In an article posted at his blog today, Steve Jones wrote:
"I've been having a shootout with the Reformish Christians over at Triablogue over the subject of hell. I find the idea of God tormenting the nonchristian world for all eternity to be morally unsustainable. The people at Triablogue defend the doctrine because they can highlight some Bible verses that uphold it."
We've done more than "highlight some Bible verses that uphold it". See here, here, and here.
Steve goes on to cite Matthew 25 as "the strongest of these texts" used to support the traditional view of Hell. He doesn't explain why it supposedly is "the strongest", and he doesn't do much to argue for a different interpretation of the passage. He spends two sentences mentioning a different interpretation of Matthew 25, but then comments that "there are inherent problems with that interpretation". Then he goes on to use the remainder of his article to argue that Matthew 25 contradicts justification through faith alone, a doctrine held by Evangelicals such as the ones here at Triablogue who have been arguing for the view of Hell that he opposes. He writes:
"Still, there is a massive difficulty in this text that should pose a world of trouble to the Reformed and Calvinistic stalwart. Jesus doesn't say that 'faith alone' or 'regeneration' is the variable that dispatches one group to eternal life and the other to eternal punishment. No, it's GOOD WORKS and the lack thereof. This notion, of course, is poison to zealous Protestants. If a Reformed preacher got up and said the same thing that Jesus says here, there would be howls against his 'Pelagianism,' if not calls for his permanent removal from the pulpit."
Unlike Steve Jones, we accept the entire testimony of scripture, not just some of it. Thus, we harmonize Matthew 25 with the rest of scripture. If he would consult some Evangelical commentaries on the gospel of Matthew, Steve would know that there's a reasonable explanation of the passage that's consistent with justification through faith alone, an explanation that his article doesn't address.
Some of the same problems we saw in Steve's interpretation of passages related to Hell are repeated in his interpretation of Matthew 25. He doesn't give sufficient consideration to other plausible interpretations. He doesn't make much of an effort to take the larger context into account. While Jesus could mention works in Matthew 25 because they're a means to attaining justification, He also could mention works because they're a result of justification and thus a defining characteristic of the regenerate. Steve's interpretation makes sense of the text and immediate context, but is highly inconsistent with many aspects of the larger context. The interpretation of Matthew 25 that I've just suggested, on the other hand, is consistent with all of the text and context. The same Matthean Jesus who speaks the words recorded in Matthew 25 also forgave people at the time of their faith, prior to any good works (Matthew 9:2), and taught the concept of substitutionary redemption (Matthew 20:28), for example.
Matthew's gospel is a Greco-Roman biography that focuses on Jesus' life on earth. It doesn't address the doctrine of justification in the sort of depth we find in a document like Romans or Galatians. Passages like Matthew 25 should be read along with passages like Matthew 9:2 and 20:28, and there are other indications of Matthew's soteriology elsewhere in scripture. To single out Matthew 25 in the manner Steve Jones does is misleading.
If the apostle Matthew had held a view of justification like what Steve suggests, it not only would be inconsistent with other passages in Matthew's gospel, but also would be inconsistent with what Paul suggests about apostolic unity concerning the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15 and Galatians and what Luke writes on the subject in Acts 15. Paul speaks of his unity with the Twelve, including Matthew, rather than treating them as he treats the Judaizers. He was willing to rebuke Peter publicly when Peter acted inconsistently with the gospel (Galatians 2:11-14), but there doesn't seem to have been any other such incident among the apostles. Even that one incident involving Peter was about inconsistent behavior, not the teaching of a different gospel. The earliest post-apostolic sources (Ignatius, Polycarp, etc.) speak of the apostles as if they were in unity and taught the same doctrines, just as Paul repeatedly affirms in his own writings. As we see reflected in the writings of Ignatius, Matthew's gospel seems to have been highly popular in Pauline churches at a time when contemporaries of Paul were still alive and, thus, Paul's soteriology probably was still highly regarded among them. Matthew's soteriology was considered consistent with Paul's. While Matthew 25 could be read as supportive of justification through works if the passage is singled out, that interpretation doesn't make much sense in the larger context of the rest of Matthew's gospel and the other evidence we have pertaining to Matthew's view of justification.
Something else about Matthew 25 is noteworthy in this context. Steve tells us:
"But despite the prevailing orthodoxy, the message here seems clear: If you want to avoid eternal punishment, feed the hungry, give a drink to the thirsty, take in the stranger, clothe the naked, visit the imprisoned."
Keep in mind that Jesus refers to His "brethren" (verse 40). That term is used elsewhere in Matthew to refer to Jesus' disciples, not humanity in general (Matthew 12:48-50). Though we should do good to unbelievers, it's more important to do good to believers (Galatians 6:10), and the latter seems to be what Jesus is addressing. The regenerate and the unregenerate are distinguished by their treatment of Jesus' followers, the people who carry the gospel out into the world (Matthew 10:40-42), the gospel of justification through faith alone (Matthew 9:2). The fact that our treatment of Christians is one way of identifying our regenerate status doesn't mean that it's the only way. Matthew 25 doesn't require justification through works. What it requires is that the treatment of Christians is something that generally distinguishes the regenerate from the unregenerate.
He doesn't explain why it supposedly is "the strongest", and he doesn't do much to argue for a different interpretation of the passage.
ReplyDeleteThat passage is one of the strongest because it's the only place where the term "eternal punishment" appears. It's also set in contradistinction to "eternal life," which allows people to argue that if the life lasts forever, so does the punishment.
Unlike Steve Jones, we accept the entire testimony of scripture, not just some of it. Thus, we harmonize Matthew 25 with the rest of scripture.
There are so many texts that make salvation contingent upon righteous works and inner goodness that I think it would be easier to explain the "justification by faith" texts in the light of the former.
The same Matthean Jesus who speaks the words recorded in Matthew 25 also forgave people at the time of their faith, prior to any good works (Matthew 9:2), and taught the concept of substitutionary redemption (Matthew 20:28), for example.
Jesus did forgive sinners freely when they came to him, but he was perfectly clear that he expected them to reform their lives and follow his words: "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'"
The doctrine of "just believe" is alien to Matthew.
Even believing in itself is a work -- something the Christian is required to do. The debate is not whether believing in Jesus Christ is necessary. Any true Christian, whether Calvinist or Arminian, accepts that. And the debate is not whether good works are necessary. Once again, we all agree they're necessary.
ReplyDeleteThe real dispute is over who saves us. If God saves us through Jesus Christ then it's not we who save ourselves.
Cetainly we must believe, certainly we must work. But consider all that in the context of "It is God who is at work in you both to will (believe)and to do (work) according to His gppd pleasure".
ReplyDeleteSo who is it again who does what God requires?
SteveJ writes:
ReplyDelete"That passage is one of the strongest because it's the only place where the term 'eternal punishment' appears."
You initially argued that Matthew 25 is "the strongest", not "one of the strongest".
And I see no reason to think that the phrase "eternal punishment" has the significance you're suggesting. Other phrases can have similar implications.
You write:
"It's also set in contradistinction to 'eternal life,' which allows people to argue that if the life lasts forever, so does the punishment."
Yes, and the same sort of paralleling of the future of the righteous and the future of the wicked occurs in other passages (Daniel 12:2, John 5:29, 2 Thessalonians 1:7-9).
You write:
"There are so many texts that make salvation contingent upon righteous works and inner goodness that I think it would be easier to explain the 'justification by faith' texts in the light of the former."
I don't know which passages you have in mind, and you haven't told us how you "explain the 'justification by faith' texts in the light of the former". In contrast, I've cited many texts that teach justification through faith alone (in this thread and in other threads here), and I've explained how Matthew 25 can be interpreted in a manner consistent with justification through faith alone.
If justifying faith results in works, then it makes sense to refer to the regenerate as characterized by a life of works. But if eternal life is attained through works, then why would Jesus forgive people prior to any work on their part, why would works be excluded in principle (Romans 4:4-6, for example), why would eternal life be referred to as something free, why would justification be referred to as something given on the basis of Christ's righteousness rather than our own, etc.? The problem for justification through works isn't just that there are some "justification through faith" passages in scripture. Rather, the problem is that the concept makes far less sense of scripture in multiple contexts.
You write:
"Jesus did forgive sinners freely when they came to him, but he was perfectly clear that he expected them to reform their lives and follow his words: 'Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'' The doctrine of 'just believe' is alien to Matthew."
Expecting people to reform their lives isn't equivalent to making works a means of attaining or maintaining eternal life. Jesus expects obedience to every commandment of God. Should we therefore conclude that sinlessness is necessary to attain or maintain justification?
We need to distinguish between a general description and a universal requirement. Paul expected Christians to behave as Christians, but he knew that they sometimes don't (1 Corinthians 3:1-3). The Corinthian Christians could live in strife and jealousy, yet still be Christians, even though such sins are generally indications of an unregenerate status (Galatians 5:19-21). Paul was more concerned with the foundation of Christ's work than he was with the Christian's work built upon it (1 Corinthians 3:11-15), even though that Christian work is significant and the lack of it gives us reason to doubt a person's salvation. Men like David and John the Baptist could commit sins such as murder and questioning Christ's identity (Matthew 11:2-3), David even breaking a promise by arranging to have a man murdered on his deathbed (2 Samuel 19:23, 1 Kings 2:8-10), yet still be saved. If justifying righteousness is free (Romans 5:17), eternal life is free (Romans 6:23), and the gospel in its essence is a dependence of Christ's work alone (1 Corinthians 2:2, Galatians 6:14), with improved behavior being a result of justification rather than a means of attaining or maintaining it (Ephesians 2:8-10), then God is glorified as just and the justifier (Romans 3:26) and the believer has peace (Romans 5:1) and assurance of the future (Romans 5:9-10).
Under your scenario, on the other hand, God "forgives sinners freely", then places them under a law of works that they must keep just after attaining that "free" salvation. In your system, the freeness of salvation ends just after it begins. It's like offering people a free car on the basis that the bills don't start arriving until after they drive the car out of the lot. Isn't it good to know that the car was free for that brief period of time?
I don't see the peace of Romans 5:1 or the assurance of Romans 5:9-10 anywhere in your gospel. Works can be affirmed as the result of and evidence of justification without being made a means of attaining or maintaining justification.
For starters, Mr. Jones, you were given rather extensive exegetical and/or expositional treatments of your selected texts. It was you, not we, who simply hightlighted some Bible verses. You're mirror-reading. If you find the exegesis flawed, then by all means crack some commentaries or sit down and write some exegetical material for us to examine.
ReplyDeleteI'd also add that 25:46 alludes to Daniel 12, a text we've dealt with already, a text in which hell is described in the very terms we have laid out for you against the caricature you presented. I do so enjoy it when latitudinarians and/or unbelievers appeal to Scriptures that wind up refuting the very position they are attempting to articulate. If you have a problem with our view of Daniel 12, I look forward to your own exegesis of it.
Here's a quick reminder of what you were told:
And many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to everlasting life, but the others to disgrace and everlasting contempt. (Dan 12.2)
This is the first verse in the bible that refers to post-death, post-resurrection, long-term effects of this life, for those who actively reject God’s goodness. Notice that the 'quality of life' is described as 'disgrace' and 'contempt'--hardly mind-numbing torture terms! If the hell-experience had been understood as the intense suffering commonly attributed to it, then this verse has focused on very minor aspects of that--to the point of being misleading perhaps.
I'd also add that the Catholic Catechism refers to Matt. 25.
A New Catechism: Catholic Faith for Adults, Seabury:1966, p.480:
"Jesus speaks of the possibility of one's being eternally condemned. We read of 'eternal punishment' (Mt. 25:46). This could be wrongly understood, as if a disaster or even an injustice then befell the damned, as can sometimes happen with punishments on earth. Hence we find it more enlightening to express the same truth by the term 'eternal sin'. The state of cold obstinacy has become eternal. They have become impervious to God, love, goodness, Christ and fellowship. But it was for these things that man was made. It is now a total perversion, sin brought to its fullest self-expression. To be lost means to be entirely closed in on oneself, without contact with others or with God. This is the punishment, the 'second death' (Rev. 20:14). Scripture uses terrifying words to express it: darkness, gnashing of teeth, fire. They need not be taken as literal descriptions. They are apt expressions nonetheless of the dismay at having missed the end and object of existence."
You also don't seem to understand the opposing position. The biblical formula is justifed by faith alone, saved by grace. The biblical formula teaches that works follow faith. As Luther said, we are justified by faith alone but faith is never alone.
If a Reformed preacher got up and said the same thing that Jesus says here, there would be howls against his 'Pelagianism,' if not calls for his permanent removal from the pulpit."
This is yet another in a string of mistakes about the opposing position.
Calvinism has a doctrine called "perseverance of the saints." You seem to be conflating it with its antinomian cousin "eternal security," in which some of the purveyors of the theology that has produced it teach that a person can "make a decision" and that his faith is "bare," so bare that he may not show fruit. Jesus is making an argument quite similar to James 2. I look forward to your exegesis of James 2 on justification.
One reason that Jesus does not discuss the variable of faith in relation to justification by faith alone here is that Matt. 25 is not a treatise about justification by faith alone. What you've done is make an assumption that since the judgment is here depicted that Jesus would point to those who have exercised faith in him and say "Enter the kingdom because of your faith" and then condemn the rest. This is another of your rather consistent assertions without benefit of argument.
It's also a mistake to import a Pauline category like justification into a text that does not mention it. The same is true of a Johanine category like regeneration. You appear to be unfamiliar with the basic rules of grammatical-historical exegesis.
"But despite the prevailing orthodoxy, the message here seems clear: If you want to avoid eternal punishment, feed the hungry, give a drink to the thirsty, take in the stranger, clothe the naked, visit the imprisoned."
And where is the supporting argument that this would mean that a person is declared righteous on the basis of these works in the sense meant by the dogmatic term: justification by faith alone? Using your own logic it would be these works, and not others, that would justify. So, where is the supporting argument for justification by merit based on these particular works? Further, they would have to be performed by a person upon "one of the least of these." In context, "these" is a reference to the persons on Jesus right hand. So, the people on the left are judged for their poor treatment of the believers.
a. So, in reality this text assumes justification by faith alone, since one group is believers.
b. The reprobate are condemned for not having treated believers a particular way, with regard to particular acts.
c. If your logic is true, then the believers here are justified for good works performed upon themselves, eg. loving each other. On the terms you seem to prefer, that strikes me as incredibly selfish behavior.
d. In the text,in turn "these" are identified as contiguous with "You." That is to say: in loving each other, they show love for Christ Himself. Not doing so shows contempt for Christ.
So, the works themselves are only sign, not an end to themselves. Underwriting these works is love for Christ. These works are merely the outward expression of that inward fact. There is no conflict here with justification by faith alone. One cannot love Christ or the brethren if one has not placed his trust in Him as Lord. So, the text is assuming justification by faith alone from beginning to end.
The underlying logic is that the value of service depends on the status of the one being served. Service to the least is considered by the unregenerate as of little consequence. Service to the king is considered of great consequence. Treatment or mistreatment of "these" is thus related as a reversal of unregenerate thinking. The righteous served the King's needs, while the reprobate did not, which proves what was in the hearts of each.
The reason that these particular works are mentioned is that these are the works that Israel of the OT in her apostasy had routinely failed to perform. The religious leaders in Jesus day knew this. In mentioning these Jesus is calling out the religious establishment's own unrighteousness and equating them with the apostates of the past.
I'd also add that those who believe is justification by merit don't generally appeal to Matt. 25. If you are now going to shift to talking about justification, then may I suggest you actually examine the pertinent texts.
There are so many texts that make salvation contingent upon righteous works and inner goodness that I think it would be easier to explain the "justification by faith" texts in the light of the former.
Another assertion bereft of a supporting argument. What is the hermeneutical rule for this conclusion and where your exegesis of those texts?
Jesus did forgive sinners freely when they came to him, but he was perfectly clear that he expected them to reform their lives and follow his words:
And that is not a problem for Reformed or broadly Protestant theology at all. LBCF2
Chapter 15: Of Repentance Unto Life and Salvation
1._____ Such of the elect as are converted at riper years, having sometime lived in the state of nature, and therein served divers lusts and pleasures, God in their effectual calling giveth them repentance unto life. ( Titus 3:2-5 )
2._____ Whereas there is none that doth good and sinneth not, and the best of men may, through the power and deceitfulness of their corruption dwelling in them, with the prevalency of temptation, fall into great sins and provocations; God hath, in the covenant of grace, mercifully provided that believers so sinning and falling be renewed through repentance unto salvation.
( Ecclesiastes 7:20; Luke 22:31, 32 )
3._____ This saving repentance is an evangelical grace, whereby a person, being by the Holy Spirit made sensible of the manifold evils of his sin, doth, by faith in Christ, humble himself for it with godly sorrow, detestation of it, and self-abhorrency, praying for pardon and strength of grace, with a purpose and endeavour, by supplies of the Spirit, to walk before God unto all well-pleasing in all things.
( Zechariah 12:10; Acts 11:18; Ezekiel 36:31; 2 Corinthians 7:11; Psalms 119:6; Psalms 119:128 )
4._____ As repentance is to be continued through the whole course of our lives, upon the account of the body of death, and the motions thereof, so it is every man's duty to repent of his particular known sins particularly.
( Luke 19:8; 1 Timothy 1:13, 15 )
5._____ Such is the provision which God hath made through Christ in the covenant of grace for the preservation of believers unto salvation; that although there is no sin so small but it deserves damnation; yet there is no sin so great that it shall bring damnation on them that repent; which makes the constant preaching of repentance necessary.
( Romans 6:23; Isaiah 1:16-18 Isaiah 55:7 )
"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'"
Yet another failure to interact with the opposing position.
For example the Second London Baptist Confession 11.2:
2._____ Faith thus receiving and resting on Christ and his righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification; yet it is not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but worketh by love.
Chapter 14: Of Saving Faith
1._____ The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls, is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts, and is ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the Word; by which also, and by the administration of baptism and the Lord's supper, prayer, and other means appointed of God, it is increased and strengthened. ( 2 Corinthians 4:13; Ephesians 2:8; Romans 10:14, 17; Luke 17:5; 1 Peter 2:2; Acts 20:32 )
2._____ By this faith a Christian believeth to be true whatsoever is revealed in the Word for the authority of God himself, and also apprehendeth an excellency therein above all other writings and all things in the world, as it bears forth the glory of God in his attributes, the excellency of Christ in his nature and offices, and the power and fullness of the Holy Spirit in his workings and operations: and so is enabled to cast his soul upon the truth thus believed; and also acteth differently upon that which each particular passage thereof containeth;yielding obedience to the commands, trembling at the threatenings, and embracing the promises of God for this life and that which is to come; but the principal acts of saving faith have immediate relation to Christ, accepting, receiving, and resting upon him alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace.
( Acts 24:14; Psalms 27:7-10; Psalms 119:72; 2 Timothy 1:12; John 14:14; Isaiah 66:2; Hebrews 11:13; John 1:12; Acts 16:31; Galatians 2:20; Acts 15:11 )
3._____ This faith, although it be different in degrees, and may be weak or strong, yet it is in the least degree of it different in the kind or nature of it, as is all other saving grace, from the faith and common grace of temporary believers; and therefore, though it may be many times assailed and weakened, yet it gets the victory, growing up in many to the attainment of a full assurance through Christ, who is both the author and finisher of our faith.
( Hebrews 5:13, 14; Matthew 6:30; Romans 4:19, 20; 2 Peter 1:1; Ephesians 6:16; 1 John 5:4, 5; Hebrews 6:11, 12; Colossians 2:2; Hebrews 12:2 )
Of course, Reformed theology also has a doctrine of false and true professors and a definition of apostasy, so what we have here is yet another failure to interact with the opposing position.
Your problem, apparently, is that you are blind to the nature of sin and holiness of God, since you routinely trivialize them both. Your problem is that you need Christ yourself from the looks of it, for all you are left with is a list of emotive assertions and very shallow exegetical work for which, when asked, you more often than not provide no epistemic warrant. I appreciate your efforts to debunk the Debunkers, but, friend, I think you need to spend some time on yourself. If you are holding onto your merits, you are holding to a false gospel that cannot save you from your sins.
Here's what I understand Jesus to have said consistently through the synoptics: To enter the future Kingdom of God, you must love your enemies, maintain inward purity, forgive others from the heart and live above the Torah observance of the Jewish leaders.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with discussions like these is that we're arguing from two radically different sets of taken-for-granteds. When I read a text (like Matthew 25), I try in objective a manner as possible, to determine what Jesus must have meant. I don't have to operate under the restraints of "It must harmonize with Paul," or "It must be consistent with the system of belief I already know to be true." Nor am I forced to reject a given interpretation because of its ramifications, e.g., "That would mean that we're saving ourselves by merit, so that can't be what he meant." He meant what he meant, regardless of how it confounds existing dogmas.
Also, I have no problem accepting that the Bible contains a diversity of views on various subjects, including final punishment. Daniel 12:2 may not dovetail with, say, Malachi 4:1-3, where the wicked are reduced to ashes and no longer exist. I accept that. I'm not interested in making the Bible speak the same thing on each topic. After decades of trying, I realized I can't do it without employing a host of dishonest interpretative stunts.
Calvinism has a doctrine called "perseverance of the saints." You seem to be conflating it with its antinomian cousin "eternal security" ...
I understand the P in the TULIP. The point is, though, that if a Reformed preacher declared what Jesus says in Matthew 25 without effusive qualifiers about works being mere "effects of justifying faith," you'd question his doctrinal soundness. You know you would!
Should we therefore conclude that sinlessness is necessary to attain or maintain justification?
No, because Jesus may not have held the Calvinist view that perfect, perpetual obedience is what God demands of humanity.
You also don't seem to understand the opposing position. The biblical formula is justifed by faith alone, saved by grace. The biblical formula teaches that works follow faith.
I know this, but there are many texts that lay down good works as CONDITIONS of eternal life, not as mere by-products of justifying faith. In the Sermon on the Mount, for example, Jesus says that we will be the children of God IF we love our enemies; that we will be forgiven IF we forgive others; that we will inherit the earth IF we are meek.
The trouble is, you guys continue to shape your theology based upon the struggle of one monk crawling up Pilate's staircase centuries ago. Maybe it's time to broaden your perspective a little.
It does sound like we're operating from "two radically different sets of taken-for-granteds", but I am not sure they are the ones you mention. Rather, I think it's more fair to say that we are operating from the idea that Scripture is divinely inspired, "all Scripture is God-breathed", etc, and therefore one part cannot contradict another, whereas you are not. Granted, some parts are easier to understand than others, and anybody honest with themselves would say that their presuppositions are constantly challenged by the text.
ReplyDeleteDoes this seem unfair of me to imply that you do not think Scripture verbally inspired? How else can one explain it? If there are true contradictions in a work, that work is not honestly written by a single author. That conclusion seems to me inevitable.
Furthermore, it seems to me a rather low blow to say that you are reading the text in "objective a manner as possible," implying that we are not, that we are reading it through the lens of subjectivity. We may disagree, but we should do so honestly and not to score rhetorical points.
Notice that Steve Jones makes a lot of assertions without giving us much reason to agree with those assertions. He behaved the same way in our earlier discussions about Hell. He hasn't given us much to interact with, and he hasn't made much of an effort to interact with what we said earlier.
ReplyDeleteHe writes:
"Here's what I understand Jesus to have said consistently through the synoptics"
Why would we limit ourselves to the Synoptics?
You write:
"To enter the future Kingdom of God, you must love your enemies, maintain inward purity, forgive others from the heart and live above the Torah observance of the Jewish leaders."
Jesus also taught other things, such as what we've mentioned in our previous responses to you. And we don't just take His teachings into consideration. We also take into account how He behaved toward people who often failed to live up to the standards you describe above, such as the Twelve. Does He speak of contemporaries, like Peter, or Old Testament figures, such as David, as lost because of their sin? Or does His treatment of such people suggest that it would be ridiculous to summarize Jesus' view of salvation as you do above, without further qualifications? We also take into account the Jewish context in which Jesus lived, which is relevant to how we interpret His words, as well as what was taught by other sources He endorsed, such as the Old Testament scriptures and the teachings of His apostles. That's one of the reasons why it's unreasonable for you to write:
"I don't have to operate under the restraints of 'It must harmonize with Paul,' or 'It must be consistent with the system of belief I already know to be true.' Nor am I forced to reject a given interpretation because of its ramifications, e.g., 'That would mean that we're saving ourselves by merit, so that can't be what he meant.' He meant what he meant, regardless of how it confounds existing dogmas. Also, I have no problem accepting that the Bible contains a diversity of views on various subjects, including final punishment."
If Jesus teaches people to accept the authority of the apostles, as He did, then you'd better be concerned with harmonizing your beliefs with what Paul taught. In addition to what Jesus taught about apostolic authority, we have reason to trust Paul because of the miracles he was associated with and because of his historical proximity to Jesus and his good relations with some of Jesus' closest relatives and disciples. If Paul's conversion and suffering suggest that he was sincere, he was a contemporary of Jesus, he had the ability to perform miracles, and he was supported by members of Jesus' immediate family, His closest disciples, and churches around the Christian world, then why should we think that Paul was distorting what Jesus had taught? As I said earlier, we know, from sources like the writings of Ignatius, that the early Pauline churches held both Paul's writings and the gospel of Matthew in high regard. These people who lived much closer to the time of Jesus and the apostles than you do thought that Paul was consistent with the Synoptics and was an apostle appointed by Jesus and authenticated by the performance of miracles.
As far as Biblical consistency is concerned, you're once again rejecting what Jesus taught while claiming to follow Him. Jesus seems to have held the same sort of high view of scripture held by His Jewish contemporaries (Matthew 5:17-18, 22:29, Luke 16:31, 24:25-27, etc.). It's the same sort of view that's prominent among the early post-apostolic Christians:
"This attitude was fairly widespread, and although some of the fathers elaborated it more than others, their general view was that Scripture was not only exempt from error but contained nothing that was superfluous." (J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines [New York: Continuum, 2003], p. 61)
You write:
"Daniel 12:2 may not dovetail with, say, Malachi 4:1-3, where the wicked are reduced to ashes and no longer exist."
Malachi 4 is addressing events on earth in the coming day of judgment. It doesn't say that the people "no longer exist".
You write:
"I'm not interested in making the Bible speak the same thing on each topic. After decades of trying, I realized I can't do it without employing a host of dishonest interpretative stunts."
What you're now doing is accepting what some apostles and their associates reported about what Jesus taught, for example, while rejecting what those same sources and comparable sources reported elsewhere, without offering us any justification. You just tell us, without explanation, that you're focusing on what Jesus said in the Synoptics, and you make no attempt to reconcile what you cited from the Synoptics with other things Jesus said and did in those same Synoptic gospels and other things the authors of the Synoptics reported. Luke, for example, supports the apostolic authority of Paul in Acts. The same Matthew who wrote the gospel of Matthew was among the early church leaders who accepted Paul's authority as an apostle. Etc.
You write:
"I understand the P in the TULIP. The point is, though, that if a Reformed preacher declared what Jesus says in Matthew 25 without effusive qualifiers about works being mere 'effects of justifying faith,' you'd question his doctrinal soundness. You know you would!"
You're not giving us any reason to agree with that assertion. But since the gospel of Matthew itself adds qualifiers that you've neglected, and Jesus adds further qualifiers elsewhere (in the other gospels, etc.), why should we read Matthew 25 with our eyes closed to those qualifiers?
You write:
"The trouble is, you guys continue to shape your theology based upon the struggle of one monk crawling up Pilate's staircase centuries ago. Maybe it's time to broaden your perspective a little."
We don't just agree with Luther. We also agree with many who lived before him who believed in such concepts. I doubt that you'd be ignoring and dismissing the apostle Paul in the manner you have if he didn't support what we're arguing.
Have one of you T-bloggers ever blogged on the diff between Eternal Security and Perseverance of the Saints?
ReplyDeleteIf not, I'd be quite interested in a brief primer, or just a comment in here. I use the terms interchangeably all the time but Gene's comment makes me think I shouldn't...
Here's what I understand Jesus to have said consistently through the synoptics: To enter the future Kingdom of God, you must love your enemies, maintain inward purity, forgive others from the heart and live above the Torah observance of the Jewish leaders.
ReplyDeleteAre such things said to tell people positively how to enter the kingdom, e.g by works of merit or to show them that works of merit cannot, because of sin, gain them entrance? Let's take living about the Torah observance of their leaders:
a. On the one hand it was legalistic.
b. On the other Jesus says this because they are supposely the representatives of moral perfection in the eyes of his listeners.
c. So he is both calling attention to the inability of works to allow one entrance into the kingdom and the inability of anybody to enter, not just the leaders. Once again you're drawing conclusions about ability from texts presenting commands. Where is the supporting argument that you can draw a conclusion about the ability of the hearer to do what is commanded from the existence of the command? That's a non-sequitar. We've covered this ground with you already.
When I read a text (like Matthew 25), I try in objective a manner as possible, to determine what Jesus must have meant. I don't have to operate under the restraints of "It must harmonize with Paul," or "It must be consistent with the system of belief I already know to be true." Nor am I forced to reject a given interpretation because of its ramifications, e.g., "That would mean that we're saving ourselves by merit, so that can't be what he meant." He meant what he meant, regardless of how it confounds existing dogmas.
That's not the claim. What we're "taking for granted" are the basic rules of grammatical-historical exegesis. One of them as Jason has repeatedly pointed out, is reading Matthew as a whole and not parts in isolation. You, by way of contrast, begin not with the GHM but with certain a priori ideas about God's mercy and justice, as in your view of hell and what constitutes a "moral" view of the eternal state. I have not argued on the basis of an apriori set of dogmas. I've argued on the basis of exegesis.
I'd also point out that in driving a wedge between Jesus and Paul you forget that Jesus authorized the Apostles. Their authority is His authority.
It's a standard move by liberal theologians to do that. What's next, do you support gay rights because of an alleged disparity between Jesus and Paul?
Where's the supporting argument that we should listen to Jesus in the gospels above Paul, Peter, John, James, etc?
Also, I have no problem accepting that the Bible contains a diversity of views on various subjects, including final punishment.
The presumably this would also apply to your view on justification, which directly undermines your claims about justification by merit being the doctrine qua doctrine about justification in Scripture.
Daniel 12:2 may not dovetail with, say, Malachi 4:1-3, where the wicked are reduced to ashes and no longer exist. I accept that. I'm not interested in making the Bible speak the same thing on each topic. After decades of trying, I realized I can't do it without employing a host of dishonest interpretative stunts.
Which is a certain sign that the problem isn't the Bible, its your lack of hermeneutical skills. On the one hand you read the text as a literal furnance, but I don't seriously believe that you think that verse 2 is saying that we'll "skip like calves from the stall." It doesn't say that the people "no longer exist," that's an inference, probably drawn from the furnance imagery and a reference to chaff. The text also says that we'll tread down the wicked. So, which is it? Does God obliterate them into ashes, or do we walk on top of them? Are you suggesting that their ashes will be spread out and then we'll skip on top of them like calves? That sort of overliteral hermeneutic is precisely what I meant when I said you read the Bible like Tim LaHaye. I take that back; you're worse. You don't even bother to ask yourself what those images mean in Hebrew apocalyptic forms.
The problem isn't a diversity of views with the Bible but your inability to read. Dare I say the problem is related to 1 Cor. 2:14.
I understand the P in the TULIP. The point is, though, that if a Reformed preacher declared what Jesus says in Matthew 25 without effusive qualifiers about works being mere "effects of justifying faith," you'd question his doctrinal soundness. You know you would!
No, what you stated was that a preacher using those terms would be ejected for teaching "Pelagianism." Now, you're coming back with a caveat not in your original. My response was framed to your own argument. So, apparently, you can't keep track of your own arguments. Jesus is making the same argument as James in James 2.
No, because Jesus may not have held the Calvinist view that perfect, perpetual obedience is what God demands of humanity.
Another assertion bereft of supporting argumentation.
If your logic holds then the history of redemption would look something like this:
Plan A. God told Adam to obey him, but He was willing to cut Adam some slack. When He said, "Eat this and you'll surely die." He didn't mean that. So, you side with the Serpent in the Garden, Mr. Jones. Congratulations.
Plan B. Man violated the Covenant of Creation. It undeniably required perfect obedience. The Law was a Plan B, salvation by works. That failed, so Plan C is justification by faith, but there's still a Plan D, because man can fudge on justification by faith alone by mingling his works with faith or just working his way to heaven.
Please show us some representative theologians that hold your views.
"May" is a weasel word for you, for in your OP, you were making precise claims.
know this, but there are many texts that lay down good works as CONDITIONS of eternal life, not as mere by-products of justifying faith.
Dave Hunt claims there are "many texts" that talk about election based on foreseen faith, God's omnibenevolence, general atonement, and all sorts of things. I've learned from him that this claim is a claim of last resort. If what you say is true, then where is your exegetical material on them?
In the Sermon on the Mount, for example, Jesus says that we will be the children of God IF we love our enemies; that we will be forgiven IF we forgive others; that we will inherit the earth IF we are meek.
A. Which is a restatement of the OT Law, in which the individual who did these things is demonstrating his faith in God.
B. After stating a prologue, which is a primer on the qualities of justification by faith.
The Sermon on the Mount is not a defeater for Reformed Theology. Read D.Martin Lloyd Jones on this topic.
The trouble is, you guys continue to shape your theology based upon the struggle of one monk crawling up Pilate's staircase centuries ago. Maybe it's time to broaden your perspective a little.
No, the problem is that we're dealing with an unregenerate biblical illiterate that argues by emotion and assertion without supporting arguments and can't do basic grammatical-historical exegesis.
Rhology:
Easy: Eternal security is the antinomian cousin of perseverance of the saints. The latter is a both-and proposition. That is it includes the security of the believer and God will also see to it that the believer will not apostasy.
There's a sermon @ Founders.org in the library by RBC Howell on Perserverance of the saints in which he defines backsliding and apostasy. I don't know the URL, but you can find it in the library search.
Not every objection to eternal security is an objection to perseverance of the saints. Eternal security is typically associated with fundamentalism. Perseverance is broader.
According to Bob Wilkin, the Free Grace camp admits to there being 3 views on eternal security in their camp.
a. A person can "make a decision" and not bear any fruit. (This is typically the version Calvinists, Arminians, and Catholics attack. Its also the one many Catholics think of when they attack Calvinism).
b. A person may or may not bear fruit. It's a middle position.
c. Perseverance of the saints as defined by Calvinism.
A and B are typically associated with "bare faith" as saving faith, the way that Wilkin and his crew define it.
Please show us some representative theologians that hold your views.
ReplyDeleteDr. Harmon P. LaPushnik
Dr. Mavis Ozzleback
Dr. A.C. Goggins
Dr. J.C.P. Gurfell
Dr. Richard C.H. Muggenfart
Dr. Rocky T.H. Balboa
Seriously, though. Why are y'all such an cantankerous lot, anyway? I sometimes wonder if it trickles down from the founders and historic exponents of your sect. Or could it just be chronic constipation?
To judge by his latest reply, it's obvious that Steve Jones is incapable of having an intellectually responsible debate. It's time to pull the trigger on this debate—at least at his end. Further comments from him will be deleted.
ReplyDeleteThanks Gene, I'll listen to the sermon. I'll check out Rev. Muggenfart while I'm over there and see what he has to say.
ReplyDelete