biblicalthought.com

Mario-
Do you believe in predestination?

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!!

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.

I think I ought to have said in the last sentence, “to them that believe, those who *receive* the Spirit of God.

…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?

Mario-
Is choice a factor in these calls?

BOC said:

“Is choice a factor in these calls?”

BOC choice is definitely a factor! God’s choice!

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.”

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?”

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).

WA,

You said “God himself assumes that the elect can neglect.”

Did you really mean that God assumes?

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?

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.

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)

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

DP, I’ll see what I can do! It’s a short series, thirteen discs or so…

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.”

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.

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.

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?

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!

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)

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?

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.

Thanks 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.

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

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.

…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.

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.

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.”

WA,

Question… Do you believe that there is only ONE true interpretation (not application) of Scripture?

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.

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.

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.