Post-Calvinism-2

Dr. McKnight has apparently completed his series on Post-Calvinism.

http://jesuscreed.blogspot.com/

Therefore, I’ll complete my reply.

Before getting into the exegetical details, I will venture one comment about his personal pilgrimage. He says was became convinced of Reformed theology when reading Owen (practical writings), Spurgeon (his autobiography), Bunyan (Pilgrim’s Progress), and Calvin (Institutes) as a high school student.

He then says that he become unconvinced of Reformed theology by reading Marshall (Kept by the Power of God), and studying under Grant Osborne as a seminarian.

At the risk of stating the obvious, it comes as no great surprise that his Calvinism fell like a house of cards. For his original acceptance of Calvinism had precious little exegetical foundation.

Even Owen and Calvin don’t do exegesis with the rigor we’ve come to expect of Reformed exegetes like Carson, Schreiner, Silva, and Beale.

Indeed, no one was doing that quality of exegesis back then. Certainly not Wesley or Finney or Miley. This, rather, is the result of modern German (e.g., Meyer, Zahn) and British (e.g., Bruce, Lightfoot) scholarship.

In his series, Dr. Knight’s major challenge to Calvinism comes in his “Believers or Not?” installment. So that’s what I’ll be commenting on.

***QUOTE***

Everything about the Warning Passages in Hebrews hinges upon the audience: Who are they? Are they believers or not?

I begin with this observation: in the history of the Church many have made a distinction between a genuine believer and a nominal believer. I find such categories useful in some contexts. The issue in reading Hebrews is whether or not the author uses such a category to explain his audience.

***END-QUOTE***

It’s true that this distinction comes to us by way of systematic theology rather than Hebrews, per se. It’s a theological construct based on the general teaching of Scripture.

In general, the distinction between genuine and nominal belief is grounded in the distinction between regeneracy and unregeneracy. But this is basically a Johannine category, so we wouldn’t expect the author of Hebrews to employ the very same classification-system since he has his own theological categories.

However, the author does draw other distinctions, between one group and another. McKnight draws attention to one such division:

i) Those who persevere and those who don’t.

***QUOTE***

The author sees his audience as mixed. Mixed, in the sense of those who will persevere and those who will not. Not mixed in the sense of frauds and genuine. There is no suggestion in the book of the latter category, but plenty of the former. There is all kinds of evidence that he thought some would persevere and some would not; he never suggests those who do not persevere are frauds. There is a big difference.

My conclusion is this: the author of Hebrews saw his audience as believers but knew that some would fall away, or had fallen away, or might fall away. The implication is that a believer can fall away.

***END-QUOTE***

Dr. McKnight also defines a believer, in this context, as someone who has undergone a “full Christian experience,” “those who have experienced the fullness of the Trinity and God's saving work. So, I would say they have moved through all six dimensions of conversion.”

This, however, generates a rather obvious dilemma: if it is possible for such an individual to lose his salvation, then how would the author of Hebrews be in a position to predict the outcome?

These two things don’t go together. In principle, the author could believe that there is a distinction between true and nominal believers. And that would, in turn, ground his knowledge that some will persevere while others will fall away.

Or he could believe that there is no such distinction—that those who persevere and those who fall away had the very same Christian experience.

On that hypothesis, there would be no differential factor to predict who, if any, would persevere, and who, if any, would fall away.

So one problem with Dr. McKnight’s interpretation is that he credits the author with a knowledge of the outcome after having removed a necessary condition for a knowledge of the outcome.

There are, in addition, a number of other distinctions in play:

ii) In Heb 2:9-17, the author describes the men and women for whom Christ made atonement. And he uses language, allusive of OT usage, which is descriptive of those who are members of the covenant community: "sons" (10); "brothers" (11-12); "children" (13-14); the chosen people (13); "Abraham’s seed" (16), and "the people [of God]” (17; cf. 9:15).

This raises the possibility that the differential factor between those who persevere and those who fall away turns on the difference between those for whom Christ made atonement, and those for whom he did not.

iii) Likewise, the author says that Christ died for those who have been called and consecrated (Heb 9:15; 10:14). Was everyone called and consecrated?

iv) Likewise, the intercession of Christ is grounded in the sacrifice of Christ—owing to the indivisible character of his priestly work. Hence, sacrifice and intercession are conterminous (Heb 1:3b; 7:27; 8:1,3; 9:24b).

This plays off OT imagery in which intercession was made for those for whom sacrifice was made. An Israelite brought a sacrificial offering to the priest. The beneficiary of this transaction was the one for whom sacrifice was made—the one who brought the offering to the priest in the first place.

v) Likewise, the author distinguishes between those who lived under the old covenant and the new covenant, and he places sustained emphasis on the efficacy of the new covenant (4:14; 7:16,24-28; 8:6; 9:12,14-15,26-28; 10:12-18,22) in invidious contrast to the old (5:2-3; 7:18-29,27-28; 9:9-10,13; 10:1-4,11).

But if there’s no difference in religious experience between the NT saint and the NT apostate, then Dr. McKnight’s interpretation erases any comparative advantage between an OT Jew and a NT Christian.

Hence, even before we get into Heb 6 & 10, there is a larger framework in view.

Finally, I’d like to add that it is lopsided to center our analysis of Hebrews on the apostasy motif when, in fact, the letter pivots on the dual theme of threat and assurance. Moreover, the author rounds out his dire warnings on an optimistic note (cf. 6:9ff.; 10:30,39).

***QUOTE***

First, the author often includes himself with the audience by using the term "we." 2:1-4; 3:14; 4:1, 11, 14-16; 6:1; 10:19; 12:1-3, 25-29.

Second, the author calls his audience "brothers." 3:1, 12; 10:19; 13:22. Perhaps 3:1 needs to be quoted: "holy brothers who share in the heavenly calling."

Fourth, sometimes the author sees his audience as "you." This suggests he thinks some of them will not make it. See 3:12; 5:11; 12:18-24.

***END-QUOTE***

And this oscillation is just what you’d expect in a letter addressed to a group of people. The letter is addressed to everyone, but the letter is not about everyone. So within the body of the letter, further distinctions are draws since what is said about some may not be applicable to others. That’s a necessary accommodation to the exigencies of mass communication.

***QUOTE***

Third, at 4:3 he calls his audience "believers."

Fifth, 10:29 needs to be read carefully: "How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by those who have spurned the Son of God, profaned the blood of the covenant by which they were sanctified, and outraged the Spirit of grace?" Here the "you" have spurned the Son of God, and profaned the blood, and were (already) sanctified by the blood, and are outraging the Spirit.

***END-QUOTE***

This goes to a fatal equivocation in the way in which Dr. McKnight identifies the “audience” of Hebrews. In particular, he commits a level confusion. For there is more than one referent in Hebrews:

i) Epistolary referent: These are the addressees; the church-members to whom he is writing.

ii) Narrative referent: Those about whom he is writing. (ii) intersects with (i), but does not coincide with (i). (ii) includes the cautionary example of OT apostates, whom the author uses, in turn, to illustrate their NT counterparts.

The author alternates between (i) and (ii) to compare and contrast the three groups: (a) OT apostates; (b) NT apostates; (c) addressees.

What we end up with is a relation of analogy rather than identity between three overlapping groups.

***QUOTE***

Fifth, 10:29 needs to be read carefully: "How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by those who have spurned the Son of God, profaned the blood of the covenant by which they were sanctified, and outraged the Spirit of grace?" Here the "you" have spurned the Son of God, and profaned the blood, and were (already) sanctified by the blood, and are outraging the Spirit.

Sixth, at 2:3-4 the author recounts their conversion experience; at 6:10 they are those who have showed love in the name of Christ; at 10:22 they have had their hearts sprinkled and been cleansed of a guilty conscience; at 10:32-34 we see evidence of their enduring persecutions.

Put together, this all indicates a full Christian experience: conversion, gifts and manifestations of the Holy Spirit, the work of the death of Christ, and a Christian community commitment.

Seventh, now briefly on 6:4-6: the author claims that those who have reached a certain level and turn back cannot be restored unto repentance. (This is a singular comment; it is grave.)

Enlightened: see 10:32. An early Christian conversion term.
Tasted...: see 2:9; 6:4, 5. This does not mean "taste" as in dabble, but is a metaphor for "experience." See at 2:9 -- one does not merely "dabble" in death; it means to die.
Partaken in the Spirit: refers to early Christian experience of the Holy Spirit.
Tasted Word... again, experienced the powers of God's Word.

Again, these verses put it all together: a full Christian experience.

***END-QUOTE***

Here I take issue with Dr. McKnight’s linguistic analysis. The problem is twofold: (i) He fails to construe the author’s usage on his own terms, within the confines of the letter itself, and (ii) he fails to construe the author’s usage in light of his OT allusions.

Since Dr. McKnight has drawn attention to other authors, such as Marshall, who share his viewpoint, I’ll go beyond his immediate discussion to interact with a variety of supporting evidence for his position:

i) In order to understand Heb 6 & 10, we must go back to where the author introduces the apostasy motif. Because the author is addressing Messianic Jews who are tempted to revert to Judaism, he draws a parallel between NT apostasy and OT apostasy. This comparison is introduced in the first of five apostasy passages (2:1-4). Then in 3:6-4:13 he elaborates on the character of the OT apostates. By the way in which our author structures his own argument, therefore, this precedent is paradigmatic for the case of NT apostasy. And his remarks in 6:4-6 will allude to this passage. If there were a radical discontinuity of religious experience between Old and NT apostates, our author’s analogy would break down at the critical point of comparison.

ii) What does the author mean by having a share in the Holy Spirit (6:4)? Before we can attempt a specific answer we must first ask about the general contours of our author’s pneumatology. He doesn’t have much to say on this subject, but what he does tell us is confined to the external rather than internal work of the Spirit (2:4; 3:7; 9:8; 10:15). There is a possible reference to his agency in the Resurrection (9:14). So this does not equate with regeneration—which is a Johannine category, although the Pauline category of calling covers some of the same ground as the Johannine. The point, rather, is that both the OT and NT apostates had a share in the ministry of the Spirit by virtue of his agency in the inspiration of Scripture. More precisely, both groups had been evangelized (4:2,6).

iii) The author takes the rebellion at Kadesh as his test case (Num 14 via Ps 95). Having tasted the "goodness of God’s word" (6:5) echoes the experience of the OT apostates (4,2,6,12; cf. Num 14:43). Tasting the "powers of the coming age" has immediate reference to the sign-gifts (2:4), but this experience also has its OT analogue (Num 14:11,22).

I agree with Dr. McKnight that “to taste” doesn’t mean merely to dabble. But his statement, while narrowly correct, is broadly false when it is taken to mean that the import of a verb varies with the noun it takes. It is a semantic fallacy to argue that the import of a verb is defined by its object. Does geuomai have a humble human import in Jn 2:9, but take on a divine import in Mt 27:33? This confuses intension with extension (see under point #11). Along similar lines, W. Lane claims that the verb "is appropriate to an experience that is real and personal," WBC 47A (Word, 1991), 141.

This statement suffers from a couple of flaws:

a) What is an "appropriate" object of the verb is not a way of defining the verb. Judas Iscariot is an appropriate object of the verb "to betray," but the verb "to betray" doesn’t mean "Judas Iscariot."

b) In the nature of the case, any kind of experience will be real and personal. Dreams and delusions are real, personal experiences. So this proves everything and nothing.

iv) Drawing on the parallel passage in 10:32, Scot McKnight argues that this photizo (6:4) denotes conversion, "The Warning Passages in Hebrews," TrinJ 13 (1992), 45-56. Lane is guilty of the same circular reasoning when he defines the verb in terms of "saving illumination" of heart and mind by appeal to 10:32 (ibid.141).

This is a valid inference, but does not advance his case against Calvinism, for if 6:4 is ambiguous, taken by itself, that same ambiguity will attach to the parallel. The question is whether the verb denotes conversion in the dogmatic sense. William Lane goes so far as to claim that,
"In the NT the term is used metaphorically to refer to a spiritual or intellectual illumination that removes ignorance through the action of God or the preaching of the gospel (cf. John 1:9; Col 4:6; Eph 1:18; 2 Tim 1:10; Rev 18:1). What is signified is not simply instruction for salvation but renewal of the mind and of life," ibid. 141.
There are two problems with this analysis:

a) evangelization and the action of God are two distinct concepts. While the action of God implies spiritual renewal, evangelization does not. So finding verses that connect illumination and kerygma do not support the stronger thesis.

b) When we run through his citations, they fail to bear out his contention. The interpretation of Jn 1:9 is contested. In context, though, it has reference, not to inner illumination, but the revelation of Christ via his advent. The two Pauline passages (Col 4:6 is a misprint for 1 Cor 4:5) may well have reference to spiritual renewal. However, we must register a couple of caveats: (a) even in Pauline usage, it doesn’t follow that the verb is a technical term for conversion. Lane is confusing intension with extension by illicitly deriving this concept from the larger context, and not from the word itself; (b) there is no reason to assume that Paul’s usage is normative for the author of Hebrews. Lane himself admits a discontinuity between their respective conceptual schemes, viz., the author of Hebrews "moves confidently within the conceptual world of cultic concerns centering in the priesthood and sacrifice. Many of the emphases of Hebrews are alien to those of Paul," ibid., xiix.
The appeal to 2 Tim 1:12 suffers from two problems:

a) The fact that evangelization is in view doesn’t mean that the verb signifies evangelization. Once again, Lane is confusing sense and reference by importing the context back into the word. The time is past due for NT scholars to master this elementary distinction. It goes back to Frege and was popularized by Barr.

In Frege’s classic illustration, "the Morning Star" and "the Evening Star" share the same referent (the planet Venus), but they don’t share the same sense inasmuch as they denote different phases of the planet. Barr generalized this distinction in terms of his "illegitimate totality transfer" fallacy. Cf. The Semantics of Biblical Language (Oxford, 1961). While I’m sure that Arminian scholars have read the book, they have failed to absorb its bearing on traditional Arminian arguments.

b) The preaching of the gospel is not the same thing as inner illumination. Finally, Rev 1:18 refers to the radiance of an angel, and as such, does not denote either subjective renewal or objective revelation.

v) On Heb 6:2,6, it is a mistake to read into the word "repentance" the full payload of later dogmatic reflection. (e.g., The Westminster Confession 15:1-2). To begin with, the author of Hebrews doesn’t care to delve into the psychological dynamics of conversion. Moreover, it is evident from his usage elsewhere (12:17) that he doesn’t use the word as a technical term for Christian conversion. The Reformed doctrine of repentance as an evangelical grace is influenced by those occurrences where the word is used in an evangelical context, with God as the efficient agent (e.g. Acts 5:31; 11:18; 2 Tim 2:25).

vi) On Heb 10:29, it is anachronistic to construe "sanctify" as it has come to be used in systematic theology. The author tells us that the apostate was sanctified by blood of Christ rather than action of the Spirit. That automatically removes it from the dogmatic category. His usage is figurative and consciously cultic (9:13,20; cf. Exod 29:21; Lev 16:19, LXX). It is concerned with a status rather than a process. By taking it to mean what it would normally mean in Pauline theology, the Arminian is confounding different universes of discourse. It is also possible that the verb takes the "covenant. Cf. P. Ellingworth, NIGTC (Eerdmans/Paternoster, 1993), 541. On this construction, the blood "sanctifies" the covenant, not the apostate.

In sum, I believe that Dr. McKnight, with the best will in the world, has failed to make his case. Not even close.