly sound and coherent, just one you trust to support your quest for understanding God’s word more fully.
I’ll say this, that what you’ve stated concerning the security of the believer, there are a lot of implications that offend what the WCF devines wrote, so I’m not supprised to see that you hold it in such low regard. I think you a lot closer to Rome than Evangelical from what you write, so either I just dont “get” what you are trying to say, or your system is incoherent like Rome’s is. One thing I know for sure is that you do not hold to a monergistic view of salvation, otherwise you’d be a relativist on the same level as most Roman apologists are.
One thing that you cant say about WCF is that it is inconsistent or illogical as a system. Your defense of the position you hold amounts to quoting the scriptures without taking into consideration the implications of this rigid view, thus seemingly ignoring other clear scriptures. The doctrine of sola scriptura [not to be confused with solo scriptura] doesn’t preclude what Eph. 4 states. It is no less the word of God if I say what the scriptures teach just because I’m fallen. God revealed truths, if I relay them, they are no less true or no less His word–this is the doctrine of sola scriptura. Of course if one says that he is repaeating God’s word and there is a dispute, the revealed written word is the final judge–so far as it is correctly interpreted by gifted men, maybe even some of them from 4 hundred years ago or 2 thousand.
I’m not going to spend more time defending the WCF, but want to ask again, what is it about the person, that separates the one who perseveres in faith from the one who falls from grace? I’ll warn you that any answer you give other than nothing makes God a debtor and merit is necessary and grace is no longer grace. Sounds very Roman, and much to high a price to pay to accept your exegesis.
Brad B
Jun 18th, 2008
Stephen Macasil
WA said: “Stephen cites WCF and then asks: ‘Do you object to WCF 1.10?’ Ans.: Yes(!) because the statement is self-refuting. That is, the statement does not include itself among those things that should be biblically evaluated.”
Folks, this is nothing more than sloppy, uninformed thinking. WA has poorly deduced the contents of the first chapter of the WCF. Some kind of mental disconnect is evident somewhere between what the Divines wrote and what WA understands. It might even be a spiritual disconnect.
Chapter One (WCF) is “Of the Holy Scripture.” I quoted from Chapter One, paragraph ten (1.10) which states that the Holy Spirit speaking in Scripture is the supreme judge of:
ALL controversies of religion (including the WCF)
All decrees and councils (including the WGA, WCF)
All opinions of ancient writers (including the WCF)
All doctrines of men (including the WCF)
All private spirits (including WA, since he rejects sola scriptura)
I am no longer puzzled by his continual unwillingness to submit to God’s Word and the principle/doctrine of sola scriptura as the rule of faith (what to believe and how to live).
We have a good example in WA of what the consequences of rejecting Biblical Theism looks like. Since he has exchanged Biblical Theism for the humanistic principle of autonomy, it is no wonder there is a great divide between us. WA’s on the road to Rome, if not in her bosom already.
Brad, you were quoted by WA as saying, “…it [WCF] is the most coherent source of biblical systematic thinking every written, and it has great value in reining in abberant thought.”
Well said. I like how Morey puts it: “The WCF is the best summary of what the Bible teaches about itself, in confessional form.”
Jun 18th, 2008
David
Can I be allowed to participate? I’d like to suggest a few constructive points to pull the threads of the discussion and see if it can make progress on some crucial matters.
Jun 19th, 2008
Glen
WA,
Question… Do you believe that there is only ONE true interpretation (not application) of Scripture?
Jun 19th, 2008
Johnny B
WA, did you miss my question, on who the “them” are in verse 28?
Jun 19th, 2008
David
Before I offer some constructive points, I’d like to request Stephen to kindly provide a direct quote, if you can, where WA rejects sola scriptura. His statements seem to point in the opposite direction. Anyhow, directly or implicitly would be fine without reading too much into his statement(s). For instance, I might have missed this but, has he appealed to another written source outside scritpure? I appreciate this, thanks.
Jun 19th, 2008
Phillip
Glen asked: “Do you believe that there is only ONE true interpretation (not application) of scripture?”
It has been said that the scriptures cannot mean something for us today that they did not mean for their original audiences when originally written. Put another way, the original author’s intent sets the boundaries and limits for what his text can mean today. Thus, it is the job of the interpreter to discern the original intent of the author in light of the various historical and grammatical contexts. So, yes, the scriptures have ONE objective meaning or interpretation.
This is the dichotomy we work with: meaning vs. significance, interpretation vs. application. The objective meaning of the text is that timeless principle which is applicable to both the original audience and the contemporary one. Once that is discerned, with the Holy Spirit’s help of course, we can then bring that timeless truth to bear upon our present circumstances in ways that are similar to how the original author’s brought it to bear upon the circumstances of their audiences. This is the goal of hermeneutics pure and simple.
Jun 19th, 2008
Stephen Macasil
David,
You said: “I’d like to request Stephen to kindly provide a direct quote, if you can, where WA rejects sola scriptura.”
After being unrighteously accused (by WA) of appealing to the WCF as the origin of doctrine, I disclosed: “The WCF was brought in to credit the source from which I lifted the articulation of the application of sola scriptura (The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture. WCF 1.10) Do you object to WCF 1.10?”
I asked if WA objects to WCF 1.10, he responded:
“Stephen cites WCF and then asks: “Do you object to WCF 1.10?” Ans.: Yes(!)”
He also rejects the principle in practice as well. He puts forth the idea that genuine conversion can be undone or reversed (ontological apostasy). I quoted from Scripture the words of Jesus as told by John that explicitly state the opposite of WA’s assertion, and rather than theologizing in submission to Scripture and abandoning the position that ultimately says Jesus was a liar, he continues to promote his ideas via argumentation based on the axiom of human autonomy.
This is a rejection of sola scriptura.
This is sola ratione.
Jun 19th, 2008
Brad B
Hi David, Steven responded to your direct question about where has WA rejected sola scriptura and I wanted to add in answer to your last question “has he appealed to another written source outside scripture?”. He hasn’t to my knowledge, but this can still be consistent with denying sola scriptura, because for some sola isn’t good enough, solo scripura is their mistaken higher version. This version allows men to freely run wild and ignore earlier sound teaching and it denies that God has and does use gifted men to minister to His people. Eph 4 is a good proof text for this and it’s prideful to think that the earlier generations were mislead. It’s also a slap to the face of our Savior that He cannot deliver truth to His bride. Every time a preacher takes the pulpit, so long as he’s faithfully orthodox to the scriptures, he is preaching Gods Word equal to the scriptures. Every time a person states the gospel message clearly and faithfully, it is God’s Word equal to the scriptures. Saying that the Bible is the only true source for revealed truth is a perversion of sola scriptura because even the Bible denies that version.
As to WA’s position that truely born again ones can fall from grace, I have this point to make. Considering imputation, the Roman view is that it is a case of legal fiction to say that God declares men righteous and that it isn’t “real righteousness” so it cant be the correct view. They then build a whole system to support the view that men must be made righteous in and of themselves to prove their inclusion into the family of God. While doing this, they should suffer losing the truth of imputed sin [original sin], but they dont they just become inconsistent.
Similarly, WA says that warnings cannot really be warnings unless he sees that it is a real possibility for the truely regenerated to fall from grace. It seems odd that a warning that is obeyed is given less power by WA’s stated view than the warning that is ignored. I say this because he wants to make the orthodox veiw say that if one doesn’t perfect his salvation through obedience, and he is not compelled to fear God and His warnings, then the man has the power to overrule an act by God. So not only does disobedience thwart God’s plan, He [God] cannot communicate through the fearlessness of one of His beloved such that he repents from his sin and fears his Maker and Supreme Judge. Now thats powerful stuff. Like I said before, this sounds Romish enough to be called orthodox Roman Catholic.
Brad B
Jun 19th, 2008
David
Hi everyone, and thanks for fulfilling my request. I don’t pretend to be a moderator here, but by closely looking at the discussion by far, there are some points that need attention to carry it along further.
With all due respect, Stephen, I think it might have been virulent of feeling to call someone’s thinking “sloppy,” “or uninformed,” “spiritual disconnect,” however deserved. When WA said, “Only what is taught in scripture is authoritative,” and therefore binding on the conscious,” seems like a strong appraisal of sola scriptura. WA can correct me if I’m mistaken, but I gather that what he rejects is not the scripture itself, but the statement as it is derived from WCF. Perhaps WA should have been clear that the concept of WCF 1.10 is perfectly acceptable. But I think it might have been an exaggeration to throw it all out at once on his part. Besides, all the points enumerated by 1.10 are non-controversial to any full-fledged committed Christian. I think that had you quoted 2 Tim. 3.16 instead, that would have made everyone happy, including WA.
Brad mentioned something about the warnings as “secondary causes.” The closest I came up with in finding support for this is in WCF (art. 3.1). But even there the reference is with respect to sin and evil and not our topic at hand. Maybe the confession can help us, but it must cite the scriptural evidence, lest we be accused of our doctrine being laden with tradition without scriptural support.
Being Reformed myself and firmly hold to sola scriptura, I am quite unsatisfied with responses given concerning the warning passages. I am sympathetic to the idea that the warnings are “a means” or even hypothetical. If such be the case, this would end the discussion. In essence, the warnings are hypothetical to encourage Christians to persevere, but true believers cannot fall away as promised. If we are all committed to sola scriptura, by definition, then we must provide the biblical evidence that says that the nature of the warnings are as such. This is what WA has been asking for on several occasions, and it simply cannot be ignored. I have been looking for a verse, but no luck. We cannot just simply say this and assume that it is the case. Responsibly, we have to “back it up” as they say.
Think of it this way: If I continue to shout a doctrinal assumption from the roof top, no matter how loud, if I am unable to provide biblical warrant for my claim, then it should not merit any attention. Just one verse guys will, I believe, crush WA’s claim. Would it be fair to say that, the hypothetical thesis might be a case of sola ratione in case I’m unable to produce biblical evidence? If not sola ratione, at least suspect at best?
Another point I want to raise is that, I’m not sure if WA has been raising his points “based on the axiom of human autonomy,” as Stephen charges. This accusation seems uncharitable in light of fact that WA has cited Heb. 2.2-3 (it does say “salvation,” in fact), Rev. 3.5 (Christ warning to “blot out” folk), and the olive tree metaphor in Rom. 11.17ff (he didn’t comment on this verse), etc., for his claims. Stephen, this might have been an oversight, but he has indeed provided scripture. If my memory serves me well, you haven’t attempted to deal with these passages straightforwardly. You should try to grapple with them.
WA has provided great points, but his major setback, as I see it, is that he needs to elaborate how his view of the warning passages can be reconciled with the strong statements of preservation in scripture. He says he believes both of them to be true, but this might be insufficient and requires elaboration.
I agree that WA makes Jesus to be a liar (Stephen cites John 6, Phil. 1.6, 1 Pet. 1.5 and Rom.8). But WA by the same token can say (I think he has) that Jesus makes Paul and John to be liars. But this will get us nowhere. Stephen, it is not helpful for you to repeat this. Everyone’s task should be to find synthesis, and no one should ignore any part of biblical teaching. We cannot cherry pick our verses and have them overpower or cancel what scripture teaches elsewhere. This is a reductionism of some kind, and we can’t have that. Both Stephen and WA, seem to be placing in opposition one part of the Bible against another, and I think we know better than that.
Scripture is coherent, analogical, and univocal, and we must all strive toward a proper theology that logically and intelligibly coheres with what the scripture says in its whole and not just in isolated parts.
So how shall we proceed? If the warnings are hypothetical (provided biblical evidence can be adduced), then, that would pretty much vindicate Reformed theology. On the other hand, if we are unable to provide evidence, then we must admit that we are leaning upon reason at this point, until evidence is forthcoming. Perhaps even admitting that the warnings are very real and have that kind of “effectual force,” as Brad puts it. Let us stop placing one scripture against another, and perhaps choose a paragraph that we can exegete and see if we can come with some agreeable conclusions, if not reservations. Lastly, WA needs to elaborate how God’s power to protect can be undermined in light of his ontological warning thesis.
Everyone has work to do—I’ll still be looking for that verse. Thanks, guys.
Jun 19th, 2008
WA
“Solo” scriptura, properly defined, is that method of deployment whereby scripture is evaluated by radical individualism and a rejection of the ecumenical creeds. So defined, I would also reject this approach as it evaporates those ecclesiastical borders by which orthodoxy is propunded and characteristically distinguished from heretical and liberal theology.
I would simply take issues that WCF is not, and cannot be, defined as an ecumenical creed in virute that it is peppered and teeming with doctrinal controversies, which presupposes its fallibility and substandardness (I would agree with some but not all its tenets, insofar as exegesis goes). Further, it is denominationally distinctive and thereby its authority is locally limited. A many good imminent scholars have reservations with its teachings, and are still respectful Christians in the community. WCF is not a global standard.
Therefore, I reject “solo” scriptura insofar as it subjects the interpretation of scripture to the whims of indiviudalism devoid of seeking out, and standing on the shoulders of, those before us that has reflected deeply on the bible–all the while maintaining a critical observation, for, men do err.
In passing, there is ONE sole interpretation of texts insofar as scripture itself provides this restriction. If there is more than one, then must allow the text itself to supernaturally give us this cue. Applications are many, but still bounded by the objectivity of exegesis itself. A denial of this leads to reader response criticism where everyone is entitled to their peculiar understanding as they see fit. On the face of it, such method can have contradictory interpretations and still be true. However, as Morey once put it, “either one is true and the others false, or they are all false, but they cannot all be true at the same time.”
Jun 19th, 2008
Stephen Macasil
OK Phillip, you’re up next!
Jun 19th, 2008
Phillip
Stephen wrote: “OK Phillip, you’re up next!”
And by this, you mean?
Jun 19th, 2008
Stephen Macasil
Aren’t you going to jump in?
Nice response time, by the way!
Jun 19th, 2008
Mario
Very good discussion going on!
It’s always good to see others get exposure to solid biblical material.
David, where are you from? Local?
And what about you Phillip?
We recently had a post from someone in South Africa…….
Jun 19th, 2008
Reformed Mama
Is it me or does David seem to be really in touch with what WA thinks and why…do you two know each other?
Jun 19th, 2008
Stephen Macasil
No, it’s not just you. I made a similar observation.
David seems really in touch with WA, it’s like he speaks for him sometimes. Look:
“WA can correct me if I’m mistaken, but I gather that what he rejects is not the scripture itself, but the statement as it is derived from WCF. Perhaps WA should have been clear that the concept of WCF 1.10 is perfectly acceptable.”
First, he offers his appraisal to WA’s correction, then makes an assumption, then unconsciously assumes his assumption by assumptively speaking for WA [W]hile [A]ssuming WA [W]asn’t [A]s clear enough. WAW!
I mean, WOW!
Jun 19th, 2008
David
My apologies if I stepped on anyone’s toes. Please feel free to correct my thoughts if I laid the emphasis in the wrong areas of the discusion. Maybe they were misplaced? Either way, fire away your thoughts. Whether or not I personally know WA is a peripheral issue.
BTW, I am a student of philosophy, and some of WA’s prose is all too familiar terrain for me. I’m open for correction (presumably by WA), but I think that is the gist of what he is getting at.
I will reveal my candor and admit this: If we are unable to deliver on what is a most fundamental issue of this discussion (assuming we are all sola scriptura enthusiasts), then we are the ones succumbing to sola ratione, I believe. This may mean rethinking, or perhaps abandoning, convictions of my theological heritage. But if said assumptions cannot be demonstrated scripturally, then by all means we may have to jump ship on this one. Afterall, we are after the truth, and the more biblical we are, the more faithful Christians we can be for God’s glory.
As, ironically, WA quoted above, no one system can speak in a final way all that the bible has to say. If I can difuse all false beliefs and traditions of men from my belief system (if I can call it that), the more sanctified my mind becomes.
Jun 20th, 2008
David
I sort of threw out there a proposal to work and stick with a passage that strongly teaches apostasy, and apply an exegetical approach. Here is a case study (Heb. 6.4-6) that someone wrote up, and I think says a lot that will stir the theological pot quite a bit. Let’s all grapple with this passage, shall we. It’s about time we directly interact with a passage that is relevant to our topic.
Recall, it will not do to put in conflict one part of the bible against another, as some have done. This is a task normally mounted by atheists and humanists. Let’s come to grips with this passage, having in mind that no one should be afraid of the truth. When push comes to shove, it will be apparent who has an intellectual attachment to their theological heritage, and thus praises the traditions of men over the bible.
——————————————
The description of the person who is impossible to restore is said to be one who has: 1) once (hapax) been enlightened; 2) has tasted of the heavenly gift; 3) has become a sharer of the Holy Spirit; and 4) has tasted the goodness of God=s word and the powers of the age to come. A more fulsome description of a Christian would be hard to find in the NT. In the first place the term enlightened is regularly used in the NT for those who have come out of darkness into the light, and so have gone through the necessary conversion of the imagination and intellect (cf. Jn. 1.9; 2 Cor. 4.4-6; Ephes. 1.18; 2 Tim. 1.10; 1 Pet. 2.9). In the second place, the verb ‘tasted= means genuinely experienced as we have already seen in Heb. 2.9 which speaks of Christ experiencing death. In the third place the term metoxous has already been used in this discourse in relationship to the heavenly calling of Christians (3.1) and to Christians being sharers or partners with Christ. Having >shared in= the Holy Spirit is the hallmark of being a Christian as Heb. 2.4 stresses along with numerous other NT witnesses, particularly Paul (see 1 Cor. 12), and Luke (see e.g. Acts 2 and 10). The phrase means to have taken the Spirit into one=s own being. If it were not perfectly clear that our author is describing someone with the divine presence and power of God in their life our author goes on to add that this person has experienced the goodness of God=s Word and also the eschatological power of the age to come. Paul it will be remembered called such experiences the foretaste of glory divine that only Christians experienced (2 Cor. 1.22; Ephes. 1.14). AIn this and the three preceding participles, the writer withholds nothing in reminding the addressees of the abundance of God=s investment in them. Upon them God has poured out more than they could ever have asked or imagined.
De Silva tries to cut the Gordian knot of this problematic text here by stressing that for the author of Hebrews salvation is a (purely) future and eschatological matter. This however is not quite correct. While the clear emphasis in Hebrews is on ‘final= or ‘eschatological salvation= (see 1.14; 9.28) and de Silva is quite right in his criticism of those who try to read Ephes. 2.6 into the discussion which speaks of initial salvation through faith, as though that text refers to eternal security, when it does not (rather the subject there is conversion) it is false to say that the author of Hebrews only thinks of salvation as something future. At the very least one must give the last clause of Heb. 6.5 its due— he speaks of those who have already tasted the powers of the age to come. They are working retroactively. In other words, future salvation and its benefits have broken into the present and one can presently begin to experience its benefits— in the form of enlightenment, life in the Spirit, empowerment with the power of the eschatological age, and so forth. This is surely a description of a person who is saved and converted in the initial sense of the term saved. It is then a distinction without a difference to argue that our author agrees he is speaking about a Christian who has every advantage presently available through God’s grace and characteristic of a Christian, but then to insist our author doesn’t prefer to say they are saved. They have partaken of the heavenly giftCthis is surely the same thing as saying they are saved at least in the sense that they have been genuinely converted and are Christians at present.
And then our author says what seems almost unthinkableChe uses the verb parapiptô (a verb found nowhere else in the NT) to speak of falling away, not in the sense of accidentally or carelessly falling down, but in the sense of deliberately stepping into a black hole. In the LXX this verb is used to describe acting faithlessly or treacherously especially in regard to the covenant (Ezek. 14.13; 20.27; 2 Chron. 26.18). “The act of falling away is not so much against a dogma as against a person, at 3.12 against God, at 6.6 against the Son of God. The remainder of v. 6, crucifying again the Son of God and holding him up to ridicule, makes this abundantly clear. Apostasy, yes the sin of abandoning God, Christ, and the fellowship of believers (10.25).” It is possible that our author means by “crucifying the Son to themselves” that they have cut themselves off from the Son, or have killed off his presence in their lives. They have thereby ended their relationship with Christ. He is dead to them.
But the two clauses are related because “to make a public spectacle/paradigm” of someone was one of the functions of public crucifixion on public roads (see Quintilian, Declamations 274). Our author is then suggesting that to commit apostasy is to publicly shame Jesus as well as snuff out one=s personal relationship with him. Heb. 10.26-29 suggests that we should not try to alleviate the severity of the judgment spoken of here in regard to the apostate for it says that for such a person there no longer remains a sacrifice for their sins, but rather a terrifying prospect of judgment. Koester says that we should read the stern remarks here in the light of equally stern ones in the OT, which served as a warning against apostasy and tried to prevent it rather than being definitive statements about perdition (so Philo, Rewards 163). In other words these words were intended to have a specific emotional effect, not comment in the abstract about what is impossible. We may also note that it would appear that the wilderness wandering generation and their fate lie in the background here (see Heb. 3.7-19), and the argument here is very similar to the one found in 1 Cor. 10.1-4 where the fate of the wilderness wandering generation is used to warn Corinthian Christians against assuming apostasy was impossible for them since they have been converted and had various divine benefits and rituals. As Johnson stresses however, it is not just from rituals that our author says they are in danger of falling away, it is from actual Christian experience itself—“the enormity of apostasy is measured by the greatness of the experience of God it abandons. That is why it is impossible “to renew to repentance” people who have proven capable of turning away from their own most powerful and transforming experience. It is right to note how Heb. 12.17 will use Esau as the model of the apostate who sold his birthright for a single meal and “even though he sought it with tears, he was rejected, for he found no opportunity to repent
.
Our author chooses then to describe apostasy in horrific terms to abandon one’s loyalty to Christ is the same as crucifying him all over again or standing and ridiculing and deriding him as he dies on the cross. In an honor and shame culture this is intended to be shocking language about the most shameful behavior imaginable for one who has been so richly blessed by God in Christ. We must of course compare the similar language about defection that crops up throughout the discourse (cf. 2.2 “turn away”; 10.38-39 “shrinking back”; 12.15—“falling short of God’s gift”; 12.17 “selling one’s birthright”). It will be well if we take very seriously the word ‘impossible in this text, without suggesting that anything is totally impossible for a sovereign God. Our author does seem to believe that one can go too far, past the point of no return and of restoration. This text then cuts both ways, against either a facile notion that forgiveness is always possible no matter how severe the sin in question is, but it equally must count against the “eternal security” sort of argument as well. Our author clearly emphasizes the future and eschatological dimension of the pilgrimage to being fully and completely saved, and short of that climax one is not viewed as eternally secure, for one is not yet securely in eternity. But at the same time he is perfectly capable of talking about initial salvation in the terms we find here in Heb. 6. As Howard Marshall succinctly puts it in regard to Christians committing apostasy: “The writer is dealing with a real, if remote, possibility.”
Jun 20th, 2008
Johnny B
WA said “The point in Rev. 3.5 is that God cannot warn believers to oust their names out of the Lamb’s book of life if their names are not there in the first place. Why is it that I can’t get anyone to deal straightforwardly with this verse and Heb. 2.3. Deal with them. If it is not clear, maybe I can stated another way.” In another post you mention Heb 2:1-4″
I gave you my thoughts on rev 3:5, so I’d like to go to Heb 2:1-4, focusing on vs 3.
Heb 2:1-4 Here’s how the WUEST Expanded Translation, says. “On this account it is a necessity in the nature of the case for us to give heed more abundantly to the things which we have heard lest at any time we should drift past them. For in view of the fact that the word spoken by angels was steadfast, and every over-stepping of the line and neglecting to hear received a just recompense of reward, how is it possible for us to escape if we neglect so great a salvation, which salvation is of such a character as to have begun to be spoken at the first by the Lord, and was confirmed to us by those who heard Him, God also bearing joint-testimony with them, both with attesting miracles and miracles of a startling, imposing, amazement-waking character, and with variegated miracles, and with distributions [of spiritual gifts] from the Holy Spirit according to His will?”
Here’s what he says, about verse 3 “How” is from ‘pos’ which means “how is it possible?” The rhetorical question expresses a denial. There would be no escape. The word “we” in the Greek text is emphatic. The pronoun refers here to the first-century readers of this letter, its Jewish recipients. It is “we” to whom God spoke in One who in character is His Son, and who therefore have much more reason for giving heed. “Escape” is the translation of ‘ekpheugo’ which means literally “to flee out from.”
The words “if we neglect” have their primary reference to the Jews of the period in which the writer lived, who had outwardly left the temple sacrifices, had made a profession of Messiah as High Priest, and who under stress of persecution from apostate Judaism, were neglecting attendance upon the means of grace (10:25), were allowing themselves to drift by New Testament truth, were leaning back towards the First Testament, and were in danger of returning to the temple sacrifices, an act that would constitute the sin known as apostasy, from which there would be no recovery. The writer is trying to keep them from committing that sin.”
Here’s what W. E. Vine says about verse 3 “how shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation? — ‘ameleoµ’ denotes to be careless about ( a, not; ‘meleoµ’ , to care), not to regard. To neglect the salvation is to give no heed to it instead of making it our own. The word is used in 8:9 , “I regarded [them] not.”
It is “so great” because procured by God and unconditionally offered through the expiatory sacrifice of His Son, whose glory the Epistle has been presenting. Peter had warned of the danger of refusing to hearken to Christ ( Acts 3:23 ).
which having at the first been spoken through the Lord, was confirmed unto us by them that heard; —“at the first” is, lit. , taking a beginning: Christ was the first one to proclaim it. It was confirmed (the verb corresponding to the noun rendered “steadfast”) by those who actually listened to His voice.”
Adam Clarke, on 2:3 “The salvation mentioned here is the whole system of Christianity, with all the privileges it confers; properly called a salvation, because, by bringing such an abundance of heavenly light into the world, it saves or delivers men from the kingdom of darkness, ignorance, error, superstition, and idolatry; and provides all the requisite means to free them from the power, guilt, and contamination of sin. This salvation is great when compared with that granted to the Jews…………….. Those who neglect it, ‘amelhsantev’ , are not only they who oppose or persecute it, but they who pay no regard to it; who do not meddle with it,do not concern themselves about it, do not lay it to heart, and consequently do not get their hearts changed by it. Now these cannot escape the coming judgments of God; not merely because they oppose his will and commandment, but because they sin against the very cause and means of their deliverance. As there is but one remedy by which their diseased souls can be saved, so by refusing to apply that one remedy they must necessarily perish.”
None of these were Calvinist, that I know of, if I’m wrong, sorry. I know Clarke, was a Wesleyan. He agrees, with the others. No apostatizing of true believers.
Jun 20th, 2008
WA
To get the ball rolling back again, I want to respond to a few comments. David perceptively has captured “the gist” of what I was trying to say. Conceptually, I do accept (art. 1.10), but I do reject WCF as having any binding authority on those who find its theological and philosophical assumptions questionable at best, and erroneous at worst. It is more or less, it seems to me, an assault on the perspicuity of scripture—beyond its clear teaching—for its ability to communicate perfectly God’s will to men. At this point both the sufficiency and the perspicuity of scripture have been abandoned by the adoption of an external fallible source on matters of controversy.
On an earlier post, Brad takes issue with my thesis that the warnings in scripture are real (as oppose to hypothetical bluffs—a theoretical burden that he and others have yet to shoulder). He decries my approach when he roughly says: “The biggest problem I see is what you have do to God in order to hold onto this view. The *implications* are severe yet you are willing to go there-limiting Gods sovereignty over his creation and His creatures.” A couple of comments are in order. First, someone should inform Brad that *exegetical results* and *implications* are distinct and not one and the same. “Implications,” by definition,” are a by-product of said exegesis. Put in proper perspective, it is he [Brad] who derives these implications, not I. Secondly, he then assumes these self-inflicted *implications,* and dismisses them because, in sum, he says that if the warnings are so exegeted, then, that “puts them in conflict with a truly Sovereign God.” Rather than tackle first-hand the troubling texts (see exegesis of Heb. 6.4-6 above), through bare assumption, he plays the selectivity card (i.e,., “cherry picking”), and seizes upon his pet sovereignty verses to overpower, conflict, and swallow-up what the bible teaches elsewhere on apostasy. David has exposed this fallacious maneuver above. Further, it seems that Brad is twisting scripture to prioritize his own preferred views. Instead of accepting these theological tensions, he is tempted through reason (not methodological exegesis) to reject one biblical teaching to the exclusion, or minimizing, of the other. For, reason informs him of an unbiblical view of sovereignty such that, it cannot co-exist with warnings that are real. I have yet to speak such nonsense for my view; for instance, arguing the inverse: “but if God’s sovereignty is so construed, then that would minimize the seriousness of the warnings.” No, and as I said before I hold them both to be true, and unlike Brad, I accept the tension and resist the temptation from reason to tamper with them.
Brad seems to go beyond the limits of the bible in attempting to reconcile the two. And when he does, he ends up minimizing or excluding one in the name of reason. He excludes a realist view of the warnings though his self-autonomous derived “implications” not because he made an exegetical effort to show *how* the bible reconciles these two, but because it offends his WCF rational impulses. Brad holds a high (WCF, not biblical) view of sovereignty, but he cannot assume what he first must prove, namely, that such a view can drown out such a passage as Heb. 6.4-6. It must be given its place to speak on its own terms.
If we take the exegesis of Heb. 6.4-6 above to be sound (and it is), we have a case in which the bible paints a portrait of genuine converted Christians capable of re-crucifying Christ all over again. When the author describes the group as being “enlightened,” tasted of the heavenly gift,” “partakers of the Holy Spirit,” “tasted the good word of God” (Heb. 6.4-5), such descriptions are reminiscent of genuine Christian initiation and conversion. The next phrase offers a colossal dent to the WCF conjectures, when it says, “and THEN HAVE FALLEN AWAY, since on their own they are crucifying again the Son of God and are holding him up to contempt” (v. 6). The scripture says plainly that such Christians (vv. 4-5), can “fall away” from these soteriological and redemptive benefits, and is contradicted by WCF. Moreover, the elect are far capable of “crucifying again the Son of God,” to the point that “it is impossible to bring such people back to repentance” (v. 6). Cf. Heb. 10.26: “…there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins.” I can say more about this beneath the surface, but I’ll await objections to the original post above.
Jun 20th, 2008
Brad B
Hi David, while your at it, [looking for the 1 verse], keep an eye out for the one that proves the doctrine of the trinity also. I’m joking of course. I can appreciate it that you are interested in moving this discussion forward, and I think I’ll try to do the same, but in a different way I suspect.
I think WA ought to make a statement of God’s sovereignty, and we wont have to have ages old debates over what the scriptures actually mean. The doctrines of grace called Calvinism give a view of God as totally sovereign over His creation and creatures so by logical extension these verses are systematically exegeted with the revealed nature of God in mind. Another view of God would see the verses differently which is why I’ve accused his view of being Roman a few times. Just the mere statement WA makes, that it is “actually” possible for born again ones to fall from grace tells us a lot of what his view of God is, even though he seems to want be vague there.
We can save ourselves a lot of time by skipping the peripherals and go the to heart of the matter. Did God from eternity past ordain whatsoever comes to pass or not? If He did, and He is reliable, unchangeable and powerful as the scriptures delcare, we dont need to debate verse against verse. I dont feel the need to correct WA, but if he’s going to call himself evangelical, he’ll have to be consistent with evangelical doctrines of God, perspecuity of the scriptures, and especially the doctrines of grace or else he’s not evangelical.
Brad B
Jun 20th, 2008
Brad B
HiWA, I must’ve been writing at the same time as you. I just want to tell you that your characterization of my view of the scriptures having to conform to the doctrines of the Protestant reformation is pretty much right on and I dont apologize for that in the least.
I think this, our view of who God is will forever cause disagreement in what we think is being revealed through the scriptures. I dont think the warning verses are less real if the stated penalty doesn’t *acutally* occur. You do, I dont. Your characterization of me above on this point is wrong. I believe that God can warn me with a surity that I’ll heed the warning and never fall just as He does to all of His. In the same way Jesus was tempted by Satan with a real temptation that He felt and dealt with BUT HE WAS IN NO WAY GOING TO FALL. Would you also say that Jesus’ temptation was not real? I somehow suspect you would if you are consistent in your judgements.
The Doctrines of Grace that gives glory to God like no other doctrines produce a contra logical tension that many wont deal with. It’s like “he who seeks to save his life will lose it” Dying to self to glorify God produces an aliveness so far beyond that produced by holding onto some speck of man glory.
You want to wrestle with the tension there, I’ve done that for many years so dont say I avoid it. I can tell you that “rest” will never come if you believe that you can perfect your salvation which is what your view requires. Rest will come when you know that the One who foreknew you from before the foundation of the world has planned every aspect of your life even your failures but that He will deliver. Trusting Him while I “work out my own salvation with trembling and fear” is more real to me now than ever before I knew the Augustinian scheme. The doctrine that I love is the one that tells me that I dont have to “work” because my work is dirty still, but that doesn’t mean that I dont personally have to strive, suffer, fail, confess, fail, confess. This all comes from within [read law gospel distinction] not from without, from the same place that the real warnings have their effect in this way, the consequence will never ever happen-I’m safe in the flock of the Shepherd he wont let me wander.
Brad B
Jun 20th, 2008
Mario Herrera
WA,
Explain how verse 9 ties into what you stated above.
Jun 20th, 2008
Stephen Macasil
WA said:
“I do reject WCF as having any binding authority on those who find its theological and philosophical assumptions questionable at best, and erroneous at worst. It is more or less, it seems to me, an assault on the perspicuity of scripture—beyond its clear teaching—for its ability to communicate perfectly God’s will to men. At this point both the sufficiency and the perspicuity of scripture have been abandoned by the adoption of an external fallible source on matters of controversy.”
a) WCF does not claim to have binding authority, nor does it aim to have binding authority. It’s a confession of faith! In other words, it says: This is what we believe! And included in the WCF is the absolute affirmation of the full authority of Scripture (1.4).
b) It becomes most evident that you are grossly misinformed when you make statements such as “It is more or less, it seems to me, an assault on the perspicuity of scripture…” -and- “At this point both the sufficiency and the perspicuity of scripture have been abandoned by the adoption of an external fallible source on matters of controversy.”
c) Sufficiency and Perspicuity are both included among the “what we believe” that the confession of faith contains. How you come up with such fragile appraisals is unimaginable.
“All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all: yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.” (WCF 1.7)
d) More proof that you are without right understanding lies in your false claim that we have adopted the WCF as “an external fallible source on matters of controversy.” Nothing but a straw man. The WCF attributes the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture as the supreme judge over all controversies of religion (1.10), not itself as you’ve incorrectly assumed.
Jun 20th, 2008
David
aa) If it doesn’t have binding authority, then you must state why you brought it up in the first place. In the clause “what WE believe…” I’m sure that those that don’t agree with it will not include themselves in the “we.” It’s a confession for YOU but not with your dissenters. What YOU believe is what you are debating and so you should not beg the question.
c) Sufficiency and Perspicuity are both included among the “what we believe” that the confession of faith contains. How you come up with such fragile appraisals is unimaginable.
bb) Stephen, don’t take things out of context. WA
Jun 21st, 2008
David
cc)…sorry. I meant to say that the discussion was restricted under (art. 1.10), and for your criticism to go that far is to go beyond what was restricted.
dd) But the WCF attributes to scripture what the Scripture does itself. I’m puzzled at this point as to how would you bring it up in this discussion?
At any rate, this is a peripheral issue; we are getting completely sidetracked. I don’t know, Stephen, what to make of this(?) Why would you think it worth while to take time to defend WCF rather than the exegesis above, which according to WA and others, would destroy your assumptions.
I guess maybe the request here is that you do the exegetical work yourself rather than what WCF assumes by default. Let me know if you’re willing to get your hands dirty and apply exegetical methdology.
Jun 21st, 2008
Johnny B
I feel left out
Jun 21st, 2008
WA
Johnny, actually you should feel quite the opposite. You are the only one, and now thankfully Mario (with his excellent question, which I will get to later in the day), that have had the courage to come out of your Reformed traditional bunker and find harmony with what scripture teaches elsewhere. Brad and Stephen are still flies stuck in the WCF bottle, while you and Mario have perceptively managed to step outside, and see the wider picture, which is theologically prudential.
I’ll get to your last post soon (although David’s post should qualify what you have written), and I suspect that Mario “probably” think that v. 9 of Heb. 6 should cancel vv. 4-6 AND its “implications. Harmony is what we are after though, and not putting scripture in conflict. Agreed?
Jun 21st, 2008
David
Brad,
I’m not a fan of single-verse exegesis. I meant to say a verse, if not a whole passage. Ironically, if you read Morey’s “Trinity & Issues” pp. 87-106, he provides exegetical evidence where the multi-personhood of God (Trinity) can be shown in a verse or an entire context (Isaiah 48.12-17) is my favorite). Matthew 28.19 or Deut. 6.4 alone can do the job, at least to a certain extent. So far from being a joke, if you believe that the warnings are simply hypothetical bluffs (real, but its consequences cannot be actualized by the elect), anyone with a strong sense of sola scriptura is going to take you to task on that assumption.
Brad, on your questions of God’s sovereignty, no one would argue against such a view. But like it has been said repeatedly (pardon me but it is getting annoying at this point), you cannot take God’s sovereignty and use it as a magic wand through which everything is understood. Does that make sense? The bible is richly diverse, and we must explore what these warning passages say on THEIR OWN TERMS.
So Brad you are asking questions that inherently contain assumptions that are true on YOUR presuppositions, but not on the presuppositions of those you hare arguing against. That is to beg the question. To summarize, we are asking if the warnings are real, can they be real only in propositional form, but its consequences cannot happen to the elect (i.e., “hypothetical bluffs”). You are not corresponding here with the exegesis of Heb. 6.4-6 directly, for instance, but you are trying to counter it by undermining it seriousness with what scripture says elsewhere on God’s sovereignty, which leaves the bible with an internal conflict.
It is an elementary point in argumentation that you cannot resort to rough-hewn assumptions of what your theological tradition has taught you because that’s what the debate is all about. What is obvious to you is only on your presuppositions, and it is those that are here in question. If this doesn’t help, I don’t know how else to put it.
Jun 21st, 2008
Johnny B
WA, so you don’t see, that 2:3 sets the stage for all the Scripture, in Hebrews, that you have mentioned and why the book was written. Even Adam Clarke, say that, it’s not an apostate, Scripture.
WA, as I mentioned, I believed as you do now, and it wasn’t that long ago. Hermeneutics is the key to understanding a lot of what you are interpreting as apostate proof text.
So do you believe that a person, can never return to the salvation, once they’ve left their salvation?
Jun 21st, 2008
Brad B
Hi David and WA, since you both have some sort of aversion to my taking into account the nature of God’s sovereignty when surveying the scriptures as though it negates my understanding at face value. Well couldn’t the same charge be leveled against you, which is what I’ve been saying. Your view of God is at play also. So why are you asking for a debate of what the scriptures mean? Ought not the questions then be surrounding whether it’s consistent with the revealed nature of God and His involvement in redemption? If WCF has gotten that right,
we have a solid claim if your charge is right, our view of God, errs.
I wont claim that I’ve heard every arguement about Heb. 6 and the whole of Heb with the warnings in fact, but I’m sure I dont want to go there with you because I’m just as sure that the root answer is not found in pitting scripture against scripture without the overriding context of what exactly did God do and what did man do as it regards salvation.
The implications of your view is an assault on grace. I asked before and I’ll ask again, what is the difference between the ones who persevere in the faith and those who dont heed the warnings and fall to eternal separation from God in Hell?
What is it about *them* I’m asking! If it isn’t about God and His purposes, it must be something about them.
Brad B
Jun 21st, 2008
WA
…if the exegesis is correct, and I’ve seen no responses as of yet, the the by-product (”implications”) must be accepted. They offend WCF autonomous impulses but not biblical ones if the exegesis is sound. You’re still caught in the web where you can’t distinguish between exegesis and “implications.”
Your last question is a question of entrapment. That is to say, it goes beyond what the scriptures intend to explain. Secondly, this question is derived from the coherency of what you already assume to be theologically correct. Question begging–period.
Heb. 6..4-6 show powerful descriptions of people who have experienced initial conversion (vv. 4-6). Then it says ipso facto–and this is dreadful to your view–that they “have fallen away.” Deal with it!
You have what it seems a pagan WCF construal of grace where other parts of scripture are canceled, minimized, or you put a semi-hypothetical-bluff spin on the warnings in order to fit a post-rennaisance-reactionary solution.
True theistic sovereignty will uphold both, namely, God’s omnipotent control over all things, and that regenerate believers can fall away as Heb. 6.4-6 shows, 10.29, and Olive tree metaphor in Romans 11.ff.
Jun 21st, 2008
Brad B
WA, Martin Luther would disagree with you also [as I remember one of his responses to Erasmus was if anything is important to know it ought to be what God does and what man does]. You want to minimize the question but it I didn’t make up the question to entrap you, the scriptures do that without my help. Why dont you answer the question? It is not question begging at all, how it is that you cliam that I dont know.
I just want to know what WA thinks when it comes to who does what when it comes to the salvation of man-then I can know what is at stake for you. Do you really think that in the centuries of debates between Rome and the Reformers, with all of the scripture references flying, that they haven’t covered this thoroughly? Of course they have, it is really about the nature of God. One believes the solas of the reformation, the other rejects them because of how they see God.
I will leave the others to debate scritpure meanings with you, better men than me or you have dabated them before. Even you stated that this forum is not the place where a difinitive exhaustive defense could be given. Your view that God can mysteriously become illogical because there are tensions in the scriptures as you last statement discloses causes me to wonder if there are any paradoxical truths that you’ll accept. You are obviously more intelligent and trained in theology and philosophy than I am, but I wonder if common sense hasn’t escaped you. The doctrine of imputation and the example of Jesus’ temptations ought to be high on your list of “hypotheticals” to address, since they are only declared/stated to be so, they cant be “real”.
Brad B
Jun 21st, 2008
Mario
WA,
Explain your “wider picture.”
Jun 21st, 2008
Mario
David said:
“{(pardon me but it is getting annoying at this point), you cannot take God’s sovereignty and use it as a magic wand through which everything is understood.”
David, you are getting annoying at this point! You can’t take what you believe and wave it as a magic wand through which everything is understood! God sovereignty what reigns! Your statement reveals where your thinking lies!
Jun 21st, 2008
Mario
David,
Explain to us your foundation please…..
Jun 21st, 2008
WA
Brad,
O.k., I think it is only fair that you’d be given an answer to your question. But let me ask you this before I give you my take: Do you want me to respond from within the logic of my already held views (which amounts to sheer opinion), or do you prefer I give a biblical-exegetical answer to your question? Which?
Most Reformed folk are suitably trained to refute Pelagian and Semi-Pelagian views of anthropology, and, might I add, are very successful at it. But then, there are Arminians of another stride that are trained exegetes and do not follow the impoverished train of thought of people like Pelagius, Aquinas, Erasmus, etc. So described, if my answer to your question necessarily involves “libertarian free will,” then I know that you are well armed to launch an array of refutations at your disposal because of your training. On the other hand, if I begin (and correctly so) from the scriptures, and provide airtight exegetical arguments for my views, then, this is where most Reformed people find their views to be formidably challenged.
I guess what I am trying to say is, in case no has gotten this yet, I don’t proceed, nor begin, nor use libertarian free will as the core assumption by which I evaluate everything else. I may have spoiled your all-too-familiar way you can devastatingly deliver an attack against such types, but having been privileged to get exegetical training under my belt, I’ve long since abandoned such assumptions and learned to start from the bible, and to reject or radically modify views which are typically inherits from western culture, gut-intuitions, or “what feels good” theology.
Let me know how you want me to proceed, and then I will follow it up with a response to your question. It might wait until Monday so hope you guys are patient.
P.S. …what??? Mario(!), did you read and study the exegetical discourse (ED) posted by David on Heb. 4-6. A clearer foundation cannot be stated! I don’t understand. If you are not looking for exegesis, what exactly are you expecting??? While I work on my post to explain v. 9 to you as you requested, why don’t you work on providing comments of agreement or disagreement on the ED given on 6.4-6.
Jun 22nd, 2008
WA
Brad, you make the plain remark: “I dont think the warning verses are less real if the stated penalty doesn’t *acutally* occur.”
…I had this thought the other day. If I was a homeowner, and if I wanted to protect and announce publicly that the perimeter of my home was well protected and guarded, I would put “Beware of Dog” signs on the post of every door where conspicuous. But wait a sec’! I also know for a fact that I don’t have a dog. So I know that no one’s behind will get bitten by, say, my bullmastiff; but the signs will ensure that people will be frightened at such prospect even though, such consequences cannot “actually” occur. I know it cannot occur because I know my own intentions, and the warnings are merely hypothetical bluffs.
What I’d like to know is how does Brad come to “know” that God has so construed the warnings in such a way that is similar to the homeowner scenario? On the other hand, there are those that “do” have dogs, and the consequences can occur. What special source of “knowledge” does Brad have that informs him that the warnings in Scripture are true in the first sense, but not true in the second sense?
BTW, the point of a bluff is for the person to be ignorant of it so it can work as though it were real. But if Brad “knows” ahead of time that they’re bluffs with respect to their consequences obtaining in “actuality,” how motivated would he be to obey the warnings and take them serious?
Just some thoughts…and waiting an exegetical response and not dogged presumption.
Jun 22nd, 2008
WA
…the only way that makes sense as to how anyone can take the warnings very serious, on the views of Brad and Stephen, is by self-deception and tricking your own self into thinking that the consequences can “occur.” So through self-deception, one can walk in the “fear of the Lord” but by a compromise of the mind. This seems silly to me, but in practical terms, does is what this Reformed proposal amounts to.
Jun 22nd, 2008
Brad B
Hi WA, I’m actually fine if you just give me your opinion, I would be able to infer scriptural proofs-however presumptive that may be on my part. I dont intend to be judgemental about it, by the way. It almost seems as though you disregard “opinion” as though opinions are devoid of serious thought. I dont get any sense that you aren’t intensly honest, so I think your opinion will accurately reflect what you see the scriptures to be saying.
Your last post is most challenging, for me it is the most serious logical challenge or objection you bring. The others have scriptural proofs that outweigh your case in my opinion, doing the work for me. But this one is a legitimate challenge insofar as defending it with consistent logic goes.
Here is my attempt:
When I fear as I’m “examining myself to see if I be in the faith”, it is against these warnings [like guardrails that I bump into]. When I read about those who fell in the wilderness, because of unbelief, I fear that I can be deceiving myelf. At this point I rationally examine my feelings toward God which are reflections of what I think and therefore do. When I see that what the scriptures say about the marks of a believer, one truly born again I see that the Lord has indeed changed me. [I love His law, I love the bretheren, I hate what He hates and love what He loves] When I deliberately disobey what I know to be His clear intention, I then doubt that I’m just believing a lie which makes me fear God and His warnings become all to present and real.
My only hope is in Jesus’ promise to never let me go, His faithfulness is my security. Through my flesh, I’m capable of living a life in pretense but only if I am of the type who see the warnings and do not heed them-this is why I and I suspect others also, fear falling away-it is a sign that we’ve been deceived and are actively deceiving ourselves showing that He never knew me. I received revelation, it wasn’t in or of me this having eyes to see and ears to hear. Growing in knowledge has produced an awareness of God’s purpose in which He has right over His world and my place in it. Even so, I tend toward pride, when I do act it out, the fall comes ala Proverbs and then I feel the fear again that I’ve been deceiving myself.
If I’ve been deceiving myself, none of the promised security belong to me or ever have belonged to me in the first place. If I’ve gained intellectual knowledge of the doctrine OSAS, but never fear this self deception, I doubt the reality of the regeneration. I dont think this actually qualifies as a mind game, because the fear is real and it has the desired effect.
Brad B
Jun 22nd, 2008
Brad B
WA, I wish to add a P.S that says I’ll search for scriptural support for what I said above, because I believe that there is a systematic theme that will support it. It may take a while though but I didn’t want to ignore you request for exegetical response. I dont know of an existing systematic exegetical defense of what I wrote above that I can refer to, so I’ll set about building it. But if anyone [not just WA] has imput on it–feel free for better or worse toward my stated view.
Brad B
Jun 22nd, 2008
WA
Stephen,
You made the following statement: “I agree that it would be ridiculous to warn bachelors not to divorce. But that breaks down since a bachelor is one who isn’t married – yet. His bachelorhood does not imply immutability, nor does it exempt him from receiving the warning from a speaker at a marriage conference as authentic.”
This seems like a sleight of hand—with one hand you give and the other you take. You clearly grant that it is “ridiculous” to warn bachelors (presumably professing “goats”). But you immediately turn this around and conclude that, “The warning wouldn’t be superfluous or meaningless since it was given at a marriage conference from a lectern on a stage without the speaker knowing if one, two, or however many bachelors were in attendance.” There are two fallacies operating here: (1) categorical fallacy; and (2) a false analogy; and not to mention (3) the old labeling and injecting “skepticism” on the author (for a thorough refutation of this see above).
First there are two special senses in which a warning can be understood: (1) the strongest sense is in which, metaphysically, a warning can only logically supervene (“noetically hook-up”) on true believers only because of the warnings presuppose a change in the spiritual state of affairs of the individual. The second sense (and this is not crucial to our debate here), is that bachelors can nonetheless “hear” the warnings not to divorce, but ultimately it is has no metaphysical bearing on them given their “present” (not future) status. All that the second sense shows is that bachelors “have ears”—that’s it. Stephen realizes the metaphysical absurdity that would result from the first sense, but then shifts gears (presumably and mistakenly, under the same sense), and confuses logical-correspondence with merely “hearing,” the warnings. So far from a “break down,” Stephen has confused two elementary senses, and amounts to a categorical fallacy, and should be rejected.
When did I ever say that bachelors don’t have ears? Or that bachelors are not free to marry, for that matter? This is a red herring.
His other blunder is seen when attempting to “still” find application of some sort of the warnings to “professing” believers, he does this by attributing skepticism to the author: “without the speaker knowing” he says. Of course(!), modern day preachers do “not know” who are the fraudulent believers. But this is not true of the inspired author. For, as I argued above, there is a duality of authorship in which it is God who is the speaker (thus omniscient) and uses the author as the instrumental agent in which to communicate divine speech-acts. So unlike Stephen’s contrived analogy, a modern day preacher would “not know” the spiritual status of his congregation, but God does know, hence the sharp difference and it is hopeless to separate the two. Therefore, I reject Stephen’s anachronistic ploy to interpolate a modern idiosyncrasy into the text to salvage a preconceived system. The fallacy is clearly a false analogy, and so it seems that he is stuck as to applying the warnings strictly to believers, but now it is a matter if he thinks the consequences can either truly “happen,” or appeal to a touch-up of good old-fashioned reductionism to the warnings–they’re simply hypothetical bluffs.
Jun 22nd, 2008
David
I suspected that Stephen’s explanation was demonstrably false. It amounts to a difference without a difference. His distinction makes no traction in the argument.
WA, I think it fair that Mario directly grapples with the exegesis of my post above on Heb. 6.4-6 before you offer an exposition of v. 9. It would be interesting to see how he grapples with this passage head-on.
Jun 24th, 2008
Johnny B
Since, what I’ve posted isn’t being dealt with, I add this to the discussion. Hebrews and all book of the Bible. Need to be interpreted, first by, finding out, who it was written to, why it was written, and then get the back round of the book, with no theology behind the interpretation. Interpreting any book of the Bible, with a theological bent, is wrong. They were not written as theology, but as answers to questions, early Christian had, to deal with problems, that the writer seen or heard of. So who were they written to, what was if written for, what was going on that need correction. Hebrews, was written to, Jews, that professed Christ, the problem was that because of persecution, they were thinking of going back to the Temple sacrifices. The back round to that, is they as Jews, were given land, according to their tribe. When they professed Christ as Messiah, it was being taken away from them, so their lively hood was basically taken away. The first part of the book, will give you the context of the book. My post on Hebrews chapter 2, set the tone, for the interpretation, of the so-called, apostate verses. Go back and read what W E Vine, Kenneth S. Wuest, and Adam Clarke, said about those verses. That same theme is carried out through the book in context. Then we need to remember 1 John 2:19 “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us.” This is the same warning the writer of Hebrews is giving, if they leave, they never were of us, if they stay, they are of us. Wuest said this of the “we” in vs 3. “The word “we” in the Greek text is emphatic. The pronoun refers here to the first-century readers of this letter, its Jewish recipients.” Adam Clarke says, “but they who pay no regard to it(the salvation offered); who do not meddle with it, do not concern themselves about it, do not lay it to heart, and consequently do not get their hearts changed by it.” I added the salvation offered, but if you go back and read the context, you’ll see, what the “it” means. Context determines the means of certain words, in latter, posts, or book of the Bible.
Jun 24th, 2008
Stephen Macasil
WA,
You said: “I sort of threw out there a proposal to work and stick with a passage that strongly teaches apostasy, and apply an exegetical approach.”
We need to go back to my first response to you on 6/14 where I said, “ontological apostasy ultimately undoes or reverses ontological conversion. So the real underlying question to be addressed is: Can a truly converted (elected, regenerated) Christian ultimately and permanently fall away?”
To which I answered, no, according to Scripture.
I have never accepted your idea of ontological apostasy, and from the word go I stated why (Jn. 6). You’ve continually dodged the issue and have turned this thread into a big mess.
Since you have assumed the validity of ontological apostasy, the burden is on you to harmonize it with the multiple passages that are in direct opposition to it. If you cannot do it, then perhaps you should find another sandbox to play in. We’re happy Calvinists here that rest in the sovereign sustaining power of God to keep us saved, and we believe his promises to do so.
You may not know Him!
We agree with Whittle when he quoted Paul (2 Tim. 1:12) in his great hymn:
But I know Whom I have believèd,
And am persuaded that He is able
To keep that which I’ve committed
Unto Him against that day.
If your desired end-result is to have God’s people side with you by turning them against their God and his promises, then because it is the spirit of anti-Christ in you and through you, you should know that the elect will not be deceived (another promise – Matt. 24:24).
Jun 24th, 2008
David
Stephen, I’m sorry for saying this, but out of all the participants your comments are the noisiest, and they ring tremendously hollow. Especially since you have not made so much as an attempt (because I don’t think you can’t) for you to harmonize it (Heb. 6.4-6) in the other direction.
You’ve missed all the parts in which everyone, to my knowledge, has conceded that we should not seize upon one scripture and make it the key passage through which everything else in scripture is filtered. If you still haven’t gotten this, even from your colleagues, then my friend, you are lost, have offended the deepest integrity of your own colleagues, and have become a victim to a theological heritage that has blinded sighted you. Your late-medieval-friendly professors have failed you.
I can turn such an impoverished proposal around and say: “Since you have assumed a WCF view of sovereignty, the burden is on you to harmonize it with the multiple passages that are in direct opposition to the apostolic warnings to fall away.” So which way do we move the burden-of-proof swivel? Left or right? How do you know, without succumbing to arbitrariness? And if scripture itself do not attempt a “reconciliation” of such kind, then it is not surprising to see Stephen urging others to attempt such a task in the name of reason.
WA has thoroughly refuted such convoluted thinking recently, reducing it to absurdity whereas your comments amounted to defending that “bachelors have ears”—at least as far as logic goes. How does such thinking merit any attention I wonder?
Jun 24th, 2008
WA
I’m on a stringent schedule so I’ll just mention a reminder: I owe Brad an answer to his question. And might I add, I appreciate your honesty–besides, when you openly admit a scriptural challenge, that is the sign of someone who is not afraid of truth, and someone who will become more biblical through and through. Also, I will deal directly with Johnny’s remarks, although they are chuck-full of fallacies that I wouldn’t know where to begin.
And I just might exegete a passage here afterall, making the airtight case that, what I’ve been saying is in fact 100% biblical.
Stephen has responded once again, but his recent post makes this symbol resonate louder than the previous. Let’s see how well he does in defending the assurance that HE in fact has salvation.
Tell us: How do you “know” for certainty, that you are one of the elect? If we wants to claim God’s promises to himself, let’s allow him to tell us “how” he knows this without being (1) vague (2) a rationalist (3) inconsistent with WCF, and (4) without knowing the secret council of God’s will.
Jun 24th, 2008
Stephen Macasil
Once again, let the record reflect the reality that the issues have not been dealt with, only evaded.
David, when did you adopt exclusive WA language? Was not the original intention of the schizophrenic trinity (David, WA, Phillip) to sustain the deception of three persons? It’s getting sloppy, and that’s not as fun. You need to make us “feel” like you’re different people – or we’ll just call you on it and move on.
And where’s Phillip? You need to throw him in there to balance things out. The Arminian Abbot and Costello sham is getting old!
Jun 24th, 2008
Brad B
So, that’s what the “you’re up next” comment was about. Just the thought of that scenario has got me laughing. I’m admittedly a little slow, but this is way beyond my radar range.
Brad B
Jun 24th, 2008
Stephen Macasil
Brad, don’t feel inferior. Unless your radar can detect IP addresses, I’d say you’re just fine. Sorry, I don’t have a WCF footnote for that.
Jun 24th, 2008
Reformed Mama
Stephen…I’m going to be a good little cult member (I have the oreos) and pat you on the back for your recent comment to WA…well said!
I will keep the “3″ of them in my prayers…=)
Jun 24th, 2008
Phillip
Stephen said, “And where’s Phillip? You need to throw him in there to balance things out. The Arminian Abbot and Costello sham is getting old!”
First of all, let me assure you that I am thoroughly Reformed in my theological thinking. But what I cannot avoid is that the warning passages in Hebrews seem rather intense to be mere hypotheticals. The plain reading of the text seems to indicate that the author is concerned that the congregation to whom he is writing will “fall away” into the political cover and safety of Judaism.
What amazes me is that those of the Reformed persuasion are prone to hermeneutical gymnastics in order to avoid this reading. They propose that the congregation is mixed with true and false believers, or they suggest that the warning passages are mere pretensions meant to bring about perseverance in those who are supposedly being warned. These types of suggestions seem forced upon the text, in my opinion. As David pointed out, the four part description found in Hebrews 6.4-5 only makes sense if those being addressed are truly Christians.
Moreover, it seems to me that in the attempt to harmonize the Scripture into a theological system, some have been prone to pit Scripture against Scripture. They say, “Such and such a verse can’t mean that because such and such a verse says this.” But Buist M. Fanning, chair of NT studies at Dallas Theological Seminary writes, “It is wrong to say, ‘This cannot mean what it plainly says because the rest of Scripture teaches otherwise.’ We must give the apparently idiosyncratic text the right to speak on its own, even if this means refining and adjusting our previous understanding of the larger theological synthesis in ways we did not envision before.”
The text is our litmus test, so to speak, and if the text apparently goes against our system, then we must go with the text, wherever it leads. Again I say, I am throughly Reformed, and I accept the WCF, but the text of the NT acknowledges the possibility that these Hebrew Christians may “fall away” from their faith in Christ. Granted, we must find parallel circumstances when applying these warnings today, but my Reformed system allows that possibility.
The questions is simple, what has the higher authority: the Scriptures or your own theological system?
Jun 25th, 2008
Glen
Stephen,
I can help out with that IP thing… I also loved the comment. Keep up the great work!
Jun 25th, 2008
Reformed Mama
Glen…cool blog!!
Jun 25th, 2008
Johnny B
I find it interesting, that, the proponents, of the Hebrew Scriptures being about the apostatizing of true believer. Have not dealt with one of the posts, that I have posted. Even used, W E Vive, Kenneth Wuest, who are not Reformed, and Adam Clarke, which leans the same way, to show the context of the book.
None have dealt with, 1 John 2:19, I’ll through another Scripture in there or should I say parable. The parable of the wheat and the tare, Matthew 13, here’s what Adam Clarke says, verse 24, “The kingdom of heaven — God’s method of managing the affairs of the world, and the concerns of his Church.
Is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field — In general,
the world may be termed the field of God; and in particular, those who
profess to believe in God through Christ are his field or farm; among whom God sows nothing but the pure unadulterated word of his truth.
Notice, he says “profess”, now read what he says about, Verse 30. “Let both grow together — Though every minister of God should
separate from the Church of Christ every incorrigible sinner, yet he should proceed no farther: the man is not to be persecuted in his body or goods, because he is not sound in the faith-GOD tolerates him; so should men. False doctrines are against God-he alone is the judge and punisher of them-man has no right to interfere in this matter.”
The tare, are professing Christians, the wheat, are true Christians. If Jesus tells us to let them grow together, that’s what we must do. Jesus, did not say do not warn them. The Apostles, were letting the wheat and the tare grow together, but they also warned, them, of what would happen to them if they, apostatized the faith. Why do you think, they would say, examine yourself to see that you are in the faith, make your election and calling sure, work out your salvation with fear and trembling (not work for). These are warnings to the Church, because not all in the visible Church, are truly saved. The ones that apostatize, were never true Christians.
Here is the real issue, I remember when I believed a Child of God, could lose their salvation. My problem was, I had a low view of sin, and thought I could maintain my salvation, with my goodness. That alone was a sin, which I was living in, which, would mean, I had lost my salvation, but I was to proud to realize it (that alone would of lost it, if it could be lost). It basically goes back to the Catholic system of sin, venial and mortal. Here’s what sin is, 1John 3:5 “Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law, for sin is the transgression of the law.” (Third Millennium Bible), law basically, the ten commandments. Jesus, brought out the deeper meaning of those laws, in Matthew 5;17-48. Verse 48, is the killer, it’s the standard, we need to be perfect like our heavenly Father is perfect. That is impossible, He is perfect eternally, we’ve been sinners from childhood. We can never reach that standard. When you have a low view of sin, it’s easy to maintain it, but when you have God’s standard of sin, you realize you can never maintain it, so you have to rely on Him, not yourself. So if your salvation is not dependent on God, you couldn’t apostatize your faith, you can if it’s dependent on yourself.
There is nothing good in me, that I could maintain it, so I rely totally on what Christ has done, He perfectly fulfilled the Law and it’s requirements. So that, I trust in his work for my salvation, I live in that grace. The more I see of His grace, the more I worship and love Him.
Jun 25th, 2008
Brad B
I’m still laughing inside about the 3 in 1 proposal, and it would really have been funnier still if it were intended to be. If not, it’s kinda wweeeiiirrrrd.
Brad B
Jun 25th, 2008
Brad B
Johnny B, Amen to your input. I wonder how long a struggle it was if it indeed was for them to come to a conclusion of when does all mean “all” or sometimes does it mean all kinds. Rigid stand alone scripture meanings could support an impossible contrast between universal salvation for “all” and the scriptures that show quite the contrary. I see the same irriconcilable tension with Heb. unless your very reasonable solution is offered. And it IS a reasonable solution when the totality of the scriptures are considered.
Brad B
Jun 25th, 2008
Glen
I also think that we could throw in Matt 7:21-23. This verse deals with those who truely thought they were saved and yet were not. This in and of itself should be a warning for us to “work out [our] salvation with fear and trembling” (Phil 2:12).
Jun 25th, 2008
WA
Brad, I’d thought for the moment (before my response) to tell you a joke that will illicit a rippling chuckle from the bosom of your twinkle toes, and to yoru comrades. It goes like this:
I once knew a fellow who made himself out to be some sort of a bible pseudo-veteran. He gave himself away when, in an attempt to make a joke out of what seemed to get across a logical point, the joke backfired in his face. The irony (and I would say stupidity) is that, the strength of his point lied in his suggestion that the Trinity cannot be demonstrated by a single verse! Of course, someone showed him up by pointing to Morey’s “Trinity & Issues” where he exegetically shows that such is the case (pp. 87-106,). Here, is even funnier when I show you the original quote:
“… while your at it, [looking for the 1 verse], keep an eye out for the one that proves the doctrine of the trinity also. *I’m joking of course*.” [LOL]
Pretty funny story, huh? But get this– this next detail will make you have gas problems. While he found it amusing for someone to “look for the 1 verse,” someone else’s challenges put him on a razor’s edge and reduced him to saying the very thing which he initially leered as a ridicule. Here’s the quote:
“…I’ll search for scriptural support for what I said above, because I believe that there is a systematic theme that will support it. It may take a while though…”
“…*it may take a while*…” hmmm. If you know who he is, tell the poor sap that I said, “don’t hold his breath on it.”
I hope the amusement was worth the read.
Jun 25th, 2008
WA
Brad, you requested: “I’m actually fine if you just give me your opinion, I would be able to infer scriptural proofs-however presumptive that may be on my part.”
Actually, no-can-do on this one. Your previous posts have betrayed you, leaving one with the impression that you are a frolicking youngin’ in the faith. Your attempt at a “joke” undermines your credibility, severely. If you cannot “infer scriptural proofs” with respect to the Trinity, with what scant of confidence am I to allow you to infer from my given “opinions?” I’m not going to take my chances, and so I plan to offer you an answer accompanied with scriptural support. Needless to say, no one (absolutely) allows his opponent to “infer” from his statement(s) with doses of “presumption,” which will inevitably result in misapprehension. Why anyone would allow this is simply beyond me!
Jun 25th, 2008
WA
Johnny, Glen, and Brad,
Sorry to burst your happy bubble, but you guys will hardly find support for what you believe. A comprehensive exegesis is forthcoming that will directly deal with what Johnny has alleged. But I will scratch the surface a bit with some few comments.
Your constant irresponsible citation of 1 John 2.19 and Matthew 7.21-23 is utterly hopeless and useless in this discussion. John says absolutely nothing concerning the “spiritual condition” of his hearers in 1 Jn. 2, whereas the author of Hebrews has raided his sermon with terms that are loaded with theological nuance (i.e., “enlightened,” “partakers of Christ,” “tasted the heavenly gift,” “sanctified,” “tasted the powers of the age to come,” “partakers of the Holy Spirit” etc. [Heb. 2, 3, 6.4-6; 10.29]). 1 John 2.19 only tells us “they were not of us” but to infer from this “any” sort of spiritual status is to use a crystal ball approach. This is utterly oblivious to Johnny since he talked about previously about knowing the background of each book. The terms as they are used in Hebrews are all powerfully reminiscent of initial conversion and then (devastatingly) speak of them as “have fallen away” (see vv. 4-6).
In short, John’s situation is not the situation of Hebrews, and vice versa. Johnny can’t find what he wants Hebrews to say, so he has to succumb to a cut & paste method where he cuts snippets of phrases all over the bible, then autonomously wraps them together to fit his presuppositions—viscous circularity . When you do the wrapping, put a ribbon on it and it will look cute, but not persuasive.
Same thing with Matthew 7: Jesus says clearly “he never knew them.” He doesn’t say anything about them experiencing heavenly benefits, in diametric contradistinction to Hebrews and his Christian audience. Rather, he points to them being empowered by the powers of darkness. So there is no “apostosia” going on in either of these texts, only an open “acknowledgement” of their present and current condition—to say nothing of the fact that the Gk. word “apostasia” cannot be exegeted from these texts.
This is not a real objection, only to peer the surface. A harsher refutation is forthcoming and you & yours might want to make a stronger argument as to how these texts would have any bearing on this discussion. In fact, their relevancy in this discussion is like comparing dreams and clouds.
P.S. Brad, I hope you understand why I have to defer your “presumptive expertise.”
P.S.S. You guys give us your comments on the following quote by Dr. Fanning: “It is wrong to say, ‘This cannot mean what it plainly says because the rest of Scripture teaches otherwise.’ We must give the apparently idiosyncratic text the right to speak on its own, even if this means refining and adjusting our previous understanding of the larger theological synthesis in ways we did not envision before.” Fireaway your comments.
Jun 25th, 2008
Brad B
Hi WA, I’m shivering you gave me such a cold shoulder. Now I’m convinced that you’ve been educated out of common sense. One thing that takes some sheer cajones on your part is to ask reformed people to comment on something that comes out of DTS. Of course am not going to say just because it comes from DTS it is wrong, only that I am not supprised at what they’ll teach after infecting the Christian culture with pre-mil disp. lunacy. If we take this statement at face value like he wants us to do with the Bible, we are left with scriptures that are so disconnected that they lose value at the intended purpose. That is to communicate truth. This is Romes problem also, they leave the average Roman Catholic nothing substantial to really believe, it’s all mystery because the official church position is illogical and contratictory which is what you argue for. This leaves people ignorant and double minded–a recipe for disaster.
I will challenge your railing of Glen on Matt. 7 because you’ve butchered it so badly. You turn a blind eye to the fact that these people 1) called Jesus Lord, 2) prophesied in His name 3) cast out demons in His name 4) worked many miracles in His name. If this isn’t “tasting the heavenly gift and partaking of the Holy Spirit, AND tasting the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, I’m not sure what would be. These people were deceived and believed not the truth, yet they sure looked like the real McCoy and they thought they were the real McCoy.
To say that Jesus’ statement “you workers of iniquity” implies that they employed powers of darkness is an assumption on you part. The most plain reading, [let the text say what it will] is that the power to do the miracles and great works were associated with Jesus’ name-not some darkness. If you’ll remeber Jesus’ statement about a house devided cannot stand was a response at how stupid is was to have the Pharisees accuse him of casting out demons by the power of Satan. Yet this is what you’d have us to believe is happening–Jesus contradicting His own admonition by saying these people were casting out demons by demonic powers. Quite a large pill for me to swallow, I think I’ll pass on that one. Finally, the follow up passages demonstrate what Jesus is saying was the root problem of those who were the workers of iniquity, they built their house on sand. The difference between the two examples given say nothing about the house building because that wasn’t the problem. The house building, casting out demons in Jesus’ name, doing miracles in Jesus’ name etc.. was the same for both. Or was this story of house building just there to entertain us independantly of what was said ahead of it?
There’s more to say, but I dont have time to go there, but one thing is certain, there are serious holes in your scripture twisting.
Brad B
P. S. The doctrine of the Trinity wasn’t formulated with 1 scripture and you know it good and well. You can quote Bob Morey’s book, and he may do a good work with a single scripture, but he had the benefit of having the doctrine at his disposal. I checked a few documents and found a minimum of 60 scripture reference proofs dealing with the aspects of Godness in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and the inescapable unity. The problem with you is you are starting to show a pattern of wordsmithing which is an attempt to make you look good and win an arguement at the expense of the truth.
Jun 25th, 2008
Glen
What will I ever do without my bubble???
Brad, You nailed exactly what was ratteling around in my head about Mt 7. Thanks for clarifying exactly what I was getting at.
Jun 26th, 2008
WA
On Dr. Fanning’s statement, Brad said, “If we take this statement at face value like he wants us to do with the Bible, we are left with scriptures that are so disconnected that they lose value at the intended purpose.”
As I said, you are a “frolicking youngin’ in the faith, so pay close attention to what I’m about to say. Unless you can argue for this spewed claim, then you are in fact a closet Muslim. Concerning the origins of the Bible, Reformed scholar Keith Mathison (editor of Sproul’s Table talk magazine) has this to say: “The first books of the NT did not even begin to be written until at least ten years after the death of Christ, and some were not written until several decades after Christ. Gradually some churches obtained copies of some books, while other churches had copies of others. It took many years before the NT as we know it was gathered and available as a whole.” The implication: No early church had a canon , as we have it today, with which to execute the cut & paste approach you and yours autonomously want to apply. Given these historical origins, the books of the bible were purposeful and accomplished exactly what they intended even in its “disconnected” form. In fact, Johnny hinted at this somewhat in broken-English above. You argue the opposite because your anthropocentric religion imprisons you to reduce God to a knew-jerk medieval deity of your making in which he cannot fulfill said intention unless there is a full uniformed-canon. Tell us, where did you get this idea?
Oh, and on the Muslim charge…well, you figure it out.
Jun 26th, 2008
WA
Brad says: “I will challenge your railing of Glen on Matt. 7 because you’ve butchered it so badly.”
Brad, when you respond you have to really carefully think through things before you write. Your Calvinist ephemeral nerves are hasty, and you abuse the usage of words to display a showcase of egoism. Your challenge is hardly a challenge. Let’s see shall we, who exactly “butchered” Matt. 7 “so badly.” Again, pay very close attention.
First, in order to propagate your entrenched late-medieval presuppositions, you cast all your marbles with what these “false prophets” attribute to themselves, rather than what Jesus’ innerantly says “about” them. The only thing I did was lean more on what Jesus said, while you leaned on what the “false prophets” said. It seems there is no “butchering”, just difference in emphasis. Your usage of language is simply abusive.
Secondly—and this is what I find quite spectacular—you push the iron ball in the cushion so much for these “false prophets” that you seriously take them at their every word, and go as far as you (not Matthew nor Jesus) having the gall attributing to them that they “tasted the heavenly gift” “partaking of the Holy Spirit” etc. If you would just for a moment wipe clean your anthropocentric Calvinist spectacles, you would see that the verbs in the Gk. are reflexive, meaning, that these false prophets attribute to “themselves” that they did such feats in “Jesus name.” This is black-and-white s-e-l-f–attributing, whereas Hebrews has the inspired author and God HIMSELF attributing these spiritual characteristics to his hearers. See the difference, Calvin. Ironically, it is you who smuggles in these assumptions (carelessly at that), while mine was right on target, as we shall see.
Thirdly, to add insult to your ego injury, we can know inescapably that these “false prophets” did not in any way partook of any divine benefits, no matter how much you vouch for them to sustain your views. If you were correct, then Jesus would have simply said “depart.” Instead, he said something much more meaningful: “I never knew you” (7.23). This is an emphatic negative. On the other hand, if Jesus “knew them” via heavenly blessings at sometime, then he made a mistake. You can correct Him on it if you so desired.
Fourthly, a peak at the context (esp. v. 15), shows that Jesus is figuring in “false prophets.” Jesus’ never “knowing” them statement (v. 23), coincides very well with what Jesus says later in the Olivet discourse: “For many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will mislead many” (24.5, 24). Jesus is correct! Their “misleading” people can hardly have Christ say that they partook of him in any way. Rather, I can understand why He says “I never knew you.” BDAG describes the nature of pseudo-prophetai as “one who falsely claims to be a prophet of God or who prophesies falsely, false/bogus proph.” Therefore, Matthew 12 is a remote context and cannot be factored in. So the sticking question: By what power then, do they perform these miraculous feats, if not by the Holy Spirit? Unfortunately, the context does not give us sufficient evidence, and your suggestion is a bear assumption, not to mention that it clashes head-on with Jesus’ outright denial of them participating in any divine benefit—they’re f-a-l-s-e prophets.
In fact, there are instances where wizards (Lev. 19.31; 20.6), witches (1 Sam. 28.6-7), and necromancers (Deut. 18.10-12) are conjured up whose involvement is demonic from its inception. Your whored-up suggestion would (by the logic of your usage of Matt. 12), would attribute this actions to the Holy Spirit. Matthew can be easily vindicated because there are two senses in which evil powers can work together to deceive people without necessarily casting each other out. After all, that is what the nature of being a “false” prophet is all about (see Matt. 15-23, esp. 15)—complete deception inspite that they claim to use Jesus name in a forged and false way for the sheer purpose of deception. How else would they deceive people into falsehood, unless they pose as Jesus in some way (see. 24.24-27). Matthew 7 says nothing about demons casting out demons, whereas the polemical debate in Mathew 12 is comprised of a different situation all-together.
In sum, your usage of words are simply unfit (as it is in most cases), your thoughts are hasty and careless, and to knowingly attribute divine benefits to what the general tenor of scripture ascribes as evil to suit your theological purposes, is itself a mark of the powers of darkness, or sloppy thinking.
And to Glen: When you come out of your hole, and scavenge for proof-texts to fill your theological belly, at least have the decency to defend your own. I dub thee a moonbat. And even if you get more sun, you’re still a moonbat.
Jun 26th, 2008
WA
Since Brad and co. are used to applying a put-it-together-lego approach to scripture, it would helpful to point out that the rhetorical and situational context of Matthew 7 and 12 are diametrically distinct. In Matthew 12, Jesus had to reveal the “satan cannot cast out satan” principle because of the specificity and demand of the circumstance. That is, Jesus was reducing to absurdity the Pharisees’ presumptuous claim in order make it clear that the source of His works came from the Holy Spirit. In Matthew 7, however, the “false” prophets attributed to themselves things falsely done in “Jesus name,” but Jesus’ stern rebuke pointed out that He “never knew” (v. 23) them, which suggests: (1) Jesus statement simply undercuts whatever tie the false prophets (FP) might have mistakenly claimed, and is contradicted by Brad; (2) The FP themselves were seduced by evil spirits; (3) there is a way that Satan can deceive people into thinking they’re doing the work of God without necessarily “casting himself out.” In fact, it is through lies and deception that he administers and advances his kingdom, and that by mock, distortion, lies, imposter (posing as something good when he is not), etc.
But suppose that the Calvinism within Brad insists that his original “challenge,” is correct. Well, granting his point, we would have the following picture: His desperate-baffling suggestion (attributing the source of such “false” prophets to the Holy Spirit) would have to cut across all instances in which false prophets perform acts through the Holy Spirit. This would make both true and false prophets virtually indistinguishable. That is, attributing to the Holy Spirit every act when a spiritist conjures up a miraculous feat. On the other hand, there is a solution in which satan can perform the miraculous without necessarily “casting himself out.” In this way, demons themselves perform the miraculous in order to deceive without inflicted upon themselves
If Brad wants to maintain his original proposal, he would have to rule this out? But how would he proceed in showing this? He would have to come up with some criteria—a task that would be exceedingly difficult—that would rule this precise plausible scenario. But suppose further he overcomes this difficulty, and manages to rule out the case in point. Then, he would be stuck with the notion that satan cannot employ deception at all times without the aid of the Holy Spirit, and Jesus was simply mistaken when he said “I never knew you.” Brad would say to Jesus: “Yes you did, liar. Remember they ‘partook of the Holy Spirit,’ the same spirit that empowered you; and your Father also gave them “a taste of the heavenly powers.’ You know Jesus, if you prayed, you could have discerned this. C’mon get wit the program! So you actually did knew them, and so I think you should let them in the kingdom because I believe in the “P” in the acrostic TULIP.”
Either way, Brad ends up with such a frightening dilemma that, to say that he twists scripture, is a wild understatement.
Jesus said: “I never knew you.” Deal with it!
Jun 26th, 2008
Johnny B
WA, your hermeneutics has your theological bent. I’ve never heard anyone, say that 1 John, has no reference to the Church, being the “us”, but that shows what your hermeneutics are.
So, I’ll go back to the beginning of your misinterpretation of Scripture Psalm 69. Since you never answered that question of “them”.
1 To the Chief Musician. Set the ‘The Lilies.’ A Psalm of David. Save me, O God! For the waters have come up to my neck. 2 I sink in deep mire, Where there is no standing; I have come into deep waters, Where the floods overflow me. 3 I am weary with my crying; My throat is dry; My eyes fail while I wait for my God. 4 Those who hate me without a cause Are more than the hairs of my head; They are mighty who would destroy me, Being my enemies wrongfully; Though I have stolen nothing, I still must restore it. 5 O God, You know my foolishness; And my sins are not hidden from You. 6 Let not those who wait for You, O Lord God of hosts, be ashamed because of me; Let not those who seek You be confounded because of me, O God of Israel. 7 Because for Your sake I have borne reproach; Shame has covered my face. 8 I have become a stranger to my brothers, And an alien to my mother’s children; 9 Because zeal for Your house has eaten me up, And the reproaches of those who reproach You have fallen on me. 10 When I wept and chastened my soul with fasting, That became my reproach. 11 I also made sackcloth my garment; I became a byword to them. 12 Those who sit in the gate speak against me, And I am the song of the drunkards.
David, begins talking about, the them that, he doesn’t want written with the righteous here. In verse 11-12, “to them”, “Those who sit”.
13 But as for me, my prayer is to You, O Lord, in the acceptable time; O God, in the multitude of Your mercy, Hear me in the truth of Your salvation. 14 Deliver me out of the mire, And let me not sink; Let me be delivered from those who hate me, And out of the deep waters. 15 Let not the floodwater overflow me, Nor let the deep swallow me up; And let not the pit shut its mouth on me. 16 Hear me, O Lord, for Your lovingkindness is good; Turn to me according to the multitude of Your tender mercies. 17 And do not hide Your face from Your servant, For I am in trouble; Hear me speedily. 18 Draw near to my soul, and redeem it; Deliver me because of my enemies. 19 You know my reproach, my shame, and my dishonor; My adversaries are all before You. 20 Reproach has broken my heart, And I am full of heaviness; I looked for someone to take pity, but there was none; And for comforters, but I found none. 21 They also gave me gall for my food, And for my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink.
Davids, next mention of them, is in verse 21, “They also gave me”
22 Let THEIR table become a snare before them, And THEIR well-being a trap. 23 Let THEIR eyes be darkened, so that THEY do not see; And make THEIR loins shake continually. 24 Pour out Your indignation upon them, And let Your wrathful anger take hold of THEM. 25 Let their dwelling place be desolate; Let no one live in THEIR tents. 26 For THEY persecute the ones You have struck, And talk of the grief of those You have wounded. 27 Add iniquity to THEIR iniquity, And let THEM not come into Your righteousness. 28 Let THEM be blotted out of the book of the living, And not be written with the righteous. 29 But I am poor and sorrowful; Let Your salvation, O God, set me up on high.
I put the “them” in caps to get the context of what David is talking about, these are not God’s people, David is talking about. Verse 27, is how we know that they are not God’s people. David, says, “not come into Your righteousness”. Which gives the context of verse 28, book of the living, which these people must be written in, not the Lambs book of life. David’s next statement could be referring to the Lamb’s book of live, “not be written with the righteous”.
You need to read what the context of Scripture says, not what you want it to say. WA, you have and agenda to your hermeneutics, your theological bent, rules how you read the Bible. I was there before, it’s pride bro, we all go through it. Only the Holy Spirit can show you, what you need to deal with in your life. I remember that stage of my walk with the Lord. It reminds me of the teenage years, we all go through. We know it all, no one can tell us anything. If you can’t get what Psalm 69 is is saying and what it’s not saying, you need to go back to the basics. Attack my way of communicating here, that’s your right, but it doesn’t change anything, I posted or the way you dealt with it or your none dealing with it. It doesn’t change you misinterpretation of Psalms 69.
Jun 26th, 2008
WA
Johnny, I left that a long time ago. I just threw it in there to stir the pot a bit. On your take of Rev. 3.5 I showed it for what it was inadequate and a misread. You wrongly construed the verse as an indicative statement, thus God “presently” implementing to mete out judgment. But, as I said, the point of the warning is that “it can happen,” provided that one “overcomes.” I saw no follow-ups to this. And if you too feel the Calvinist spirit within propelling you to see the warnings as “means” “secondary causes” “test of genuiness” and all this rationalistic fill-in-the-gaps nonesense–rather than wasting time harping on something which I haven’t rebutted yet–try finding scriptural support to justify this, along with Brad. Your pseudo exegesis of what you’ve written thus far will be answered directly (if not indirectly) in my exegesis of Rom. 11.17-24. Be patient, in the meatime, careful cite my most recent post to salvage your superficial understanding of these passages.
Move on, and rescue your interpretation of 1 Jn. 2.19 and Matthew 7 from said objections.
Jun 26th, 2008
WA
Johnny, BTW the context of 1 Jn. 2 is dealing with “antichrists.” (Same as Hebrews, correct?) Vv. 18-19 tells us that these antichrists once were members of this community but “went out from us.” This does not suggest “apostasia.” For, the author says, “they were not of us” in the first place. Keep in mind that “apostasia” presupposes to go from one spiritual state of affairs to another. All that this shows is that the evidence of the antichrists’ true spiritual character was not clear until they left, or at least until they denied that Jesus is the Christ and then split off.
Does John empahtically use the Gk. word “apostasia” here? Or does it not show that they were “always” antichrists’ (”they were not of us”), and so their leaving just exposed what was a-l-r-e-a-d-y there. Does John not say “they were not of us?” In contrast, the author of Hebrews aligns himself with his congregation (see the yet to be responded exegesis of Heb. 6.4-6 above) and atttributes many soteriological redemptive benefits that he and his audience share in common and warns them so he and them would not apostasize?
I hope you can see the differences, and let 1 Jn. speak on its own terms. The bible is not a huge jig saw puzzle where you can mix and match scripture and create theology of your own making. See my post (contra Brad), where I expose his mutated understanding.
Jun 26th, 2008
Glen
WA,
When you said “And to Glen: When you come out of your hole, and scavenge for proof-texts to fill your theological belly, at least have the decency to defend your own.” I was not aware that I had to defend what was pretty clear. Brad understood what I was saying, but I’ll clarify for you.
In Mt 7 Jesus is saying that not everyone who says they are a believer really are. He says that there are some who claim to believe and have even done wonders in His name. He will then say to them that “I never knew you” and dismiss them. This is a warning to all believers to search their own hearts and to work out their salvation with fear and trembling. If I need to clarify more please let me know, I have to run now.
Jun 26th, 2008
WA
Johnny, it’s not pride at all. I think you are right on target with how you read the “them” in this passage. But this is what I find as a sticking point in the passage
Imagine that you have a roster list of students. Suppose further you warn your 10 year old that his name will be “blotted out” from the roster of recreational activities. On the other hand, suppose you see another kid whos acting delinquent, but his name is not written at all in this list. The phrase “blotted out” would make no sense since his name is not there in the first place (maybe you can reprimand him another way), while the first sense seems quite logical.
Help me understand by giving me your understanding of this phrase? I don’t want to use this as a text to buttress my points (it is not an apostasy passage to begin with), but just peer into this and see if you can make sense of it. How would the prophet make sense of the phrase “blotted out” if the prophet’s tormentors are not written there in the first place?
Jun 26th, 2008
WA
Glen, then perhaps you should have said this! Your understanding is quite straightforward. But I said this to you at the end because I was refuting what you said as Brad erroneously interpreted it by ascribing redemptive language to these false prophets (outlandish!). Your understanding is much more senseable, you don’t read too much into it, nor take away. Brad simply loads that passage with too much theological mumbo-jumbo than it is able to bear. Why then did you applaud his take. If you still stand behind him on what he wrote, then, you too need to respond to my objections. Otherwise, your point is granted insofar as no “apostasia” is going on here, because they were always-always-always unbelievers: “I never knew you.”
Jun 26th, 2008
Stephen Macasil
I don’t claim to have the ability to know the future, but almost two weeks ago I raised what I “foresaw” at the time as the “real underlying question.” This thread has almost come full-circle. Since “WA” has just pointed out that the Matt. 7 text in question (I never knew you) refers to those that “were always-always-always unbelievers,” and therefore Jesus “never” knew them, then I will repost the question.
I said: “So the real underlying question to be addressed is: Can a truly converted (elected, regenerated) Christian ultimately and permanently fall away?”
Jun 26th, 2008
WA
Stephen, great question! I gotta get back to Brad first on his initial question, and then I can post my exegesis of Rom. 11.17-24, which will directly answer your question, along with some of Johnny’s remarks. I keep getting held back because all these questions and new issues are being raised. But I would appreciate it if you can tell us how is it that you know for certain that you are one of the elect still?
Patience is virtue, gotta’ run.
Jun 26th, 2008
Stephen Macasil
WA said:
“I keep getting held back because all these questions and new issues are being raised.”
You’ve raised most of the rabbit-trail issues.
What an odd choice of Scripture to exegete to answer the question.
17-24 does not even deal with the question.
What a mess you’ve made of this poor thread.
Jun 26th, 2008
Glen
WA,
Brad said “If this isn’t “tasting the heavenly gift and partaking of the Holy Spirit, AND tasting the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, I’m not sure what would be.” He was saying this in comment of Mt 7 not Heb 6.
I believe that when Brad said this (Brad please correct me if I’m wrong) he was not refering to someone who had actually “tasted” or “partook” of the Holy Spirit. I believe that he was refering to someone who thought that they were “partaking” of the Holy Spirit. They were fooling themselves. I believe that this is also the warning given by Paul in Phil 2:12 to work out our salvation.
Jun 27th, 2008
WA
Stephen,
You just came out to give the symbol a tinker. No worries, we know you’re there, but I discern a severe memory lapse syndrome coming on ya’. So, “rabbit trails” I have thrown, hmm? Well, before it plunges into chronic illness, here, I’ll help you recap.
Were you not the one that conjectured the preposterous idea of casting “skepticism” on the author to desperately salvage your worship of Calvin-presuppositions?
Did you not, autonomously and rationally, labeled the apostolic warnings as “means” “secondary causes,” yada-yada, without giving a rip if the nature of them can be biblically supported?
Did you not put the bible in a direct internal conflict by hiding behind one passage and using it as a magic wand to make the other biblical witnesses out to be liars?
Was it not you, that suffered a colossal blow to your mutated understanding when someone pulled an RAA all the way down exposing and reducing your thinking to defending the clown idea that bachelors “have ears?” What bearing did that have to the discussion? (The refutation was so scathing—I heard cricket-chirps).
Is it not you that takes a pompous and snide approach in claiming that you are a happy Calvinist worshipper and that you are elect? Why have you cowardly dodged this question, and tell everyone how is it that you know that you are one of the elect and not a reprobate that God has consigned to hell?
Are you the one that when caught with pants on fire, you resort to hand-waiving dismissals to narrowly escape defending your ungodly assumptions biblically (you really live-up to the websites stance!)?
Was it not you who proposed a “means” or “test of genuiness” construal of the apostolic warnings, and so that revealed your true identity—a proponent of Luis De Molina! Ooohhh, you haven’t heard this one yet. Well, you’re in for a treat; take a sec’ and grab your Geneva popcorn…
Your means-of-salvation hypothesis inadvertently abandons your medieval confessionalistic (WCF) understanding of divine sovereignty. You implicitly employ middle knowledge. For, if the believer’s will is so overwhelmed by God’s grace, then why does God give the warnings at all? And, if the warnings themselves bring about perseverance, does this mean that the believer is capable of apostasy, even if he does not apostatize? Hypothetically, at least, the elect can fall away, but God, using middle-knowledge, has chosen to actualize a world in which scriptural warnings will operate as a “means” to keep His children from apostasy. Kapish? No? Well, let me put it simpler if the point is still lost on you.
If God is using the warnings as a means (ex opere operato) to insure perseverance (via middle knowledge), then either the saints would fall without the warnings (which is contrary to how your humanist theology understands how God’s grace works in the believer), or the saints would persevere even without the warnings (which would make the warnings superfluous).
It is “you” who has thrown this into an ungodly morass of confusion by your whored-up and mutated ideas to salvage your nature worship of Calvin and his crazed cohorts. It seems that you’ve been caught with your pants down, and now everyone knows that you are a Molinist in sheeps clothing! I know that your pathetic comment was just gasping for air. Like I said, we know you are in the outer rim, but the next time you want to canker, make a louder noise next time. That way, the vibration will give you and yours a chilling sensation that will make Calvin’s spirit tell you bedtime stories to assure you that you’re not a reprobate. Well, predestined to hell or heaven, I know your Greek pagan fatalistic hide will give glory to God either way.
Jun 27th, 2008
WA
Glen,
No need in saving his Calvinist hide. He’ll massacre scripture and perhaps wipe himself with it, all in the name for his worship of WCF rant–popper enchantments. You cheered and applauded his interpretation at the beginning, that is, until I sorted things out. At least you now see how ridiculous and thoroughly irresponsible he was for abusing and baroughing language from another book without him qualifying what he meant. On the face of it, he can’t correct you because he said nothing of a kind. In fact, you have to get him to agree with you that he made a mistake or was careless and abusive with words–repend and recant.
Want a word of advice: Next time, do not allow the youngin’ to speak on your behalf. I’m really dissapointed with these pee-wee herman Calvinists. I thought they were more beefed-up than this.
Jun 27th, 2008
Reformed Mama
WA~
YOU SAID:”He’ll massacre scripture and perhaps wipe himself with it,”…
It is one thing to vigorously debate with one another…however the above statement goes too far for this blog! We already know you are dishonest Mr. 3-1 and now you are showing yourself to be a bit of a word thug!
Our purpose here is to edify…and yes…to correct at times…you are just being plain hateful…KNOCK IT OFF!!!
Jun 27th, 2008
OvercommiTad2theWord
WA,
Way over-the-top, just-plain-nasty, ad hominem rant. Do you think this is the way to bring glory to God?
Jun 27th, 2008
WA
RM,
My sentiments exactly. I take it you’re some kind of ref. on the outer edge. My task is to take issues with what I find to be a blog site that theologically taunts and bullies people (I was told). Doesn’t feel good, does it guys?
Brad’s virulent accusations (e.g., “butcher” “twisting,” etc.) did provoke steam. His ravings calling DTS “lunacy” and his other pet peeves (sounds like he’s been victimized), not my problem anyway. If everyone here will stop the “hand-waiving” charade, and the laughable 3-1 “get-smart” conspiracy (sleuthed out a myth of your own making), then we can get back to business. BTW, Philip is an M. Div. candidate, and personal friend of mine and contributes when he can. The “dishonesty” charge evaporates, and my apologies for those that felt the gravity. I have been dubbing Brad a “frolicking youngin’.” The “wipe himself” reference is akin to a toddler that cannot drink milk on his own. Comprende? What exactly did you guys have in mind?…don’t answer.
I adjure everyone here please be bold enough to step up to the plate to defend every assertion as I find they are constantly not supported (except one).
Stephen, tell us how is it that you “know” for certain that you are elect and not a reprobate, is my question to you? And how do you escape the “Molinist” language you implicitly advance for your theory? If you’re unable to offer a cogent response, then I dub thee a Molinist.
Brad, I still want to know, not “how,” but “where” did you get this idea that the warnings are mere bluffs with respect to their consequences? I’m curious!!! If you can’t recall in scripture something so fundamental to your view, then where did you get it?
RM, who are you, and where do you stand thus far on this discussion? Engage, or otherwise keep your etiquette whistle in tact.
To everyone: Does everyone here side with Stephen that Rom. 11.17-24 is an “odd” text to grapple with in this discussion? Give me your input so I can either give it a go, or preface it in case you guys are not up to speed with the scholarly and relevant contribution it has made in this debate.
Jun 27th, 2008
Glen
I think the more relative passage would be Rom 9:14-24. Most people would not dispute that we have been grafted into God’s family.
As for Brad, I’m not sure you are quite hearing me. I’m not sure I would have tied the two Scripture passages (Mt 7 and 12) together like he did, but I believe that he was right at his look of each in their individual contexts.
So, am I still a moonbat?
Jun 27th, 2008
Brad B
Hi WA, you’ll have to be careful to not hurt yourself with all of the back slapping going on. It’s just not natural to move ones arm in such a way as to pat himself so exuberantly. I still get the sense that you’ve been educated out of common sense with all the long rows you’ve hoed to get to your point. It’s as though you think the more wordy you are the more believeable you are. It’s not the case for me. It’s really simple. You have a presupposition that drives you to find meaning that supports it. You make the same charge at me and I even approved of it. I’m not embarassed at all to hold God’s sovereignty as I do and when I read the scriptures that thought is present. You have evaded declaring your view of God for whatever reason but it is clear that you have an illogical view of His nature as it relates to creation and sovereignty. You’ll probably call it paradoxical though and say it’s a mystery that we’ll not be able to understand.
I have to say that the drive you must have, to be determined to spend this amount of time is inordinate unless you have nothing else to do. I dont and will be less likely to spend it unwisely running too far afield. I am going to spend time on Matt. 7 though since I stand by what I said and was hardly affected by your supposed spanking of it in response #2. You attempt to try to turn the table around by saying something I didn’t say. One thing I wont back off of is that these “false prohpets” were partaking, They were not casting out demons and doing miracles by Satans power because it is plainly stated that it was IN Jesus’ name. You cant believe it because you find it hard to believe that God would let men burn themselves with God’s power and His good Name. One thing you cannot seriously deny is that Jesus criticized the Pharsee’s for what you are holding to. That is that miracles and casting out of demons by the Matt 7 gang is by Jesus’ BUT *by* evil. This is plainly good vs. evil, not evil vs. evil like you want it to say–and this against what Jesus said to the Pharisees. This is partaking in the same way as the wheat and tares partake in the kingdom of Heaven, or like the mustard tree parable, and the dragnet parable all who are “in” are enjoying the benefits of the kingdom.
Since you deny this, by what power did they use to perform said works? And, is using Jesus’ name, how is this not partaking of His power? You haven’t given a meaninful refutation of this at all, just long winded wordsmithing and attempted table turning. For instance you try to make me out to say that since I say that these partook ect. that I disagree with Jesus’ words “I never knew you’. This is an imagination running wild as you clearly misrepresent what I clearly said. In fact your third rebuttal to me was just that, imagination running wild building a case against a strawman. Contragulations you won! Pat yourself heartily but dont injure youself!!
Brad B
Jun 27th, 2008
Brad B
WA, when you ask:
Brad, I still want to know, not “how,” but “where” did you get this idea that the warnings are mere bluffs with respect to their consequences? I’m curious!!! If you can’t recall in scripture something so fundamental to your view, then where did you get it?
I have to wonder why you do you ask me, to give you, an answer as to where did I get an idea that is YOUR idea? You are the one maintaining that the warnings are “mere bluffs” not me.
Brad B
Jun 27th, 2008
Glen
Brad,
Interesting post. I had always been taught/believed that when people were casting out demons in Jesus name in Mt 7 that they were using the name of Jesus, but were not really doing it in/under Jesus’ power. Can you please expound on what you said and show me how you came to your conclusion?
Jun 28th, 2008
Reformed Mama
WA~
Who am I? Just a Mama saved by grace…content to struggle with the tensions of Biblical Calvinism…trusting Messiah through His Holy Spirit to intercede for me and guide me into all truth.
The discussion you are having here has not yielded much fruit. You have been answered, so at this point you seem just a bully. The 3-1 charge stands as the IPs prove.
I personally will not engage with you regarding any of the above topics/Scriptures because you do not show proper respect for others.
You are a guest here and are not to use terms regarding Scripture as you did above no matter what reasons you had for doing it. I have some influence with the powers that be…so the warning stands for you to excercise some self-control here.
Jun 28th, 2008
Phillip
Why don’t we let the author of Hebrews speak on his own terms without trying to mitigate or qualify what he saying with other passages, i.e. Matthew 7 &12, or 1 John 2. These passages have absolutely no relevance or bearing on the spiritual status of the audience being addressed by the author of Hebrews, and the attempt of Brad to negate the spiritual status of the audience of Hebrews with verses outside of the immediate context of the book itself is merely reaching and ridiculous.
The audience in Hebrews is being tempted to publicly identify themselves with Judaism in order to avoid the persecution that results from their public identification with Christ and his church. This is the danger that the author of Hebrews is concerned about, i.e. that these Christians will commit apostasy by publicly renouncing their faith in Christ. This act of apostasy would be a willful and calculated rejection of the one who had fulfilled the Old Covenant and inaugurated the New.
No where in the book of Hebrews does the author treat them as anything other than having truly experienced conversion and its fruit. And let’s remember that he is the one working with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, so unless he says that they weren’t truly saved, then we have no basis upon which to make such a speculation.
Jun 28th, 2008
WA
Thanks for your feedback. I think Rom. 9.14-24 is relevant insofar as it provides the background to the continued argument in Romans 11. However, it is not relevant in a way that, there is no apostasy going on in Rom. 9. For the sake of argument, I want to proceed by simply granting you all the Calvinist assumptions that saturate Rom. 9, and see where this will land us. Once I show that the people who “have been grafted into God’s family” can be cut and lopped off as Rom. 11 teaches, then we can go back see if there is an alternative to Rom. 9.14-24. I still need others to provide their comments.
Jun 28th, 2008
WA
Brad,
You know, they say that you can’t teach a dogmatik new tricks, but I think there is still hope for you yet. I didn’t think I’d have draw back to the basics, but here goes.
If a statement is self-contradictory (law of A and non~A) then it can’t be true. If I tell you, “I can’t speak a word of English,” then you conclude that what I said is false. Or if I say, “It is raining, and it is not raining,” because I have contradicted myself in this sentence, my statement should be rejected. They are false. Any logician can see that such statements are self-referentially incoherent, and therefore false.
Concerning false prophets Jesus said, “”For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will show great signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect” (Matt. 24.24). Then Jesus warns ahead of time (v. 25), and follows with this imperative: “If therefore they say to you, ‘Behold, He is in the wilderness,’ do not go forth, or, ‘Behold, He is in the inner rooms,’ DO NOT BELIEVE THEM” (v. 26; cf. 7.15).
Question for Brad: (1) Do you BELIEVE that the “false” prophets in Matt. 7.23 were “truthful” in their usage of Jesus name? (2) Do you BELIEVE them at their every word, and that Jesus was at a certain time a co-accessory to thier deeds? (3) Was Jesus telling the truth when he said “I NEVER KNEW YOU.” Explain how Jesus can NEVER have known these false prophets, but at the same participating with him in and through His works. Explain, but be consistent.
Secondly, you said that the “mere bluffs” was my idea? But I qualified this with the following phrase: “…with respect to their consequences?” STOP TAKING THINGS OUT OF CONTEXT!!! Did you not say that the consequences cannot be “actualized?” Gazooks(!!!) you took this out of context in the breadth of a sentence. Did you not say previously, “Your last post is most challenging, for me it is the most serious logical challenge or objection you bring.” Also, “I’ll search for scriptural support for what I said above, because I believe that there is a systematic theme that will support it.” So again I ask my question: “where” did you get this idea that the warnings are mere bluffs WITH RESPECT TO T HEIR CONSEQUENVCES? I’m curious!!! If you can’t recall in scripture something so fundamental to your view, then where did you get it?
As to Matthew 7.23, I agree with Glen when he said that the false prophets “thought that they were ‘partaking’ of the Holy Spirit. They were fooling themselves.” I would add they were duped and seduced by evil spirits because that is exactly what they do (see v. 15; cf. 24.24-26). And here, it seems that this well describes Brad.
Jun 28th, 2008
WA
Brad,
As a friend of mine said: “Brad has hit the nail on the head. These false prophets did genuinely used Jesus name for their works. It is just that Jesus either forgot his ‘knowledeable” acquaintance of them through the Holy Spirit at some point in the past, or he’s a pathological liar.”
Jun 28th, 2008
Brad B
Hi Glen, let me ask you a question, when the wicked preach, using Jesus’ name do you think that God could’ve ordained such preaching for good AND judgement? I’m sure WA is reading also, so this’ll be for him too. I couldn’t care less if [and I agree] that those Matt 7 characters were deceived and willingly going along with it, this doesn’t negate their participation in the benefits of the kingdom. The fact that they had success to boast about is proof of that. Their problem was *look what WE did*. The reason I brought up the parables of the kingdom is this is consistent with what they say also. All of the mischaracterizations of me supposedly butting up against illogical consequences is part of the wordsmithing WA is fond of. I will try to answer them as I have time.
So, WA, I did omit–by acciden–the part about the warnings consequences. I thought you’d infer what I meant, since I wasn’t vauge about what I think. The one who is calling them “mere bluffs” is YOU, I dont think they are mere bluffs even at the same time I do believe that if I’m adopted into the family of God, it is a one way deal because it wasn’t of me it was of God. God will not undo, it is against His revealed nature. They are not mere bluffs, because there isn’t mere fear associated with them. This may not be what you agree with, but it isn’t illogical so maybe that will end.
In you last post, you anr or your friend butcher the use of the word “knew” to suggest that it means knowledgable acquaintance.
Outta time.
Brad B
Jun 28th, 2008
Caloway
WA,
I have been following along…Why don’t you just grant B. the point on Matt. 7. If he says that God can bestow kingdom benefits to these prophets (and I would say “salvific” benefits since B. barowed exclusive “partaking” language from Hebrews, and one cannot participate in the Kingdom unless he’s been born again [Jn. 3.5ff]), and given Jesus’ denial of them, it would necessairly follow that they “fell away” from grace. Either way, it will land him in a denial of “P,” or make Jesus out to be mistaken. Neither look pleasant.
Brad, be a peach, and directly answer WA’s questions posed to you in his recent post. And since you mentioned it, define “knew” as you would have it. You need to elaborate because I can’t find no commentary that supports what you are saying.
Jun 28th, 2008
Glen
Brad,
I think I know what you are saying here, but would like to flush it out some to make sure.
Brad: “I couldn’t care less if [and I agree] that those Matt 7 characters were deceived and willingly going along with it, this doesn’t negate their participation in the benefits of the kingdom.”
By this do you mean that they aren’t true believers and that they are deceived? And what exact benefits are you referring to? They were able to do “miracles,” but so were the priests of Pharaoh when they imitated the works of Moses and Aaron with their staffs.
Brad: “The fact that they had success to boast about is proof of that. Their problem was *look what WE did*.”
I would agree with this, they were looking inward and not upward. I think that we have many “pastors” out there today who are doing the same thing. We have many that are preforming “faith healings” that I believe are not from heaven.
I’ll be out of pocket for the next week or so. God has blessed my wife and I with another little boy we are adopting (just found out) and we are leaving to go to the hospital to see him for the first time on Monday. Isn’t God wonderful!!!!
Jun 28th, 2008
Brad B
Hi Caloway, similar to WA’s line of debate, you take one scripture and claim a meaning as though that is all there is to say about it. Since the beginning WA et al has been arguing for and even providing a quote from an expert witness to say that the scriptures need to stand alone. I dont think that I’ve been unclear that this is not that case and in fact WA has appealed to supporting scritpures claim victory in interpretation against what seems to be the point of the expert witness testimony. As for you, your use of John 3 has to be pitted against the parables of the kingdom where there are obviously regenerated and reprobate “in the kingdom”enjoying the benefits in some measure.
The issue of the “house divided cannot stand” rebuke by Jesus toward the Pharasee’s is still an obstacle to overcome by you and WA since it is clear that Jesus wouldn’t use that criticism on them while using the tactic Himself at another time. WA tried to counter to say that the circumstances were different, and I wouldn’t want to dispute that, but the rebuke stands that good doesn’t cast out good, and evil doesn’t cast out evil–this is according to Jesus. WA will have us to believe that the Matt 7 gang is using evil in Jesus’ name. This errs.
Knew can and usually means love in the NT.
As far as answering the question, where do I get the idea of “mere bluffs” I ansered already that I dont consider them “mere”. The doctrine of Perserverance is based on the scriptures that WA rejects their meaning, namely those that speak of the truely regenerate security[in Christ]. To hold that the regenerated *can* fall away, not just fall, but permanently fall contradicts these scriptures. I’m answering the question right now even though it is going to be disputed and I’m not going to answer again because the issue is a difference between what we each see is the acurate view of God’s sovereignty. The difference between the scripture interpretations is due to those presuppositions.
I’m not going to add the text, it’d be too lengthy.
Rom. 8:35-39, Rom 6:14 John…, the whole Book of John The golden chain of Rom 8:28 Eph. 1 the doctrine of Election according to His foreknowedge. Gal. 2:20 Jn 14:9 and Rom 8 again concerning union with Christ There are so many others that I found re-reading the NT to build a defense of my earlier statement, but I cant see taking 30 min to an hour to add them. The bottom line is these scriptures will support that the salvation of man is of God alone, monergism, not synergism which is the only view you can hold if the regenerated can fall away.
Now, WA, kindly answer my question from before, here it is pasted for your convenience:
>>>>The implications of your view is an assault on grace. I asked before and I’ll ask again, what is the difference between the ones who persevere in the faith and those who dont heed the warnings and fall to eternal separation from God in Hell?
What is it about *them* I’m asking! If it isn’t about God and His purposes, it must be something about them.>>>>>
Brad B
Jun 29th, 2008
Johnny B
WA, look back at your post where you related the “book of the living” with the Lamb’s book of life”. Your point would make sense if they were written in the book of the Lamb. But they are not, look at vs 24 “Pour out Your indignation upon them, And let Your wrathful anger take hold of them.” Is God’s wrath and indignation, on His people, No! Then look at vs 27 “Add iniquity to their iniquity, And let them not come into Your righteousness.” David, asks God to multiple their iniquity, and that He wouldn’t bring them to repentance. Now look at vs 28 “Let them be blotted out of the book of the living, And not be written with the righteous.” David asks, that they not be, “written with the righteous.” I believe this is a reference to the Lamb’s book of life. The “blotted out of the book of the living”, is just poetic language, for “kill um” God. That was David’s emotional state, at the time he wrote this Psalm, but it is not the Lamb’s book here. “Then the “not be written”, could be, David asking that God not draw them to repentance. Which would put them in His or the Lamb’s book.
WA, how do you come up with, “blotted out of the book of the living”, as the Lamb’s book of life?
God unlike you or I, has all knowledge. But in answer to you analogy, that student wouldn’t be my student, if he’s not on my list. But re-read the Psalm and see that this analogy isn’t in line with the Psalm. David, isn’t asking that they be taken off the student list, but off the school list, and that they, not be written on the student list.
Once we get past this, we can go to Hebrews. Remember one thing, human analogies, fail in comparison to God.
Jun 29th, 2008
Brad B
Glen, congratulations! What would you make of this scripture reference with respect to your question?
Mar 9:38 John said to him, “Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, because he was not following us.”
Mar 9:39 But Jesus said, “Do not stop him, for no one who does a mighty work in my name will be able soon afterward to speak evil of me.
There is some work to do with the context here, but it seems clear on the surface that these were outwardly showing signs being outside of the Way.
Brad B
Jun 29th, 2008
Glen
Brad, I would agree that on the surface they are outwardly showing signs, but the question I would have is where is their heart? If their heart was not in the right place then they are not of Christ no matter what they do or say.
Jun 29th, 2008
Brad B
Hi Glen, you said this: “If their heart was not in the right place then they are not of Christ no matter what they do or say.”
I totally agree and this is my point, these displayed to John that they were NOT followiing Jesus, and Jesus, makes this statement that seems to be saying: leave them alone, because although they might revile me with their words, after performing deeds in My name, they will not be able to say derogotory things even though they are surely not born again. Like I said some work needs to be done on this to really nail it down, but on the surface Jesus’ does not seem to show any affection/respect to them at all. Point being, Jesus’ name has the the power in that day to build the kingdom while using whatever means God desired, including the wicked.
Another observation might be that the power of good i.e. Jesus’ name was casting out demons, not the wicked men. This is good vs. evil, again. Not to be confused with evil vs. evil.
Brad B
Jun 30th, 2008
WA
Again and again, the cheap tiresome strategy that Brad employs is to retreat and find cover under the Presbyterian insurance umbrella when biblical questions become vexing. He either suffer memory lapse, or conveniently forgets symmetric developments in this discussion.
If you notice, every thing you say is sheer conjecture. For instance, your baffling claim that “regenerated and reprobated” enjoy kingdom benefits. Matthew does not use such language, he is quite specific [Dismissal 1]. This is not exegesis but theologizing. Dr. Fanning has given us a principle of canonicity and then buttressed by Reformed professor Keith Mathison. Brad either forgets, or conveniently ignores these statements. This is not debate but dismissal through echoing implicitly WCF mantras—that is what we are debating and you should not, and you continue to, beg the question [Dismissal 2]. Go back, and respond to Mathison’s statement either through direct refutation, or you can appeal to another authority. Thirdly, now he’s really in the twilight zone. He says that I “reject” God’s promises to secure the elect. This is false. You admitted ignorance that you do not have biblical support for your bizarre construal of the warnings. In fact, you say that the warnings are REAL, but the consequences are not. But how can the consequences not be real, since by definition, the consequences are logically and conceptually included in the warnings. This is the fallacy of “nothing-buttery.” What prompts you to slice and dice the warnings however you autonomously please, and then all of sudden stop and say: “The warnings are real, but the “consequences” cannot be real for the elect.” How, or what (again ad infinitum) informs you that you can conceptually cut-up the warnings like this? Arguably the scriptures certainly don’t do this. You do this arbitrarily because, the moment you grant the whole concept of the warnings (referent, warning, and consequences) as “real”, you destroy the tradition that authoritatively filters what the scriptures teach alongside (i.e., not contradictory but complimentary to) the sovereign promises of God [Dismissal 3]. I’m simply challenging your one-sidedness to cancel and put into conflict other passages, and instead accept them both as true without using autonomous confessionalistic reason to tamper with them. When you propose that the warnings are “a means” you implicitly employ middle knowledge [Dismissal 4]. Lastly, you continue to harp on your understanding on Matt. 7.23 but I have provided legitimate question that you—should easily answer to—if your view can withstand scrutiny [Dismissal 5]. Unless you can provide direct answers to my questions, it seems that your method is “forget and/or evade.” This is not productive, but stultifying and circumventing setback.
In fairness, I am compelled not answer your question until I get responses to all the 5 dismissals you simply ignored. All challenges are stated in detail above, and so they won’t be repeated. Cite them properly to avoid caricature. Explain your employment of middle knowledge (see above), and rule out the “criteria-challenge” above on Matt. 7.23 along your false dichotomy. Explain your view of the history of the canon and show how the early church COULD NOT understand scripture in the “disconnected” form in which it was originated. Explain you quasi-pseudo understanding of the warnings: the warnings are real, BUT the consequences are not (i.e., this is what I mean by a “bluff”—pure reductionism. Use relevant passage [i.e. Heb.] and do not play the worned-out “conflict” card]. Also, as time allows, engage the exegesis of Heb. 6.4-6 above, and my sampler below.
Brad [DENY]: “To hold that the regenerated *can* fall away, not just fall, but PERMANENTLY fall contradicts these scriptures.”
Scripture [NAS Heb. 6.4-6; AFFIRM]: “For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 AND THEN have fallen away, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God, and put Him to open shame” [For exegesis of this passage, see the yet-responded-to post above].
Jun 30th, 2008
WA
Johnny,
Your point has already been given to you. And you answered my recent question. I also already mentioned that I’d rather not build a doctrine especially in Jewish wisdom literature that is characteristic of rhetorical flourishes (i.e., “poetic” as you say”). As I said, “I threw this is in just to stir the pot.” Hebrews is the most relevant book for this. Let’s stop beating a dead horse and move on to Hebrews.
On the discussion of “salvation” in Heb. 2.3, you cite Clarke making the claim that: “…they do not get their hearts changed by it.” His comment is either theologically premature, or seems to downplay the strong redemptive language that God applies to the congregation. In reference to Jesus, Heb. 2.11 says: “For both He who sanctifies and those who are sanctified are all from one Father; for which reason He is not ashamed to call them brethren.” In 13.12, the sanctification is clearly through the salvific redemptive power through His own blood, even as 10.14 describes Christians as those who are being sanctified by his own sacrifice. The cleansing from defilement of sin is the theological link to the sacrificial atoning benefits that accompany “sanctification” in the sermon of the author. And in Hebrews, references to sanctification are regularly coupled to a statement about the offering of the blood of Jesus (cf. 9.13; 10.10, 14, 29; 13.12). For this reason, he calls directly calls them “holy brethren” (3.1). This redemptive identification is connected with what he already established in the preceding context. The “brothers” are “holy” because the author takes pain to argue in (2.1ff, esp. v. 11), that they have been “sanctified” by Jesus himself (“He who sanctifies” v. 2.11), in His priestly role as the “sanctifier” for the congregation addressed (2.11). Harrington makes this insightful remark: “The preacher returns in 3.1 to direct address. He reminds his congregation that as ‘brothers’ of Christ and of one another, they share in the holiness that reflects God the holy one par excellence and in the call to eternal life with God.” The plural form “partaker” occurs in 3.14 (“sharers in Christ”) and in 6.4 (“sharers in the Holy Spirit”) are rich phrases that describe those who have responded to God’s call to salvation. That is why Reformed scholar Thomas R. Schreiner can say: “The contrast with Levitical sanctification is intended to emphasize the superiority of Christ’s work. The contrast and comparison with the Levitical system does not indicate that the sanctification provided by Christ is merely external, for throughout Hebrews the old covenant outwardly symbolizes what is now an inward reality through Christ…by relegating the sanctification [so Clarke] to ceremonial [i.e., external] sanctification, actually contravenes one of the major themes of Hebrews, namely, what was anticipated in shadowy form in the Old Testament has now become a reality in and through the sacrifice of Christ.”
In sum, to suggest, as Clarke’s outdated commentary (c. 1815) proposes, turns and tilts the message of Hebrews on its head. Johnny, you would be best to engage the exegesis of Heb. 6.4-6 (see above) head-on. I have already exposed your misreading of 1 Jn. 2.19 and its irrelevancy in Hebrews. It’s convenient, but John is addressing a stark different situation (refer to the posts above).
Your unproven assumption that these Jews self-“professed” their salvation is a case of special-pleading (I see WCF ideology rearing its ugly head). There is no scant of evidence that they self-“professed” their standing before God (Where did you exegete this phrase???). Rather, it is the inspired author, and concursively God himself, who omnisciently designated them as such. Wuest is partly correct. Not only does the pronoun “we” refers to his Jewish recipients, but they also include the author himself as an inescapable referent, which follows that the inspired author himself believed that he was not immune to the wrath of God, and that he could also apostatize (on this point, see my posts above). The strong redemptive language in Hebrews falsifies Clarke’s comment (“their hearts were not changed by it”); the clear redemptive language in Hebrews certainly does show a genuine conversion, and for that reason, the consequences are much more severe because of the redemptive benefits that they abandon.
Jun 30th, 2008
Brad B
Hi WA, I’m sorry that we’ve gotten to this point and in all sincerity I appreciate passionate discourse. I do not wish to engage you on your terms only. The set of requirements you give are all on your terms set to come out with a scenario that you can win. This is like: have you stopped beating your wife yet type of set up.
I have benefitted from this interaction in that I’ve searched the scriptures and seen that there are many instances that I use the Reformed lens to interpret and am more aware that this is a natural tendency. I have had to question that, however, the chance that I’ll depart from that is slim to none since I believe that God’s sovereignty is displayed most accurately through that lens. I believe that in His revealed Word, is meant to accurately display the relationship between Him and man in general and between Him and His elect.
I’ve found these links below helpful to my Reformed view: I trust what these men have said and couldn’t think of more sound defense of the doctrine of perseverance of the saints. These links have Spurgeon arguing that the Heb. 6 passage is describing true believers who *cannot* fall away, Boettner and Hendryx ague that these Heb. 6 people are not true saints if they fall away. The doctrine is supported either way which puts the warnings in a light that diverges from WA’s proposal.
http://www.the-highway.com/perseverance_Boettner.html
http://www.spurgeongems.org/vols1-3/chs75.pdf
http://www.reformationtheology.com/2006/02/biblical_reflections_on_hebrew.php
Thanks for the time
Brad B
Jun 30th, 2008
Reformed Mama
Brad B~
You have displayed excellent Christian character in dealing with this thread! Wow…kinda crazy, huh?
I appreciate the above links…Spurgeon is one of my favorite people…can’t wait to meet him in heaven!
Hope you will stay around and join in on other threads…God’s grace…
Jul 1st, 2008
Johnny B
WA, said “I threw this is in just to stir the pot.” in his response to psalm 69.
WA, why would you do that? How am I to know when you are throwing in something, just stir the pot or take it seriously. The intention here is to edify one another. Now I understand where you are coming from and understand, how you get misinterpret Scripture. You use Scripture to make a point, your point, even if you know it doesn’t make your point, or it’s proven, not to make the point you’re trying to make. Instead of admitting you were wrong, if you previously knew it didn’t prove your point.
You ask us to exegete, when you eisegete. To draw out the meaning of a certain Scripture. You need to read it in the context, what the writer had in mind, when writing the letter. For example 1 John 2:19, we need to go back to the beginning of the letter to get the context of the letter. 1 John 1:5-7 to get who the message is to and who the us in 2:19 is speaking of, here’s 1:5-7
“This is the message which we have heard from Him and declare to you, that God is light and in Him is no darkness at all. If WE say that WE have fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, WE lie and do not practice the truth. But if WE walk in the light as He is in the light, WE have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses US from all sin.”
Notice the conditions of Salvation, this is to establish who is or is not redeemed, if you are He cleanses US from all sin. So we know that the US and WE, used by John, refers to himself and the readers of this letter. John adds himself in the mix, if he walks in darkness, he lies and does not walk in the truth. The same conditions apply to John, as it does all of us. So if the person is walking in darkness, but is playing the role of Christian, they lie. Are those people redeemed? No!
You can apply the same conditions, to those spoke of in Hebrews, as well, but we’ll get to that. The link, between chapter 1 and 2, that the same, us and we, still applies. 1 John 2:5 “But whoever keeps His word, truly the love of God is perfected in him. By this WE know that WE are in Him.” Not that we should need a link, because the letter was written as a whole, not in parts. The “US” in 2:19, is the same as the “WE” of vs. 5. The meaning is pretty simple, unless you use a theological bent to interpret, which wouldn’t be exegesis (draw out of), it would be, eisegesis (read into).
I know I said I’d go to Hebrews, but with your statement on stirring the pot, changes things. We need to establish some common ground before we can move on. I believe, we view the process of salvation differently. It is simple, I don’t believe, everyone one that hears the message, or that go to Church, is saved. Do you believe they are?
A couple of other things, I’ve never read the WCF, so if you see it’s, “ideology rearing its ugly head”. It’s not from the WCF, it’s from my study of Scripture. Remember, I menetioned, that I once believed as you do, it’s only been a few months, that I come to the understanding, election and predestination, in the reformed tradition. The only reason, I used Clarke, is because he come from the same view point that you hold.
Jul 1st, 2008
WA
Johnny,
I presume you’re expecting a reply. In that case, hold off venturing into Hebrews, and hopefully my response (tmrw) can set a common-ground trajectory. In the meantime look carefully over my recent exposition on Hebrews and the extended one posted days ago. Thanks.
Jul 1st, 2008
Gerard
I came across this website http://www.network54.com/Forum/84590/ & I would like to learn from you how to refute these cultist.
Jul 2nd, 2008
Johnny B
Wa, sorry, something came up, so I posted what I had written, so I wouldn’t lose it.
The same applies to Hebrews, it is a letter to compare the old with the new, the superiority of the new over the old. Chapter 1 is about Jesus, being superior, to the prophets and how He is God himself. The letter was written to Jewish believers and those, as in 1 John, that don’t walk in the light. Then 2:1-4 “Therefore we must give the more earnest heed to the things we have heard, lest we drift away. For if the word spoken through angels proved steadfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just reward, how shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation, which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed to us by those who heard Him, God also bearing witness both with signs and wonders, with various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit, according to His own will?”
“how shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation”. The writer and the readers are subject to the same standards. How can we escape God’s judgment, if we don’t receive the salvation that He has established. Now the writer of this letter, makes “holy brethren” conditional, in vs. 6 “but Christ as a Son over His own house, whose house we are IF WE hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm to the end.” WE are a holy brother, if you hold or not neglect the hope, the salvation that Christ brought to us. Verses 7-13 are a warning, of what happened to their ancestors in the wilderness. Verse 14-15 “For WE HAVE become partakers of Christ IF WE hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast to the end, while it is said: “Today, if you will hear His voice, Do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion.”
You are a partaker if you hold on to the end, or you can be like the ancestors. Who all heard the same message, but some hardened their hearts, and could not enter in to the rest. Because of “unbelief” vs. 19.
4:2 “For indeed the gospel was preached to US as well as to them; but the word which they heard did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in those who heard it.” A comparison, between those that hear and believe (us) and those that don’t. Verses 11, the fall is according to the example given, of the ancestors, who heard the Word but did not believe. The warning is to all who hear the word or gospel. Those that believe will partake of Christ. Verses 14-16, starts the comparison of High Priests. Our High Priests, Jesus, to the old order of Priests. Chapter 5 continues this, vs. 9 “He became the author of eternal salvation to ALL WHO OBEY Him” Obeying would make you a partaker of Christ. Vs 11, the writer wants to tell them more about this, but “since YOU have become dull of hearing.” The writer is not placing himself with the ones he is directing this to. What’s interesting about the, dull of hearing, is more them likely a reference to Isaiah 6:10, which are mentioned in Matthew 13:15 and Acts 28:27, you can read the context.
Verses 12-14, “For though by this time YOU ought to be teachers, YOU need someone to teach YOU again the first principles of the oracles of God; and YOU have come to need milk and not solid food. For everyone who partakes only of milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, for HE is a babe. But solid food belongs to those who are of full age, that is, those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.”
He can’t go any further with them. 6:1, states with “Therefore” referring back to the previous statement., Verses 2-3, he says what the “elementary principles of Christ” are.
Now vss 4-6, the writer, separates himself for those he is writing to.
“For it is impossible for THOSE who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, if THEY fall away, to renew THEM again to repentance, since THEY crucify again for THEMSELVES the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame.”
If this was a warning to believers, it would read, “for US who”, “if WE fall away”, “renew US again”, “since WE crucify”, and “for OURSELEVES the”. Verses 7-8 is like a parable, referring to the Word of God, it reminds me of the parable of the Sower. The same chapter that Jesus refers to Isaiah 6:10.
Verse 9, “But, beloved, we are confident of better things concerning you, yes, things that accompany salvation, though we speak in this manner.”
He starts the next vs with “But”, then the writer, says, “Beloved” now referring to the redeemed.
So, the exegete of 6:4-6, is the writer is not referring to people that are redeemed, but to people that have heard, but are dull of hearing, they are not getting it.
Jul 2nd, 2008
WA
Johnny,
Some of your prose is hard to follow and very rough. I suggest you write attentively in a well paced (not hasty) manner and check your prose before you write. I’ll do my best to get-at what you’re saying.
By the alleged “conditionals” it seems (I suspect) you are arguing an evidence to inference relationship (EI), that the protasis is a proposed situation that results from a prior condition (the apodosis), especially when the protasis is a general or customary state. In other words, the writer is assuring the readers that they will hold on to their courage and hold firmly to their confidence and thereby be his house and partake of Christ. True members of the new covenant will prove it by maintaining their hold on faith. EI is falsified when Christ himself omnisciently calls them brethren (2.11; don’t ignore my previous post). [I will comment more on this empirical-evidenced based form of perspective in a later post, and say a word of caution if you continue to fail to interact what I have already written, and responded to heretofore].
Referring to Heb. 6.4-6 you say, “If this was a warning to believers, it would read, “for US who”, “if WE fall away”, “renew US again”, “since WE crucify”, and “for OURSELEVES the”. Ah, but ironically, scripture DOES in fact seem to fulfill your own imposed idiosyncratic and autonomous standard. I already have (sighhhh!) covered this: “This is even more unlikely especially when apostasy is realizable for regenerate believers because the author applies the exhortation to HIMSELF by the first-person plural pronoun “we” (Heb. 10.26a; cf. e.g., 2.1-4; 3.14; 4.1, 14-16; 6.1; 10.19; 12.1-3, 25-29). “Further, it can be inferred from this that the author surely did not see the readers as pretentious fakes or he would have consistently addressed them at a greater distance.” Do not skirt the meaning of the terms themselves. Engage them!
Secondly, even though you engage in counseling what the author should have wrote , you did not comment on what the terms mean in Heb. 6.4-6. If they don’t refer to redeemed folk, then what do they mean? I cannot find any indication whatsoever that the writer is not warning “those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift” (6.4 NIV), and some. In fact, in the Greek the list of participles is framed by “it is impossible…to renew them to repentance [Gk “metanoian” repentance, turning about, conversion, BDAG = most authoritative Gk. Lexicon] for emphasis. It could not be more obvious that it is the genuine believers, not the unbelievers in the congregation, who are being warned of the danger of apostasy. Therefore, you are obligated to stop putting your theological motorcar in reverse and explain vv. 4-6 before v. 9 (I’ll comment on v. 9 once you proceed properly).
We know that 6.4-6 is speaking of the redeemed because what is said in Hebrews 6.4-6 is articulated with renewed perspicuity and directness in Hebrews 10.26-31. What is said of “those” in Heb. 6.4: “For in the case of those who have once been ENLIGHTENED…” is said later of the redeemed in Heb. 10.32: “But remember the former days when, after being ENLIGHTENED, YOU endured a great conflict of sufferings.” The upshot to this is that the same exact Gk. word (“photizo”) is used! Therefore, “The writer” does very well “place himself with the ones he is directing this to,” and is contradicted by you. See esp. 10.25-29 (“we”).
Schreiner’s comments are helpful: “In order to understand the warning passages in the letter one must study all of the warning texts together, for they mutually interpret one another.” In other words, each warning internally sheds light on the other, and they all must be taken into account to obtained a coherent and complete picture.
Jul 2nd, 2008
WA
[Keep in mind, that this is what I initially have responded to before you wrote today. It seems you are quite content to build a positive case, but you need to interact with everything that I have written thus far, additionally engage expert citations as I also engaged with yours. Monologues can, and do, get frustrating.]
Johnny, what is your issue!? You insinuate I didn’t stand corrected, when in fact I granted your point (2 Xs). Any denial of this, again, I’ll consider outright lies. And I think you are keen enough to know when I labor a point to drive it home.
[PP1] Speaking of John’s letter, you said “YOU can apply the same conditions, to those spoke of in Hebrews, as well.” Of course(!) I know I can, and you’re very well entitled to that too! But I’ll pass. I won’t deprive you of the pleasure, but if you proceed as such, you do so independently, autonomously, and apart from scripture itself (I thought you said “you *once* believed this” approach). Scripture itself does not execute this cross-referencing. In fact, the dating of the two letters creates a disjunctive chasm to your detriment, which follows that there is no necessary correlate-dependency on these two books. That is, they were written in separate intervallic time and situation, that to assume tight correspondence, is to fly in the face of the historical situation in which these two books are purported to have been originated. (Again, I refer you to Drs. Fanning and Mathison above to reconcile their comments and your Q’uranic-inception view of the Bible.) If you wittingly insist on cross-referencing these two, you must do so but without rationalistic autonomy—the “text” itself must do the cross-referencing or draw textual parallels, not “YOU,” as you suggest, to say nothing that you don’t even argue for this. An autonomous initiating apart from authoritative text-dictation is a departure from the foundation of sola scriptura. Employment of cut & paste method is simply a fallacious hermeneutic since the Bible did not originate like the Quran.
[PP2] Secondly, neither do I believe that everyone that goes to church is saved. But this is true of any Christian with a limited scope of knowledge. Especially when the category is one of “phenomenology” rather than what is necessarily ontological (which, in this case, only God knows for certain). That is why John’s use of the phrase “that it might be MANIFEST” (2.19) refers to what is observable in his case. That is how “we” know that they were never redeemed in the first place. Hence, no spiritual apostasy occurs because they were, and always have been, not saved. They just “left” (Gk. exerchomai, meaning “go out,” “go away,” not parapipto, “commit apostasy” [Heb. 6.6, BDAG]). Hebrews, doesn’t deal with what is necessarily “observable.” The redemptive “designators” (if I can call it that) attribute to Christians are speech-acts from Christ himself (Heb. 2.11; cf. 3.1) and God himself who omnisciently designates them in accordance (contra your allegation, “self-profession”). Certain actions do not need to be actualized in order for an omniscient being to know if they are saved. (Please refer to my comments on 1 Jn. 2.19 above as they haven’t been dealt with point by point. I won’t repeat them here.)
[PP 3]Thirdly, you made the startling claim, “Hebrews, was written to, Jews, that *professed* Christ…” and “had made a profession of Messiah as High priest…” Well, in order for this claim to garner warrant, you need the verbs in the Gk. to be in the middle voice (def: the subject acts “on” himself or herself without external or outside agency. In such cases the reflexive pronoun is employed as the direct object). Some examples: “he hanged himself” (Matt. 27.5), “he will gird himself” (Lk. 12.37), “he deceives himself” (Gal. 6.3), “adorn themselves” (1 Pet. 3.5), and so on. However, the verbs in Heb. 6.4 are not reflexive nor are they in the middle voice. Rather, they are participial phrases in the passive voice. The difference? In the passive voice the subject is acted upon or receives the action. In Gk. the agency can be either an ultimate agency, or an impersonal means. The ultimate agent indicates the person who is ultimately responsible for the action. In the participial cases of Heb. 6.4, the agent responsible for actively acting upon the subject is God himself (not “self-profession” as you toss out), while the recipients are passive en toto. Grammatically, this will be the goaded hurtle you’ll have to either overcome, or submit if you are not wanting to succumb to “theological bent interpretation,” as you put it.
[PP 4]You cite Clarke stating: “…so by refusing to apply that one remedy they must necessarily perish.” A couple of comments are in order: First, the readers (and believers, for that matter) do not “apply” the redemptive acts of grace on themselves. Second, the grammatical evidence [PP 3 above] strongly suggests that the readers were completely passive in their application of the redemptive works. God omnipotently converted them and treats them accordingly. Third, it is BECAUSE of the atoning sacrifice of Christ is applied to the readers (contra Clarke) why Hebrews repeatedly announces judgment in a “how much severer” construction. As in Heb. 9.13-14: if the cleansing rites of the OT accomplished the cleansing of the body, “how much more” does the blood of Christ cleanses the defiled conscious. The impact of the a fortiori (lesser to greater) exhortation in 10.29: “for if we deliberately persist in sin…how much severe punishment do you suppose will he deserve?” suggest the logic that, a repudiation of the already applied-inward work of Christ in the new covenant (v. 29), will involve more terrible retribution (“how much more” v. 29a) than the death penalty attached to violation of the foreshadowing-“outward” cleansing under the OT (v. 28; see also the helpful comment of Schreiner above on this).
Jul 2nd, 2008
WA
[With the previous post in foreground, please answer the following questions, as I have fairly answered yours.]
Question #1 [Q1]: Where did you exegete the idea that, “Hebrews, was written to, Jews that PROFESSED Christ…”??? Explain this in Heb. 6.4-6 without being eisegetical [consider PP 2 & 3]. It seems that you’re going to have a hard time “apply[ing] the same conditions, to those spoke[n] in Hebrews,” let alone upholding the apostolic warnings in scripture as meaningful if the elect can’t fall away.
Also, you said, “This is the SAME WARNING the writer of Hebrews is giving, if they leave, they never were of us, if they stay, they are of us.” Hebrew says THAT? Really??? A warning consists of: (1) subjects or audience, (2) the sin that leads to (3) the exhortation or warning which, if not followed, leads to (4) the consequences of that sin. All these four criteria can be found in Hebrews.
Question #2: Carefully tell us: Where in 1 John 2.19 do you see the imperative (“command”) not to fall away, if you think they are dealing with the “SAME WARNING”? [reconcile this with PP1]. After all, in a previous post, you said, that “The writer is trying to keem them from committing that sin.” What sin? You replied: “…were allowing themselves to drift by New Testament truth, were leaning back towards the First Testament, and were in danger of **RETURNING TO THE TEMPLE SACRIFICES**, an act that would constitute the sin known as apostasy, from which there would be no recovery.” But how could they, when the temple was already destroyed? (It seems that you inadvertently put the cart before the horse.)
Question #3: But how could they, when the temple was destroyed by this time? How can this be John’s concern also? Especially when John is writing in a time (late 80s, early 90s, so Fee & Stuart 2002: 411; Yarbrough 2002: 177; Carson & Morris suggest 80-85 A.D., 1992: 451 ) when the temple—the epicenter communal institution, and religious identity, for the Jews, in which sacrifices and ablutions were ceremonially carried out—was already destroyed (70 A.D.)???
Question #4: Explain the logic of the author’s usage of the a fortiori style of argument (“how much more severe,” punishmen) to redeemed believers and the author himself (10.25-29), IF (assuming you’re still following Clarke) the audience of Hebrews were only sanctified, not through the means of Christ’s blood (cf. 10.19; esp. 13.12), but only in an external-non effective sense? [refer to PP 4 above].
I expect your full cooperation, and not to shrink back since I honored your requests.
Jul 2nd, 2008
Johnny B
WA, I’m sorry, I’m not seeing how I insulted you, that was not my intention. I have family over for the weekend, so I’ll get back to this. We need to stick to the issue(s), we are currently dealing with, don’t need any new ones. I do see that we view the Bible and salvation, in a different light. AS far as “Schreiner’s comments” I did do that with chapter 2, 3, 4, and 5.
Jul 4th, 2008
Reply to “The Gospel Call and The Effectual Call”