The Grim Reppert has posted the following inquiry—which is a continuing issue with him:
With respect to leaving the fold, I do not know if the Calvinist doctrine of perseverance requires that we psychoanalyze all those that leave the fold and say that they were insincere, Because people like Loftus will say that their beliefs were sincere and their behavior no doubt suggested that they were real believers. If an atheist believes in the wishful thinking theory of religious belief, and say that everyone who believes just can't stand the idea that there will be no afterlife, then I think they should take the counterevidence seriously when C. S. Lewis says the last thing he wanted to believe in was an afterlife, and that he became a believer based on his assessment of the evidence. You can surely doubt the adequacy of his assessment of the evidence, but it's wrong to say that he really wanted to believe in an afterlife when the evidence suggests that he didn't want this at all.
But similarly, when an atheist says that they really believed in the past and left the fold later, then to say that didn't really believe but deep down inside was an atheist all along, then I've got a problem with that, too.
Does the Calvinist doctrine of perseverance require that we analyze people on the Debunking Christianity website (all of whom claim to be former believers) in this way? If so, this is troubling for the Calvinist view. But maybe their view doesn't have these entailments.
http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2007/08/calvinism-and-psychoanalyzing.html
Several issues:
i) I’m puzzled by this follow-up question because I, for one, thought that I had already addressed that question in his prior post on the same subject.
The Reformed position, as I understand it, is not that apostates were never sincere, or never really believed in Christian theology.
The position, rather, as I explained before, is that apostates were either closet unbelievers (in some cases) or unregenerate believers (in other cases).
ii) Dr. Reppert also has the issue upside down. The Calvinist claim is not that they were insincere then, but, rather, that they were insincere now. It’s not their former belief which was necessarily insincere, but their subsequent disbelief. Deep down inside, they know there is a God, and they are in a state of rebellion.
iii) The distinction between true and nominal believers is not unique to Calvinism. Indeed, apart from an antinomian/Sandemanian strand in one fraction of fundamentalism, most Christian traditions draw some such distinction.
During the 18C evangelical revival, for example, it wasn’t just Reformed evangelists like Harris, Whitefield, Edwards, Rowlands, Romaine, and Pantycelyn who were preaching the New Birth. The Wesley brothers were also preaching the New Birth in response to the dead formalism of the Anglican church. Same thing with J. C. Ryle a century later.
Same thing with the Pietist movement in Lutheranism as well as Kierkegaard’s attack on the moribund state of the national church in Demark.
Different theological traditions have different ways of finessing this distinction, but a number of theological traditions recognize the need for periodic revival.
iv) The apostates over at DC have deconversion testimonies, in a copycat parody of conversion testimonies. Since they take the initiative in discussing the psychology of deconversion, we are simply addressing them at their own level. If they choose to discuss the psychological dynamics of apostasy, then we reserve the right to analyze their testimonials.
And this isn’t distinctive to apostasy. Evangelical churches that are serious about Christian piety insist on a credible profession of faith as a condition of church membership. So we “psychoanalyze” professing believers as well as professing unbelievers.
In addition, the Puritans were famous or even infamous for their spiritual introspection.
v) The Bible itself is a book which is deeply concerned with the difference between nominal belief and regenerate faith. And the Bible also has quite a lot to say about the psychology of unbelievers.
Is this just one more part of the Bible that Dr. Reppert regards as uninspired?
vi) Finally, Dr. Reppert seems to think there’s a double standard in play unless we’re entirely evenhanded in the way we assess the testimonies of Christians and apostates alike. But that only makes sense if you’re equally sceptical about the truth or falsity of Christianity and atheism. If, by contrast, you believe that one is true and the other is false, then you shouldn’t act as if all the testimonies on either side are epistemically equivalent.
Naturally it is possible to be sincerely mistaken. A person may honestly believe themself to be something they are not, until a crisis forces them to reassess that position. That crisis may be the failure of a marriage that was expected to last for life, it may be moving out of the closed environment of home and church to University, or losing one's first job. For the professing Christian, this is a time of testing, this is the storm that battered the two houses.
ReplyDeleteAnd for the non-Christian it is also a time of testing. Witness the number of conversions that take place at University, or among exchange students. I know of several people whose first steps towards Christ took place after serious personal crises. When we move out of the safety zone, we all re-assess our beliefs and assumptions, however sincerely held.
>The position, rather, as I explained before, is that >apostates were either closet unbelievers (in some
ReplyDelete>cases) or unregenerate believers (in other cases).
The Calvinist Gospel
“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that the subset of those believing in Him who are regenerate shall not perish, but have eternal life.
“Some who believe in Him are not judged; some who do believe have been judged anyway, even though they have believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."
“This is the verdict, that the Light has come into the world, but men shall never know if they are right with God".
Orthodox equivocates with the word "believe." There is a difference between believing in propositional truths about Christ and believing in Christ in the biblical sense of the term. James 2:19 makes this clear, unless Orthodox is insisting that the way demons "believe" and the way the regenerate "believe" are the same thing.
ReplyDelete“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that the subset of those believing in Him who are regenerate shall not perish, but have eternal life."
ReplyDeleteSomewhat of a expansionistic gloss on John 3:16, but not totally without merit. Because it is "the one believing"--believing for real--who shall never perish. It's this same John who later says "they went out from us, because they were not of us (1 John 2:19) "US" who? Believers, those who are the opposite of the "deniers" in that passage. John teaches that their previous profession of belief was a lie--perhaps even to themselves.
On the other hand, John 3:16 is a general calling passage, not a limiting passage, such as John 6. In 3:16, there is almost NO note of warning, except the implication of NOT believing. Furthermore, the believing spoken of which saves is not an "instant" of belief, but a "faith that remains."
Calvinistic Bible interpretation has never taught "easy believism." Never taught "Once saved, always saved," in the common evangelical parlance. It has taught "perseverance" or "preservation". We teach that a Christian's faith is a faith unto "holiness, without which NO MAN will see the Lord."
The type of "faith" that James mocks is exactly the kind of empty profession that eventually apostatizes--either outwardly, or inwardly. He asks rhetorically, "Can such belief save?" Of course not. So there is indeed more than one kind of "believer," but John 3:16 really doesn't address that issue. John 2:23-25 is closer to that issue.
And that observation does away with your abuse of John 3:18. For clearly there were "believers in his name" whom Jesus himself found unreliable. And he says later of SOME of those who called on his name: "...'Lord!' 'Lord!' I will say to them, depart from me, you doers of iniquity, I never knew you."
And for your final perversion of 3:19, since it has been yanked so far away from the actual words of the verse, it isn't really a successful parody, it's hardly worth addressing. I will say that "assurance" is a doctrine that Protestants possess, and Romanists do not. And by extension, I venture that Easterners don't have as robust doctrine of assurance as we have either.
So, I read your final statement as more spasmodic and reflexive a-contextual Scripture abuse, than any substantial or insubstantial critique of a Reformed understanding of natural "men who love darkness rather than light."
In his quotations from the Gospel of John, Orthodox has left regeneration out of account—which is ironic given the fact that regeneration is a Johannine category. Reformed soteriology agrees with John in distinguishing between nominal believers and born-again believers.
ReplyDeleteI find it interesting that a Calvinistic website would quote C.S. Lewis as a positive example of a true believer. Lewis was certainly not a Calvinist and held views that are opposed to evangelical theology. For example, he denied inerrancy and the penal substitution theory of the atonement among other evangelical essentials.
ReplyDeleteSo here's a question for you guys--can a person be "truly" saved and deny the PST of the atonement?
C. S. Lewis was Reppert's example, not mine. I'm reproducing what Reppert said in order to comment on what he said.
ReplyDeleteCalvinism doesn't maintain that you must be a Calvinist to be saved. Indeed, one thing that makes sovereign grace sovereign is that God can even save someone who denies sovereign grace (e.g. John and Charles Wesley).
Whether or not we believe that a particular individual was a true believer is a probable judgment call on our part. God only knows their state of grace.
I happen to think, when you take all the circumstances into account, that Lewis gave a credible profession of faith. This still leaves me free to criticize his defective theology.
ReplyDelete“This is the verdict, that the Light has come into the world, but men shall never know if they are right with God".
Tell us, Orthodox, is there any assurance of salvation in Orthodoxy?
It isn't Calvinism that denies assurance. It's Romanism and its Eastern cousin. So, if true this little zinger from Orthodox indicates not us, but his own communion. Good job, Orthodox!
I find it interesting that a Calvinistic website would quote C.S. Lewis as a positive example of a true believer. Lewis was certainly not a Calvinist and held views that are opposed to evangelical theology. For example, he denied inerrancy and the penal substitution theory of the atonement among other evangelical essentials.
So here's a question for you guys--can a person be "truly" saved and deny the PST of the atonement?
A. Reformed theology does not teach that only Calvinists are saved.
B. Reformed theology not only draws distinctions between nominal Christians and genuine Christians based on a credible profession of faith; it also draws distinctions on types of errors. This goes back to at least the 17th century.
C. So, the real question is at what level disbelieving inerrancy or PST atonement lies.
D. A denial of inerrancy does not automatically entail a denial of the gospel. Indeed, the same is true regarding PST, and I'd add that even among those evangelicals who have in the past "denied" PST, it isn't so much a flat our denial as much as a moving of PST to a position that is secondary in their theology; John Wesley is a case in point.
E. Indeed, saving faith is faith in Christ Himself and by faith alone relinquishing your own merits in view of His, not to a particular set of facts or theological propositions beyond some very basic items.
F. And error can be made in ignorance or be quite cultivated. All of these factors go into whether or not we would say a person is not a true believer.
G. And there are more than doctrinal tests in Scripture.
F. Which gets us back to Reppert's analysis. The standard by which a person's faith is to be called "genuine" in the past isn't his claim to sincerity. That's a highly subjective standard.
Rather, the standard by which we judge is Scripture, for it gives us tests by which to make that determination.
The difference between apostasy in backsliding, indeed the very defintions, are largely the same across all Protestantism, both Arminian and Calvinist, Reformed, Lutheran, and Anglican, Baptist and Paedobaptist:
And here is how Scripture delineates backsliding and apostasy:
It is, secondly, necessary that you discriminate carefully, between backsliding, and apostasy. The former is the act of turning back from God; the latter is the forsaking, or the renouncing of the religion of Christ. Backsliding consists either in the relinquishment of evangelical doctrine; or in the loss of spirituality of mind; or in the gradual departure from correct morals. All these evils are embraced in apostasy. The backslider commits transgressions, but returns to his allegiance, and obtains forgiveness, and acceptance. The apostate continues; dies in his sins; and "so eternally perishes." We teach that none of the true children of God―he believing, the pardoned, the regenerated, the sanctified―become apostate, but to backsliding, of every character and degree, all, it is but too evident, even the best, and most devoted, are constantly, and painfully liable. (RBC Howell, Perseverance of the Saints)
Umm...Sorry...What is PST? Thanks in advance.
ReplyDeleteHey Gene, I've got a few Q's. On the topic of apostasy, at what point is one to be considered apostate? Is the "renouncing of the religion of Christ" a full 180 from all things Christian, or rather a turning away from the fundamentals of Christianity? In the case of the latter, would you consider an Arminian an apostate? If you are dealing with another professing Christian, at what point do you "part ways" (in terms of differences in beliefs)?
ReplyDeleteThanks
CMA
Anon,
ReplyDeletePST (Penal SubsTitution).
Andy,
Is the "renouncing of the religion of Christ" a full 180 from all things Christian, or rather a turning away from the fundamentals of Christianity? In the case of the latter, would you consider an Arminian an apostate? If you are dealing with another professing Christian, at what point do you "part ways" (in terms of differences in beliefs)?
This is bound up in a credible profession of faith. I've written on this before as has Steve. It's in several comment threads here from me. It's also in my booklet on the SBC and Landmarkism.
I'll repeat it for you and it should answer your questions:
For starters, no, I do not consider Arminians no true Christians. That would be hyper-Calvinist logic. That makes the object of a credible profession (and in Baptist ecclesiology a saving profession is presumed congruent), the doctrines of grace.
Arminians hold to Sola Fide. The Reformed and Arminians agree on Sola Fide. The Reformed, however, see Sola Fide as a species of Sola Gratia. It is here we part ways. The Arminians see grace as quantitative, "a little cooperation is okay." We say, grace is qualitative, which is why we say "justified by faith alone, saved by grace alone."
Now, let's flesh this out for you.
Baptism is underwritten by two things: a credible profession of faith and a proper view of the gospel itself.
In Reformed theology, we draw a distinction between a credible profession of faith and a saving profession of faith. For purposes of church membership, cooperation with other denominational entities, etc., since we cannot know of a certainty who is or isn't saved, we only require a credible profession of faith. A saving profession of faith lies solely between an individual and God.
For example, a Catholic that affirms the current dogmas of Rome cannot offer a credible profession of faith to a consistent Protestant. But whether a Catholic can offer a saving profession of faith is a different question. The answer varies on a case-by-case basis. It is easier to say who isn't saved than to say who is.
To be a Christian is to be, among other things, a Christian believer. One must believe certain things, and not believe certain other, contrary things. On the one hand, some dogmas are damnable dogmas. On the other hand, the Bible lays out certain saving articles of faith. This is God's criterion, not ours. We did not invent it. By the same token, how God applies that criterion in any individual case is up to God, not to us. We are not the judge, God is the Judge. To take a concrete example, Scripture teaches Sola Fide (faith alone) (Romans; Galatians). An individual is saved by faith in Christ and saved by the sole and sufficient merit of Christ.
However, in Catholic dogma, one is saved by the merit of Christ plus the merit of the saints plus one's own congruent merit. And this results in a divided faith. That is why a Catholic cannot give a consistent Protestant a credible profession of faith. In fairness, Protestants are more prone to give a Catholic church member a pass on the credible profession of faith than they do a Catholic bishop or the Pope or some of their lay apologists, because they very clearly have bought into the full range of Catholic dogmas.
Any of the following creeds/confessions could supply the basis for a credible profession of faith:
1. The Thirty-Nine Articles of the Christian Religion
2. The Formula of Concord
3. The Baptist Faith & Message (any version)(http://www.sbc.net/bfm/bfm2000.asp)
4. The C&MA statement of faith
(http://www.cmalliance.org/whoweare/doctrine.jsp)
5. The JFJ statement of faith (http://www.jewsforjesus.org/about/statementoffaith)
6. The EFCA statement of faith (http://www.efca.org/about/doctrine/)
7. The Campus Crusade statement of faith (http://www.ccci.org/statement_of_faith.html)
8. The AG statement of faith (http://www.ag.org/top/beliefs/truths.cfm)
These are all broadly evangelical affirmations of faith. Notice, not all are Reformed. Some are Lutheran; some are Arminian. By contrast, Trent or Vatican II does not supply the basis for a credible profession of faith. Still, it is possible for a Catholic to be saved, unlike a Muslim or Mormon or other suchlike.
Regarding Arminianism and Calvinists talking about what the others teach:
Let's contextualize this. The 5 Points of Calvinism stand in direct contradiction to the Five Points of the Remonstrants. Calvinists are saying nothing about Arminians that Arminians have not readily admitted. The Five Points of Calvinism are simply the written response to the Five Points of Arminianism, so Calvinists knew full well what the Arminians were teaching from the beginning. We know what they believe, because the codified version of what we believe soteriologically was written in response to their codification.
Likewise, Dort also recognized that Arminianism is simply Roman Catholicism without the sacramentalism. Both are committed to libertarian free will, a premise that Arminians frequently admit comes from outside of Scripture. Both repudiate any form of eternal security. Catholicism calls having assurance of your salvation the sin of presumption in the Council of Trent. (Ironic, considering the Pope got a free pass to heaven, but I digress.... Classic Arminianism waffles on the total depravity issue. Wesley taught it as stridently as any Calvinist, and the Remonstrants were inconsistent with it in the Opinions. Rome repudiates it completely. Election is conditional. What passes for predestination is just election based on foreseen faith and merit. The scope of the atonement is general, and, in current Roman soteriology Muslims may be able to enter heaven apart from faith in Christ. Grace can be resisted. On these essentials, Rome and the Remonstrants are as one, with the exception of the inclusion of infidels.
On the means by which they are dispensed, however, they differ. Arminians tend to shy away from sacramentalism. Catholics do not. Catholics affirm baptismal regeneration/efficacy. Arminians, with a few exceptions, do not. Arminians repudiate the sacrifice of the Mass. Catholics do not. Arminians' faith is undivided in practice, though not in principle, because, in principle, one would have to admit he chose Christ because he was more spiritual, intellectual, or better equipped than his unregenerate friend, exactly the argument made by Graves. With regard to Christ’s merit through His active and passive obedience and the atonement, that alone is the merit for our salvation. The Arminian's faith is undivided. A Catholic faith that buys the full run of Rome's dogma's is divided between three types of merit, including his/her own. Moreover, in Arminianism saving faith is underwritten by prevenient grace. Although the ultimate decision is made by the libertarian choice of the person, s/he would be unable to make that choice apart from this non-effectual, but prevenient grace.
Perseverance of the saints means that you can't lose your salvation, and it also means all those who are truly saved also persevere in their faith. We distinguish between apostasy and backsliding. Backsliding happens when a person falls into sin, repudiates evangelical doctrine for a time, or loses spirituality of mind. All Christians may backslide. Apostasy encompasses all three evils. Perseverance of the saints means that God preserves the elect from apostasy, but not from backsliding. Backsliding happens, and it is even a means to our growth. We learn from our mistakes, even if it means lapsing into sin. God preserves our faith in Christ because it is a gift from Him to us that He won't take away. If we repudiate the gospel itself and don't return to it, we have apostatized. Arminians believe in perseverance but not preservation. The folks that believe in eternal security believe in preservation, not perseverance. Most of the time Arminians argue against "eternal security/"OSAS," not perseverance of the saints. Most eternal security folks argue against perseverance as Arminians teach it, not perseverance of the saints. Perseverance of the saints is a both/and proposition, not an either/or proposition. The saints persevere and they are preserved. Arminians teach one half. Eternal security folks teach the other.
So, I'll use the security of the believer as a test issue here. To say, for example, as the IMB's baptism policy has stated, that a person who was baptized in a General Baptist church is to be rebaptized in one of our SBC churches that hold to security so that they can serve on the mission field is highly problematic.
All of this is to say that a credible profession of faith in Christ underwrites baptism. If we accept an Arminian denomination’s statement of faith as “credible” then why must one of their church members be rebaptized if s/he comes into a church that affirms eternal security? If one makes the argument, “the church’s soteriology” is deficient or not the true gospel, one must answer to the objections raised against hyper-Calvinism.
I like what Steve once said here, and I quoted in my booklet:
To say that if the Arminian gospel is not the true gospel, then Arminians are not saved is muddled in several respects. Arminian theology is an admixture of truth and error. It can be taken in either a more evangelical direction or else a more Pelagian direction. We are saved by election, but not by believing in election. Because election is true, we should believe in it and commend that belief to others, but one of the things which makes sovereign grace to be sovereign is that it can save men and women with a defective theological understanding--up to a point.
What, exactly, is there in the offer of the gospel (or whatever we want to call it) that we should not urge upon elect and reprobate alike? Take repentance. Don't all men have a moral duty to obey God? And if they sin, don't they have an obligation to repent? Total depravity subtracts from their ability, but not their duty. To say otherwise is to say that the more wicked we are, the less responsible we are for sin. By that line of logic, the more evil I am, the more innocent I am. Talk about another gospel! What about faith in Christ? If it is true that Christ is the Savior of the world and the Lord of the universe, then shouldn't everyone believe that and trust in him? Isn't there a standing obligation on the part of everyone to believe in whatever is true?
Ah, but if Christ didn't die for the reprobate, then they are not qualified to believe in him, right? Wrong! It's Arminians who define the offer of the gospel in those terms. In the examples of Gospel preaching in the New Testament, you never run across a conversion formula which consists of believing that Christ died for me as a condition of salvation. The *fact* that Christ died for the elect alone is a condition of salvation, but *believing* that Christ died for the elect alone is not a condition of salvation. Since the Scriptural offer of the gospel is never framed in those terms, it is applicable to elect and reprobate alike.
And, as a practical matter, the reprobate will never believe it any way, while only the elect will believe it, so where's the harm? The elect will believe that Christ died for them as a result of believing in him. Let's not get the cart before the horse.
Again, the point is not that the preacher goes self-consciously out of his way to target the reprobate. No, the point is that he shouldn't be inhibited by any self-conscious scruples and anxieties. Leave the sorting out of the sheep and the goats to God on the Day of Judgment!
Arminians agree that one need not believe in general atonement to be saved. Only hyper-Calvinists state you must believe in particular redemption. One does not need to believe in a particular scheme of election to be saved. Why then does one need to believe in the security of the believer. That doctrine is just as much a theological construct as the others. To assert one must believe in the security of the believer in order to (a) possess the true gospel and / or (b) give a credible profession of faith in order to underwrite baptism confounds the means of salvation, the object of saving faith, and the method of salvation itself The means of salvation is the gospel alone and the grace of God alone. The object is Christ alone. The method is faith alone. The object of that faith is not a particular scheme of doctrines. Faith in a range of doctrines does not save. Saving faith is more than mental assent; it involves a clinging or a trust, what the Reformers called “fiducia,” but it’s object is not the five points of Calvinism, the Remonstrance and the Opinions or the Baptist Faith and Message. The object is Christ.
Now, I'll also say this:
It is possible, in theory, to deny justification by faith alone doctrinally but nevertheless still be justified by faith alone, as a matter of a saving profession of faith, because one is just plain ignorant or deceived. One has not cultivated the error and one is not pleading your merits or those of anybody but Christ before God in your personal relationship with God.
However, if you are cultivating your error and thereby pleading other merits, and proving it when you run around the internet and defend the dogmas of Rome in this matter and others like it, no, you cannot be said to have valid saving profession of faith.
Thus, this is how I view the "average" Romanist.
As to a credible profession of faith, my personal list is very simple: A basic doctrine of God, Christ, and the Spirit, and Sola Fide. One can even deny inerrancy or be an evolutionist. However, if, like some, you come and in your practice cash out at something like deism and by your actions go after evangelicals and not real enemies of the faith and do something like call the doctrine of Sola Fide into doubt as a matter of repetition and cultivation, no you are not offering a credible profession of faith. I have, on a one to one level, no problem thinking of you as an apostate and even, for purposes of discussion, as on this blog, casting you in that role, particularly if you're one that continues to misbehave or defend outright heresy.
On the other hand, in the end, the elders of the local church and the local church are ultimately, on earth, the final arbiters of that matter, for they exercise the keys of discipline in the local church. They are to draw that conclusion after a long process. I can only go by what I see as an individual in any individual case.
EVANMAY SAID:
ReplyDeleteOrthodox equivocates with the word "believe." There is a difference between believing in propositional truths about Christ and believing in Christ in the biblical sense of the term. James 2:19 makes this clear, unless Orthodox is insisting that the way demons "believe" and the way the regenerate "believe" are the same thing.
ORTHODOX: I didn't hear Steve equate unregenerate believers with people who merely believe in "propositional truths". So I'd like to hear if Steve is making that link.
Go interview some ex-believers. They will deny that all they did was accept propositional truths.
BRUCE SAID:
“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that the subset of those believing in Him who are regenerate shall not perish, but have eternal life."
Somewhat of a expansionistic gloss on John 3:16, but not totally without merit. Because it is "the one believing"--believing for real--who shall never perish.
ORTHODOX: Whoa now, Steve said there were those who never believed for real, and another category who did believe but were not regenerate. Now do you want to confound these categories and make the ones who DID believe, not believing "for real"? Whatever that is supposed to mean. How exactly do you believe "for real"? As opposed to believing not for real?
STEVE SAID:
In his quotations from the Gospel of John, Orthodox has left regeneration out of account—which is ironic given the fact that regeneration is a Johannine category. Reformed soteriology agrees with John in distinguishing between nominal believers and born-again believers.
ORTHODOX: Nominal believers? Nominal means in name only. If one only believes in name, they don't believe at all. Nobody is arguing there aren't nominal believers. It is the actual believers who are unsaved which at issue.
As for Johannine categories, there is no Johannine category of people with faith who are not born again. That is pure fabrication.
GENEMBRIDGES: Tell us, Orthodox, is there any assurance of salvation in Orthodoxy?
It isn't Calvinism that denies assurance. It's Romanism and its Eastern cousin. So, if true this little zinger from Orthodox indicates not us, but his own communion. Good job, Orthodox!
ORTHODOX: ROFLOL. How can it be us denying assurance when it is your side saying that you can be an unregenerate believer!!!
The Orthodox gospel saves. If you walk in accordance with the Gospel you will be saved. But the Calvinist gospel, you can be a believer but not be saved. At least that is what Steve tells us.
ORTHODOX: “I didn't hear Steve equate unregenerate believers with people who merely believe in ‘propositional truths’. So I'd like to hear if Steve is making that link.”
ReplyDeleteEvan is correct to say that there’s a difference between saving faith and mere mental assent. And his citation of Jas 2:19 illustrates the point. The devil is a better theologian than Augustine or Aquinas. He knows more about God.
As one commentator points out, “James is writing to Jewish Christians for whom the Shema [Deut 6:4] would have been among the most basic of beliefs (the confession is appropriated by early Christians; cf. 1 Cor 8:4-6; Gal 3:20; Eph 4:6; 1 Tim 2:5). Proclaiming that ‘God is one’ in that context would have been similar to churchgoers today loudly proclaiming their belief in the deity of Christ,” D. Moo, The Letter of James (Eerdmans 2000), 130.
“Whoa now, Steve said there were those who never believed for real, and another category who did believe but were not regenerate. Now do you want to confound these categories and make the ones who DID believe, not believing ‘for real’? Whatever that is supposed to mean. How exactly do you believe ‘for real’? As opposed to believing not for real?”
There’s nothing terribly complicated about this. One the one hand you have a certain number of closet apostates in the church. These are people who don’t believe, who never did believe, in any sense, but they keep their personal opinions to themselves. They don’t want to rock the boat or hurt anyone’s feelings.
In some cases, when some of them move away from home, they go public with their disbelief.
On the other hand you have nominal believers who do believe without their being born-again believers. Some nominal believers remain in that state all their lives, while other nominal believers lose their hereditary or fair-weather convictions at some point in the future.
“Nominal believers? Nominal means in name only. If one only believes in name, they don't believe at all. Nobody is arguing there aren't nominal believers. It is the actual believers who are unsaved which at issue.”
Orthodox is committing a classic semantic fallacy, as if you can define a word by its etymology.
“As for Johannine categories, there is no Johannine category of people with faith who are not born again. That is pure fabrication.”
i) Does Jn 6:66 say the apostates were born-again believers? No.
ii) In Johannine theology, saving faith is a consequence of regeneration. That’s what distinguishes a true believer from a nominal believer:
http://www.9marks.org/CC/article/0,,PTID314526%7CCHID598016%7CCIID1731702,00.html
iii) Regeneration has other consequences as well. There’s a correlation between regeneration and sanctification (1 Jn 2:29; 3:9; 4:7).
iv) Regeneration confers an immunity to a certain kind of sin (1 Jn 3:9). As one scholar explains, after discussing the syntax of 3:9, “The Christian is prevented by the new birth and the abiding presence of God from falling into persistent sin,” S. Baugh, A First John Reader (P&R 1999), 52.
This would mean, among other things, that a child of God cannot commit apostasy. Yet there are professing Christians who commit apostasy. Hence, they were unregenerate believers.
v) There are other Johannine prooftexts on the perseverance of the saints. But since not all professing Christians persevere, there must be, according to Johannine theology, a distinction between true and nominal believers.
“How can it be us denying assurance when it is your side saying that you can be an unregenerate believer!!!”
i) Notice that Orthodox is merely deflecting Gene’s allegation rather than rebutting his allegation. He tries to punt to Calvinism. That’s a backdoor admission that Gene’s allegation is correct.
ii) Some crazy people think they are sane and everyone else is crazy. Does this mean that sane people should doubt their own sanity as well?
How does the fact that some nominal believers are self-deluded imply that genuine believers lack the assurance of salvation? Both groups do not have the same level of spiritual experience.
“But the Calvinist gospel, you can be a believer but not be saved. At least that is what Steve tells us.”
There’s nothing exceptional about this. People often believe what they do for reasons of social conditioning or wishful thinking.
Most Muslims believe in Islam because they were raised Muslim. Same with Hindus, Mormons, Buddhists, Communists, Kamikazes, &c. Many people believe in astrology because they like the idea of controlling their own future.
It’s a historical accident that some folks are professing Christians. By the same token, it doesn’t take much to lose a purely hereditary faith. Many OT Jews were nominal believers, which is why they committed national apostasy. That’s also why many 1C Jews rejected Jesus as their Messiah.
“How can it be us denying assurance when it is your side saying that you can be an unregenerate believer!!!”
ReplyDeleteA. In Calvinism, you have as much assurance as Scripture warrants. The question isn't whether a person believed at some point in the past, but what was the quality of his "faith." We distinguish between false and true professors. This distinction runs throughout Scripture and it is hardly unique to Protestantism. Further, what we're saying is that there are those who have no faith and those who have false faith. This distinction, again, is hardly unique to Protestantism or Calvinism itself.
B. We've dealt with assurance many times on this blog.
C. Your communion, Orthodox, shares the same view as Rome. In Romanism and Orthodoxy claiming to have assurance is considered "presumption." So, if your complaint has any truth to it, it proves too much.
D. And that's a function of your meritocracy, for in a merit based system, how can you be sure you have accrued enough merit?
E. The only reason you yourself claim "assurance" is because you're a ecclesiolater. For you, salvation is equivalent to being a member of the Orthodox communion. Forget about theosis.
F. And, by your own admission, you've complained about our own doctrine of perseverance, because you have many times challenged the notion of the security of the believer. Now, you can reply that to be certain that you are saved, you should persevere in the faith, but, pray tell, how does this cash out at a place different from our own doctrine? The difference is over why one perseveres and not the other. For you, perseverance is a ground of merit. For us, perseverance is a result of grace alone. Ergo, if you deny that Calvinism provides assurance, it would indict you too.
G. So, I'm merely following your own arguments. Since you can't keep up with them, somebody has to do it for you.
STEVE: There’s nothing terribly complicated about this. One the one hand you have a certain number of closet apostates in the church.
ReplyDeleteORTHODOX: Ok, so we've got one category of people who say they are believers, but are not. They are believers in name only.
STEVE: On the other hand you have nominal believers who do believe without their being born-again believers.
ORTHODOX: What do you mean "on the other hand"? The first category was those pretending to be believers. They are believers in name but not actuality.
Where in all this are the people who aren't pretending to believe, who don't merely believe propositions with no affect on their lives, and yet fall away? You're missing an entire category and that is the fatal flaw.
STEVE: Orthodox is committing a classic semantic fallacy, as if you can define a word by its etymology.
ORTHODOX: ????? I got that definition from the dictionary, not from etymology. The #1 entry in Oxford.
STEVE: “As for Johannine categories, there is no Johannine category of people with faith who are not born again. That is pure fabrication.”
i) Does Jn 6:66 say the apostates were born-again believers? No.
ORTHODOX: You can't claim a Johannine category from what is NOT said. You can make assumptions, but don't tell us then it is a Johannine category.
STEVE: ii) In Johannine theology, saving faith is a consequence of regeneration. That’s what distinguishes a true believer from a nominal believer:
ORTHODOX: There is no Johannine category of nominal believers.
STEVE: iv) Regeneration confers an immunity to a certain kind of sin (1 Jn 3:9).
ORTHODOX: And yet we know that a believer can deliberately undo this immunity: 1John 5:16 If anyone sees his brother committing a sin not leading to death, he shall ask and God will for him give life to those who commit sin not leading to death. There is a sin leading to death; I do not say that he should make request for this.
STEVE: This would mean, among other things, that a child of God cannot commit apostasy. Yet there are professing Christians who commit apostasy. Hence, they were unregenerate believers.
ORTHODOX: Firstly, you ignore the text which says that a brother can still commit a sin leading to death. You are very selective with the portions of text which you will let speak.
Secondly, you are left with the unholy proposition that there are unregenerate people with faith: A CATEGORY OF PEOPLE THAT SCRIPTURE NEVER MENTIONS. Yes, there can be people with mere propositional belief, like the demons. But we all know that there are apostates who used to hold not mere propositional belief. They didn't just acknowledge God and decide to ignore it, rather they were trying to live the Christian life before falling away.
This is not merely unscriptural, it leaves you in the terrible scenario that you cannot have any inkling about whether you have a relationship with God right now, since you can't know if you will fall away.
STEVE: i) Notice that Orthodox is merely deflecting Gene’s allegation rather than rebutting his allegation. He tries to punt to Calvinism. That’s a backdoor admission that Gene’s allegation is correct.
ORTHODOX: Gene is correct in that Orthodox don't presume upon God's judgment. On the other hand, we claim we do know God's criteria in the Gospel which is faith in Jesus Christ. We don't say you can be following the criteria and then be lost.
STEVE: How does the fact that some nominal believers are self-deluded imply that genuine believers lack the assurance of salvation? Both groups do not have the same level of spiritual experience.
ORTHODOX: If some people are assured and are deluded, and others are assured and are correct, then what good is this assurance? If everyone felt assured they would win the lottery, and yet only one was correct, how rational is the assurance of ANY of them?
GENE: A. In Calvinism, you have as much assurance as Scripture warrants. The question isn't whether a person believed at some point in the past, but what was the quality of his "faith." We distinguish between false and true professors. This distinction runs throughout Scripture and it is hardly unique to Protestantism. Further, what we're saying is that there are those who have no faith and those who have false faith. This distinction, again, is hardly unique to Protestantism or Calvinism itself.
ReplyDeleteORTHODOX: The problem is, we know there are apostates who seemed to give very sincere witness to true faith, and testify after apostatizing that they indeed used to be quite sincere. Now sure, you can live in an irrational world and say they are all lying, but that's not very rational. So then you are left with saying there was something wrong with the "quality" of their faith. Except that some of these apostates have wonderful testimonies. Some of their testimonies are better than those of people who never apostatize and die in the faith.
Now it's one thing to doubt your salvation because of a humility of not presuming on God. But it is quite another thing to doubt your salvation because God may not have deemed to decide to regenerate you, which means there isn't a darned thing you can do about it. In the former case, you continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling. In the latter, all you can do is sit around wondering if God did it or not.
GENE: D. And that's a function of your meritocracy, for in a merit based system, how can you be sure you have accrued enough merit?
ORTHODOX: Please document the existence of this Orthodox merit based system.
GENE: E. The only reason you yourself claim "assurance" is because you're a ecclesiolater. For you, salvation is equivalent to being a member of the Orthodox communion. Forget about theosis.
ORTHODOX: ????
Orthodoxy does not claim that everyone in the church is saved, nor that everyone outside the church is unsaved. So how on earth could you conclude we see them as equivalent?
GENE: Now, you can reply that to be certain that you are saved, you should persevere in the faith, but, pray tell, how does this cash out at a place different from our own doctrine?
ORTHODOX: It's different in that at least we can evaluate where we are NOW and have some pretty good idea of where we are at without worrying about whether it is all a delusion because God didn't regenerate us way back. So we have the assurance at least of our self desire to keep the faith. We are not going to be dragged out of the faith because God didn't do something.
Now you think that there is no one dragged out, because of your total depravity doctrine, nobody but the unregenerate want "in" in the first place. But we know that isn't true because there are very sincere people who eventually apostatize. So we know that's not true. So why did they leave, despite in their own mind being very sincere? Apparently because God didn't do something according to you, they couldn't choose to stay despite sincerely at one time wanting to.
So where it cashes out different, is that I acknowledge we can see reality, whereas you live in a Matrix like delusion where you don't know whether anything is real or not.
Please document the existence of this Orthodox merit based system.
ReplyDeleteIs it really necessary to go back and quote you on your views on James 2 in which you were advocating justification by faith plus works? By definition, that's a merit system. Once again, I'm just using your own statements. You're welcome to amend your claim to support "Theosis," but you are not welcome to change the history of your own claims regarding justification.
Now sure, you can live in an irrational world and say they are all lying, but that's not very rational.
Unless of course they really are lying...but that isn't, of course, what we say.
So then you are left with saying there was something wrong with the "quality" of their faith. Except that some of these apostates have wonderful testimonies. Some of their testimonies are better than those of people who never apostatize and die in the faith.
Of course, we aren't saying that they are lying about their sincerity; rather, we're evaluating them by Scripture. The measure of the genuineness of saving faith is not a claim to "sincerity." We've already been over this.
Now it's one thing to doubt your salvation because of a humility of not presuming on God. But it is quite another thing to doubt your salvation because God may not have deemed to decide to regenerate you, which means there isn't a darned thing you can do about it. In the former case, you continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling. In the latter, all you can do is sit around wondering if God did it or not.
Notice that Orthodox has done nothing here to overturn my allegation that Orthodoxy cannot offer a doctrine of genuine assurance on its own grounds nor interact with the Reformed doctrine of assurance. He's actually interacted with hyper-Calvinism, not Calvinism. Poor Orthodox, like a poor marksman, he keeps missing the target.
Gene is correct in that Orthodox don't presume upon God's judgment. On the other hand, we claim we do know God's criteria in the Gospel which is faith in Jesus Christ. We don't say you can be following the criteria and then be lost.
Orthodoxy, by your own admission, denies justification by faith alone. By your own admission it conflates what we Protestants call justification with sanctification. The Orthodox doctrine of salvation is dependent on a process of theosis; what's missing here is a doctrine of assurance from his communion.
And the issue isn't an outward "following the criteria;" rather the issue is the heart.
Orthodoxy does not claim that everyone in the church is saved, nor that everyone outside the church is unsaved. So how on earth could you conclude we see them as equivalent?
Because I'm following your own personal claims about your own salvation. This was directed at you personally. You say you have faith in Christ but affirm that no one can know the right way to be saved outside of "the one true church," which you have consistently defined as the Orthodox church. So, "faith in Christ" is, for you, faith in Christ - and for you that means being part of "the one true church," Eastern Orthodoxy. If you leave it, you will be damned, according to the testimony of your own Communion.
For the Orthodox mission to be real and true, those outside the Orthodox Church must enter her liturgical and sacramental communion, and grow within it, true or false?
And, yes, I am aware that there are those in Orthodoxy who will even accept a Mormon or Jehovah's Witness into communion.
"For this reason we receive those who were baptized in other Christian communions through Chrismation, making up by economia that which was lacking – full baptism being for those un-baptized at all (whether previously of no religion or from a non-Christian faith) or who were ‘baptised’ by a pseudo-Christian or heretical group (such as Mormon or Jehovah’s Witnesses). Having said this, however, the fact remains in that, as the Orthodox Church reveals the pleroma (fullness) of Christ to the world, those outside have still the duty to seek refuge among us for the time grows short [Acts.2:38-40; Rom.13:11]."
But the wider truth here is that Orthodoxy is quite shifty on this, and Orthodox theology has not pronounced itself officially on this point (which is a problem for you, since that means you're speculating on this issue), for on the one hand, there are those who have simply "inherited" an alien confession who *might* be saved,
The Holy Orthodox Church is the repository of the divinely revealed Truth in all its fullness and fidelity to apostolic Tradition. Hence, he who leaves the Church, who intentionally and consciously falls away from it, joins the ranks of its opponents and becomes a renegade as regards apostolic Tradition. The Church dreadfully anathematized such renegades, in accordance with the words of the Saviour Himself (Matt. 18:17) and of the Apostle Paul (Gal. 1:8-9), threatening them with e ternal damnation and calling them to return to the Orthodox fold. It is self evident, however, that sincere Christians who are Roman Catholics, or Lutherans, or members, of other non-Orthodox confessions, cannot be termed renegades or heretics—i.e. those who knowingly pervert the truth...* They have been born and raised and are living according to the creed which they have inherited, just as do the majority of you who are Orthodox; in their lives there has not been a moment of personal and conscious renunciation of Orthodoxy. The Lord, "Who will have all men to be saved" (I Tim. 2:4) and "Who enlightens every man born into the world" (Jn. 1.43), undoubtedly is leading them also towards salvation In His own way.
but on the other if you, being Orthodox, leave the one true church, you, Orthodox are taught you will be damned.
You ask, will the heterodox be saved... Why do you worry about them? They have a Saviour Who desires the salvation of every human being. He will take care of them. You and I should not be burdened with such a concern. Study yourself and your own sins... I will tell you one thing, however: should you, being Orthodox and possessing the Truth in its fullness, betray Orthodoxy, and enter a different faith, you will lose your soul forever." (Theophan the Recluse).
So, there you have it Orthodox, according to Holy Tradition, if you leave Orthodoxy, you'll be damned forever, so, yes, saving faith is, for you, sir, concomitant to being part of the Orthodox Church.
It's different in that at least we can evaluate where we are NOW and have some pretty good idea of where we are at without worrying about whether it is all a delusion because God didn't regenerate us way back.
Except of course, that Calvinism says nothing different, for Calvinism has a doctrine of assurance that is applicable to "NOW" as well.
Calvinism does not look for warrants to believe or for proof of election in order to gain assurance. That's hyper-Calvinism. You can't seem to represent the opposing position. Calvinism does not teach that one finds assurance by way of deducing one's election as if one could peer into the decrees to see if you were truly regenerated.
Now you think that there is no one dragged out, because of your total depravity doctrine
False. The security of the believer is related to efficacious grace. Once again, you can't even articulate the opposing position.
nobody but the unregenerate want "in" in the first place.
No, nobody but the regenerate want to *remain* in, and only the regenerate want to enter and remain in for the right reasons.
But we know that isn't true because there are very sincere people who eventually apostatize. So we know that's not true. So why did they leave, despite in their own mind being very sincere? Apparently because God didn't do something according to you, they couldn't choose to stay despite sincerely at one time wanting to.
People "leave" because they love evil and not good; because they love themselves and not God, and they leave the visible church, not the invisible. This is proof that they were not born again from the start. That's 1 John.
And, once again, "sincerity" isn't the measure of the genuineness of a person's profession of faith.
So where it cashes out different, is that I acknowledge we can see reality, whereas you live in a Matrix like delusion where you don't know whether anything is real or not.
Except of course, that this conclusion turns on a systematic misrepresentation of the opposing position.
Firstly, you ignore the text which says that a brother can still commit a sin leading to death.
A. I gather by this that you are referring to 1 John 5:16, but where does this say that a brother - a regenerate person is able to commit a sin leading to death? It only says there is a sin leading to death;
You are very selective with the portions of text which you will let speak.
and the text goes on to say that "We know that no one who is born of God (and that's John's term for regeneration) sins, but He who was born of God keeps him, and the devil one does not touch him. Nowhere in this text is there anything about a regenerate person committing said sin leading to death.
Forgive us for snickering a tad, for you've not let the text speak...
But, just for tickles and grins, let's say a regenerate person can do that, then, pray tell, lay out for us a theology of assurance from Scripture with that in mind. How do you know that you won't at some point do that very thing? You can't, they have to persevere to the end, so your objections only back up the question of assurance one step, and thus, you're not any better off than the Calvinist or the Arminian.
Secondly, you are left with the unholy proposition that there are unregenerate people with faith: A CATEGORY OF PEOPLE THAT SCRIPTURE NEVER MENTIONS.
Isn't that private speculation on your part, regarding Scripture? Where's the infallible teaching on this?
And we don't deny that there are unregenerate people with faith; rather we deny that unregenerate people can have true, saving faith. So, all you've done is continue to gloss over that distinction; for, if they had such faith, they would persevere to the end.
orthodox said:
ReplyDelete"Go interview some ex-believers. They will deny that all they did was accept propositional truths."
Very revealing to see Orthodox side with the apostates. It takes one to know one.
But some of us reserve the right to subject their self-serving testimonials, by which they excuse their apostasy, to what the Bible has to say about the mental state of unbelievers.
GENE: Please document the existence of this Orthodox merit based system.
ReplyDeleteIs it really necessary to go back and quote you on your views on James 2 in which you were advocating justification by faith plus works? By definition, that's a merit system.
ORTHODOX: You had said "how can you be sure you have accrued enough merit [ed: to be saved?]?
But I never said anything about being saved by works. Like a poor marksman, you keep missing the target.
I did mention James' statement that one's status as righteous is assisted by works, but that's not the same thing. Orthodox do not believe in salvation by works.
GENE: Of course, we aren't saying that they are lying about their sincerity; rather, we're evaluating them by Scripture. The measure of the genuineness of saving faith is not a claim to "sincerity." We've already been over this.
ORTHODOX: Uh huh, but it highlights the fact that sincerity is no measure of your current state with God.
But how can you evaluate your own salvation if not by your sincerity? You could look at your works I suppose, but even some pagans have good works. So if sincere belief + works is no indicator of salvation, you've got NOTHING to evaluate your current state, except to hang around to the bitter end and see if didn't apostatize.
Now, Orthodox may say that they humbly submit judgment to God, but at least we can say that the facts surrounding our own life are a good reference point from which to work out our own salvation.
GENE: Notice that Orthodox has done nothing here to overturn my allegation that Orthodoxy cannot offer a doctrine of genuine assurance on its own grounds
ORTHODOX: Neither one of us offers genuine, money-back absolute guaranteed knowledge that we will be saved. It would be good for you to acknowledge this straight out.
But Orthodoxy offers far MORE assurance, because unlike you, we don't say that sincerity counts for nothing. If you sincerely believe yourself to have faith, then you have it. None of this nonsense about sincerity is meaningless unless you persevere to the end. Yes you must persevere, but that is your choice, you aren't going to fall off the wagon because God didn't wave his magic wand.
GENE: He's actually interacted with hyper-Calvinism, not Calvinism.
ORTHODOX: All I've interacted with is the statements made by reformed folks here.
GENE: By your own admission it conflates what we Protestants call justification with sanctification. The Orthodox doctrine of salvation is dependent on a process of theosis.
ORTHODOX: Among those four jargon terms, you're just conflating them differently. Sanctification, justification and theosis are often conflated, because scripture conflates them. You seem to think there is some great disaster in conflating these terms, and yet in your own exegesis this is exactly what you claim James has done in referring to sanctification using the term justification. But if anybody ELSE, other than James conflates the terms, oh woe.
But now you're a bit confused because you say that the Orthodox process of salvation is dependent on theosis - sanctification. That's a rather odd accusation to make. Just as odd as if I said the protestant doctrine of salvation was dependent on sanctification.
GENE: what's missing here is a doctrine of assurance from his communion.
ORTHODOX: Odd that you would accuse us of lacking something which you yourself lack.
GENE: Because I'm following your own personal claims about your own salvation. This was directed at you personally. You say you have faith in Christ but affirm that no one can know the right way to be saved outside of "the one true church," which you have consistently defined as the Orthodox church. So, "faith in Christ" is, for you, faith in Christ - and for you that means being part of "the one true church," Eastern Orthodoxy. If you leave it, you will be damned, according to the testimony of your own Communion.
ORTHODOX: I see. Well in that respect it would be simply following the statements of scripture:
1John 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us.
If that makes John and us "ecclesiolaters" then so be it. John doesn't say they went out to form a new denomination, so don't worry about it.
GENE: Except of course, that Calvinism says nothing different, for Calvinism has a doctrine of assurance that is applicable to "NOW" as well.
ORTHODOX: Except that sincerity isn't worth a nickel, so what is?
GENE: Calvinism does not look for warrants to believe or for proof of election in order to gain assurance.
ORTHODOX: Then where do you look for assurance?
GENE: nobody but the unregenerate want "in" in the first place.
No, nobody but the regenerate want to *remain* in, and only the regenerate want to enter and remain in for the right reasons.
ORTHODOX: In other words, nothing about your current state can tell you anything whatsoever about your relationship with God. You've got to wait and see if you might apostatize at the last minute because you were never regenerate in the first place.
GENE: People "leave" because they love evil and not good; because they love themselves and not God, and they leave the visible church, not the invisible. This is proof that they were not born again from the start. That's 1 John.
ORTHODOX: See above. 1 John is that that people leave the visible church, and that is an indicator of their salvific state.
GENE Firstly, you ignore the text which says that a brother can still commit a sin leading to death.
A. I gather by this that you are referring to 1 John 5:16, but where does this say that a brother - a regenerate person is able to commit a sin leading to death? It only says there is a sin leading to death;
ORTHODOX: John gives instructions concerning a brother about what he calls sins not leading to death. Why would he qualify his statement about only THAT kind of sins that brothers commit if they can't commit others? And why exclude the others if he isn't still talking about brothers? I think you're being too clever for your own good. And then we've got the parallel James 5:20 which says turning a brother back from sin can save his soul from death. Again, why bother if their soul can't be lost? Or what's the point if they are fake believers anyway?
GENE: "We know that no one who is born of God (and that's John's term for regeneration) sins, but He who was born of God keeps him, and the devil one does not touch him. Nowhere in this text is there anything about a regenerate person committing said sin leading to death.
ORTHODOX: The thing is, the expressions born of God or born again are not used in scripture in a way detailed enough to make them into a theology unto itself. To make "regeneration" (a non-scriptural word) into a whole theology apart from all the other teachings about salvation is really to engage is gross eisegesis. Three Gospels, all Paul's epistles never mention this categorization. If you can't explain salvation without using this word I have to say you have read into John 1 a theory that is alien to the rest of the apostles and therefore alien to John also. Being born of God is John's colorful language for concepts found in all the scriptures: a change of heart, the grace of the Spirit etc. It doesn't say you can't leave that state. That the devil doesn't touch those born of God, or that they don't sin, doesn't mean you can't leave the state of being born of God. Nothing in the text says otherwise. All the scriptures point to the possibility that you can leave the grace of God.
GENE: Secondly, you are left with the unholy proposition that there are unregenerate people with faith: A CATEGORY OF PEOPLE THAT SCRIPTURE NEVER MENTIONS.
Isn't that private speculation on your part, regarding Scripture? Where's the infallible teaching on this?
ORTHODOX: Where is the infallible teaching there are no pink unicorns in scripture, one might well ask.
How about just admit you're toasted on this one and move on?
STEVE: But some of us reserve the right to subject their self-serving testimonials, by which they excuse their apostasy, to what the Bible has to say about the mental state of unbelievers.
ORTHODOX: In other words, you cannot link your interpretation of the bible to anything in reality. And therefore, you can have no assurance, or anything even like that since this purely intellectual doctrine must wait till your death bed to see if you fall off.
orthodox said...
ReplyDelete“Where in all this are the people who aren't pretending to believe, who don't merely believe propositions with no affect on their lives, and yet fall away? You're missing an entire category and that is the fatal flaw.”
I’ve already stated the relevant category: unregenerate believers.
Propositional beliefs can have an “affect on one’s life” without the subject being regenerate. An individual can entertain many propositional beliefs that impact his way of life without his being regenerate.
You’re being illogical—as usual.
“I got that definition from the dictionary, not from etymology. The #1 entry in Oxford.”
My you’re unsophisticated. You are using the English word in the Latin sense of the word. And the OED is often closer to Latinate usage.
But the contemporary, colloquial usage of “nominal” is broader than “in name only.”
“You can't claim a Johannine category from what is NOT said. You can make assumptions, but don't tell us then it is a Johannine category.”
Two problems:
i) According to your own position, apostates must have been born-again Christians. You bear your own burden of proof.
ii) I gave a 5-point argument. I realize that mental discipline is not your strong suit, but try paying attention to the flow of argument from 1-5.
“There is no Johannine category of nominal believers.”
Same problem as above. You should consider medication for your ADS.
“And yet we know that a believer can deliberately undo this immunity: 1John 5:16.”
Several more problems:
i) You skipped over point #3. Can’t deal with that.
ii) You’re using one verse to negate another, rather than attempting to harmonize the two.
iii) John doesn’t say he was a believer, and even if he was a believer, that doesn’t make him a born-again believer.
Rather, John calls him a “brother.” That’s a conventional designation, which is, in turn, a carryover from OT usage—where a fellow Israelite was called a “brother.” Yet it’s clear from the history of Israel that such fraternal usage said nothing about the individual’s state of grace, or lack thereof. Not all OT Jews were regenerate.
“Firstly, you ignore the text which says that a brother can still commit a sin leading to death. You are very selective with the portions of text which you will let speak.”
Your modus operandi is to use one verse to negate another. You misinterpret one verse, then you use that verse to misinterpret another verse.
I, by contrast, harmonize them.
“Yes, there can be people with mere propositional belief, like the demons.”
Actually, there’s more to demonic faith than “mere propositional belief.” Demons have very strong feelings about God. And they act on their feelings. They hate God. And hatred is deeply personal.
“But we all know that there are apostates who used to hold not mere propositional belief. They didn't just acknowledge God and decide to ignore it, rather they were trying to live the Christian life before falling away.”
The devil loved God and lived for God before he rebelled. Do you think the devil is regenerate? When was Satan born again?
“This is not merely unscriptural, it leaves you in the terrible scenario that you cannot have any inkling about whether you have a relationship with God right now, since you can't know if you will fall away.”
i) I’ve done many posts on the assurance of salvation. I’m not going to repeat myself here and now. Check out the archives.
ii) Notice how Orthodox’s theology is based on make-believe and wishful thinking. He stipulates a desired result. He then fishes around for a theological tradition that tells him what he wants to hear. He rejects Calvinism because he doesn’t like the consequences—in his faulty understanding—of Reformed theology.
“If some people are assured and are deluded, and others are assured and are correct, then what good is this assurance?”
Notice how he ducks my analogy of the madman. Can’t deal with that either.
“But how can you evaluate your own salvation if not by your sincerity?”
What about the sincere Baal-worshipper?
“Except that sincerity isn't worth a nickel, so what is?”
What’s the cash-value of a Baal-worshipper’s sincerity?
The devil sincerely believes in God. The devil sincerely despises God. How many nickels does that add up to?
“If that makes John and us "ecclesiolaters" then so be it. John doesn't say they went out to form a new denomination, so don't worry about it.”
Where does 1 Jn 2:19 speak of the one true church—much less identify that communion with the Orthodox Church?
“In other words, nothing about your current state can tell you anything whatsoever about your relationship with God. You've got to wait and see if you might apostatize at the last minute because you were never regenerate in the first place.”
This assumes that the regenerate and the unregenerate are indistinguishable in the quality of their spiritual experience.
“John gives instructions concerning a brother about what he calls sins not leading to death.”
I’ve already discussed the limitations of invoking “fraternal” appellations.
“The thing is, the expressions born of God or born again are not used in scripture in a way detailed enough to make them into a theology unto itself.”
i) No one said they were, but that’s a place to start. You, by contrast, disregard that data. You’re not entitled to ask for more when you refuse to deal with less.
ii) The Reformed doctrine of regeneration isn’t restricted to occurrences of this word-group. The concept is bound up with original sin and pneumatology. Reformed theology discuses that doctrinal construct in relation to OT theology, Johannine theology, Pauline theology, &c.
“To make "regeneration" (a non-scriptural word) into a whole theology apart from all the other teachings about salvation is really to engage is gross eisegesis.”
i) You’re advertising your ignorance of Reformed theological method.
ii)”Regeneration” is a traditional Latin synonym for NT usage, just as “born-again” is a tradition English synonym.
“Three Gospels, all Paul's epistles never mention this categorization.”
The concept is very much in evidence in Pauline theology, as well as OT usage. For some of the evidence, see volume 2 of John Murray’s Collected Writings.
Sorry you’re so abysmally ignorant of NT theology. But that’s the nice thing about being a member of the Orthodox church. It allows you to focus on your golf game.
“If you can't explain salvation without using this word I have to say you have read into John 1 a theory that is alien to the rest of the apostles and therefore alien to John also.”
Several problems:
i) We never said that “regeneration” exhausted the concept of salvation. But it’s a necessary ingredient.
ii) We are not dependent on the occurrence of the word.
iii) Once again, Orthodox cites one Bible writer as a blocking maneuver to tackle another Bible writer.
“Being born of God is John's colorful language for concepts found in all the scriptures: a change of heart, the grace of the Spirit etc. It doesn't say you can't leave that state. That the devil doesn't touch those born of God, or that they don't sin, doesn't mean you can't leave the state of being born of God. Nothing in the text says otherwise.”
i) Apostasy is an aggravated form of sin—persistent, witting rebellion against God. There is no graver sin than apostasy. Indeed, Orthodox himself equates the “mortal sin” with apostasy. So, yes, 1 Jn 3:9 and 5:18 would definitely rule out the apostasy of a born-again believer.
ii) And the effect of regeneration is not the only argument for the doctrine of perseverance. There are many other arguments in Paul, John, and other Bible writers.
“In other words, you cannot link your interpretation of the bible to anything in reality.”
In other words, Orthodox treats revelation as one thing, and “reality” as something else. Then he cut and tailors the testimony of Scripture to fit the testimony of an open enemy of the faith—the apostate.
Uh huh, but it highlights the fact that sincerity is no measure of your current state with God.
ReplyDeleteBut how can you evaluate your own salvation if not by your sincerity?,
Scripture. For Orthodox, assurance comes not from Scripture, but from a subjective feeling of "sincerity," but this flies in the face of his own rule of faith, for Orthodox condemns Sola Scriptura on the notion that it is equivalent to "private interpretation" and is open to subjectivity.
Neither one of us offers genuine, money-back absolute guaranteed knowledge that we will be saved. It would be good for you to acknowledge this straight out.
But Orthodoxy offers far MORE assurance, because unlike you, we don't say that sincerity counts for nothing.
This was not his original claim. Rather, Orthodox is now coming back with an armload of caveats not in his original.
All I have to show is that Calvinism's doctrine of assurance is based on Scripture and that, when the two cash out, Orthodox is not in any better a position.
Orthodox sole claim to a "better" position is to "sincerity" of a claim, but this is both anti-Scriptural and subjective, both of which contradict his own statements elsewhere.
ll I've interacted with is the statements made by reformed folks here.
Really, and where have we stated that a person must determine if he is regenerate and then determine from there that his faith is genuine by following the order of being, from the decree of election downward to our own faith? No, you're interacting with hyper-Calvinism here, not Calvinism.
Among those four jargon terms, you're just conflating them differently. Sanctification, justification and theosis are often conflated, because scripture conflates them. You seem to think there is some great disaster in conflating these terms, and yet in your own exegesis this is exactly what you claim James has done in referring to sanctification using the term justification. But if anybody ELSE, other than James conflates the terms, oh woe.
But now you're a bit confused because you say that the Orthodox process of salvation is dependent on theosis - sanctification. That's a rather odd accusation to make. Just as odd as if I said the protestant doctrine of salvation was dependent on sanctification.
A. Notice that Orthodox has yet again failed to accurately represent the opposing position. We don't claim that James is conflating justification and sanctification at all. We've been over this ground with him before, and he keeps getting it wrong.
Exegesis of James shows that James is using "justify" to mean "declared righteous" before men, not by God - his works prove his faith is genuine and thus he is justified in that sense not as in judicial righteousness before the heavenly court. We are NOT saying that he's conflating justification and sanctification, two dogmatic categories.
What we DO claim is that Orthodox himself when he appeals to this text is conflating them, for he commits semantic incest and inflation in his exegesis.
1. SIncest =
This is where a disputant uses one Bible writer’s usage to interpret another Bible writer’s usage. For example, James’ use of “justification” is employed to reinterpret Paul’s usage—and thereby disprove sola fide.
2. SInflation = The disputant will equate the mere occurrence of a word with a whole doctrine associated with the word.
For example, a Catholic will compare and contrast Paul’s doctrine of justification with James’ doctrine of justification. But the mere fact that James uses the word “justification” doesn’t mean that he even has a doctrine of justification. That would depend, not on the occurrence of the word, in isolation, but on a larger argument. Words and concepts are two different things.
B. The Orthodox doctrine of salvation is all about theosis from beginning to end, ergo that's why he thinks Scripture conflates them.
C. But theosis in particular is dependent on a Platonic interpretation of 2 Peter 1:4. This then becomes the interpretive grid for the rest of what Orthodox soteriology teaches.
And Orthodox is dependent not on his own exegesis of Scripture, but on "Holy Tradition." So, it's not what Scripture says but ecclesiastical tradition that is his source here.
So much for his claims about Scripture.
“If that makes John and us "ecclesiolaters" then so be it. John doesn't say they went out to form a new denomination, so don't worry about it.”
Where does 1 Jn 2:19 speak of the one true institutional church?
The thing is, the expressions born of God or born again are not used in scripture in a way detailed enough to make them into a theology unto itself. To make "regeneration" (a non-scriptural word) into a whole theology apart from all the other teachings about salvation is really to engage is gross eisegesis. Three Gospels, all Paul's epistles never mention this categorization.
“Being born of God is John's colorful language for concepts found in all the scriptures: a change of heart, the grace of the Spirit etc. It doesn't say you can't leave that state. That the devil doesn't touch those born of God, or that they don't sin, doesn't mean you can't leave the state of being born of God. Nothing in the text says otherwise.”
A. For Orthodox to attempt to exegete Scripture, by his own admission in discussions about Sola Scriptura is nothing more than private speculation. Why should we take him seriously, given his own stated beliefs? Isn't this just an example of "speculation" on his part?
B. He's also advertising his ignorance of Greek, not to mention basic exegetical theology.
The actual word for "regeneration" is palingenesia and is found only in Mt. 19:28 and Titus 3:5.
But to relegate that word to sum of all mentions of the concept is a classic example of the word-concept fallacy.
"Regeneration" in 1 John is represented by uses of the verb "genao. Notice the hightlighted portion.
It is coupled with "anothen" in 1 John 3:3 or its compositum anagennao. These words mean "to beget, beget again, or to bear or give birth." We can find this concept using the same terms in 1 Peter 1:23 as well. Also in Jas 1:18, "apokueo" (to bear or bring foth) is employed.
There are, of course Pauline equivalents (kitzo, kaine ktisis, suzzoopoieo) - contrary to Orthodox's assertions. They refer to creation, being a new cretaure, to make or be made alive, and to quicken with and appeart in Ephesians, Galatians, 2 Corithinas, aand Colossians.
In the Johnanine corpus itself, the concept of regeneration occurs many times such that:
He who is of God hears the words of God.
They hear because they are "of God."
You do not hear them because you are not of God
They do not hear because they are not of God
Everyone who practices righteousness is born of Him.
They practice righteousness because they are born again.
Everyone who loves is born of God and knows God.
They love because they are born again and know God.
Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God.
They believe because they are born again.
The one born of God does not continue in sin.
And since apostasy is a continuing in sin, yes, 1 John 5:18 precludes the regenerate person from apostatizing.
I'd also add that Orthodox affirms libertarian action theory, which is directly undercut by this same concept, for, in 1 John 5:1, we believe because we are born again. Our faith has an antecedent cause.
At best, the verse is ambiguous if taken alone, and therefore neutral on this question, but where John does clarify the causal relation in 3:9, regeneration takes precedence. These are all grammatical parallels, so the case, is cumulative. The point of procreative imagery is to tell us we cannot beget our own existence as children of God; and if that is so, by the time we get to 1 John 5:18, John is assuring his readers that those who do not apostatize are regenerate, for those who persevere to the end are those who overcome. This goes to John's theology of assurance, for tests of "regeneracy" are also proofs of assurance in John.
If John cannot offer these, then why is he writing his readers to make our joy complete? Does it make our fellowship and joy complete to have no assurance that we can't apostatize if we are regenerate? Orthodox's "interpretation" makes mince meat of John's stated purpose.
Grammatically, in each of these, you have parallels. Present participle + perfect passive. We also have an aorist active participle “the one generating.”E.g. every one (who goes on) believing…has been born of God. Present, continuous action; perfect completed action with abiding effects. The entire verse in 1 John 5:1 taken together proves that regeneration precedes faith, because it names “the one begetting” and assigns an active participle there using the same verb (gennao).
The text literally reads: Everyone believing (present active participle) that Jesus is the Christ out of God has been begotten (literally “generated/born”) - (perfect passive participle), and everyone loving (present active) the one begetting (aorist active participle) (NAS idenifies this as The Father, but pater is not in the text) loves the one having been begotten of him (God).
In this construction we have Every one believing that Jesus is the Christ (present active participle) has been born of God (Him) (perfect passive). The perfect passive form of the verb gennao (beget) is followed by an active participle that comes across as “the one begetting.” So, the one being “born again” is passive in being born again and active in having faith. The active participle that refers to God generating (begetting) is in the aorist expressing a single occurrence in which God is active and the believer is passive (denoted by the passive participle “has been born again.” This is precisely what we teach about monergistic regeneration. The perfect passive participle referring to the child of God indicates abiding effects.
And since this is an act of God, God's work cannot be undone.
STEVE: My you’re unsophisticated. You are using the English word in the Latin sense of the word. And the OED is often closer to Latinate usage.
ReplyDeleteORTHODOX: All hail our new language overlord.
STEVE: But the contemporary, colloquial usage of “nominal” is broader than “in name only.”
ORTHODOX: Is it? I've consulted half a dozen dictionaries and I see no other possibly applicable definition.
STEVE: i) According to your own position, apostates must have been born-again Christians. You bear your own burden of proof.
ORTHODOX: Yes well, there was a thread way back where I gave the scriptures proving that real believers can fall away, but the reformed folks had no stomach for interacting with that. You know where they are as well as I.
STEVE: try paying attention to the flow of argument from 1-5.
ORTHODOX: Wow, you think there was something there of substance needing refuting?
i) Who mentioned John 6:66 anyway? Which straw man are you refuting?
ii) Nowhere does John say that being born again distinguishes true from nominal believers. He can't say that because he never mentions a category of nominal or non-born again believers.
iii) Adds nothing to your position.
iv) As discussed before and elsewhere, the immunity does not extend to being prevented the choice to leave.
v) "Somewhere out there" are your big proof texts which will apparently allow you to draw in inference never found in scripture that there is some category of unregenerate believers. (I'm trying to guess what nominal means to you since I can't find any dictionary definition that seems applicable).
STEVE: Several more problems: i) You skipped over point #3. Can’t deal with that.
ORTHODOX: ??? What is there to deal with?
STEVE: ii) You’re using one verse to negate another, rather than attempting to harmonize the two.
ORTHODOX: No, you assume without evidence that a certain degree of immunity from sin means out and out inability to commit the act of leaving grace. However not even you would claim this immunity is absolute because you don't claim that believers never sin. So all you do is draw an entirely arbitrary conclusion about what sin you can and cannot commit.
STEVE: ii) John doesn’t say he was a believer, and even if he was a believer, that doesn’t make him a born-again believer.
ORTHODOX: Again, there is no Johannine category of non-born-again believers. The only category found in the NT is James' category of believers whose faith has no positive effect on their lives making them propositional believers.
STEVE: Yet it’s clear from the history of Israel that such fraternal usage said nothing about the individual’s state of grace, or lack thereof.
ORTHODOX: Context context context. The context is about the brother getting forgiveness for their sin by praying to God. This is not a picture of an unbeliever except in the warped Calvinist world where believers and unbelievers are indistinguishable.
STEVE: Actually, there’s more to demonic faith than “mere propositional belief.” Demons have very strong feelings about God. And they act on their feelings. They hate God. And hatred is deeply personal.
ORTHODOX: If you wish, but still the only categories are faith+positive regenerative effect, faith+no positive effect, and no faith at all. There is no category of faith+positive effect but unregenerate. That is nowhere found in scripture. You've got to erect an enormous edifice of theology upon theology to get to that point.
STEVE: The devil loved God and lived for God before he rebelled. Do you think the devil is regenerate? When was Satan born again?
ORTHODOX: Since the angels aren't under the sin of Adam I take it they are not born again.
STEVE: i) I’ve done many posts on the assurance of salvation. I’m not going to repeat myself here and now. Check out the archives.
ORTHODOX: Yawn. Y'all piked out last time too.
STEVE: ii) Notice how Orthodox’s theology is based on make-believe and wishful thinking. He stipulates a desired result. He then fishes around for a theological tradition that tells him what he wants to hear. He rejects Calvinism because he doesn’t like the consequences—in his faulty understanding—of Reformed theology.
ORTHODOX: Unsubstantiated ad-hominem.
STEVE: Notice how he ducks my analogy of the madman. Can’t deal with that either.
ORTHODOX: The reason we believe the madman mad is that their beliefs don't coincide with reality. Who is like the madman? The one who says that of two people, apparently with the same beliefs, the same experience, the same effect on their lives, one is regenerate and the other not? Who is detached from reality?
STEVE: “But how can you evaluate your own salvation if not by your sincerity?”
What about the sincere Baal-worshipper?
ORTHODOX: Non-sequitur. The issue is not those sincerely believing a lie, rather it is those sincerely in the truth. Notice how Steve ducks and dodges with this non-sequitur.
STEVE: Where does 1 Jn 2:19 speak of the one true church—much less identify that communion with the Orthodox Church?
ORTHODOX: If there is not one true church, how on earth can you be identified as leaving it by your physical absence? Duck and dodge again. If there are multiple true churches they may have been just forming a new denomination and their leaving would give us no conclusions.
STEVE: “In other words, nothing about your current state can tell you anything whatsoever about your relationship with God. You've got to wait and see if you might apostatize at the last minute because you were never regenerate in the first place.”
This assumes that the regenerate and the unregenerate are indistinguishable in the quality of their spiritual experience.
ORTHODOX: Since nobody can get inside someone else's head to compare quality of experience, my accusation remains unassaulted.
STEVE: “The thing is, the expressions born of God or born again are not used in scripture in a way detailed enough to make them into a theology unto itself.”
i) No one said they were, but that’s a place to start. You, by contrast, disregard that data. You’re not entitled to ask for more when you refuse to deal with less.
ORTHODOX: There is nothing here that starts us down the path of calvinism, thus there is nothing to disregard.
STEVE: ii) The Reformed doctrine of regeneration isn’t restricted to occurrences of this word-group. The concept is bound up with original sin and pneumatology.
ORTHODOX: Ahh original sin, another unbiblical phrase.
STEVE: Sorry you’re so abysmally ignorant of NT theology. But that’s the nice thing about being a member of the Orthodox church. It allows you to focus on your golf game.
ORTHODOX: Your rush to always jump to ad-hominem says a lot. You've got plenty of words to waste there but none to spend on substance.
STEVE: “In other words, you cannot link your interpretation of the bible to anything in reality.”
In other words, Orthodox treats revelation as one thing, and “reality” as something else. Then he cut and tailors the testimony of Scripture to fit the testimony of an open enemy of the faith—the apostate.
ORTHODOX: Baloney. I just point point out that your theology does not match anybody's actual experience. It's not what I base my theology on. But it is telling that your theology is intellectual gobbeldygook.
GENE: But how can you evaluate your own salvation if not by your sincerity?,
ReplyDeleteA: Scripture.
ORTHODOX: Unless GENE BRIDGES is in scripture, that doesn't tell us a lot.
GENE: For Orthodox, assurance comes not from Scripture, but from a subjective feeling of "sincerity," but this flies in the face of his own rule of faith, for Orthodox condemns Sola Scriptura on the notion that it is equivalent to "private interpretation" and is open to subjectivity.
ORTHODOX: So let me get this straight. According to you sincerity has no bearing on whether you hope to be saved? If you are insincere in your faith you ought to have just as much assurance as if you are insincere?
Puhlease. This is comical.
GENE: This was not his original claim.
ORTHODOX: I don't recall any "original claim" that varies to what I just said.
GENE: Really, and where have we stated that a person must determine if he is regenerate and then determine from there that his faith is genuine by following the order of being, from the decree of election downward to our own faith?
ORTHODOX: Where did I state that you stated such a thing? All I did was observe that no Calvinist can know if he has true faith, which ordinary rational people would find to be rather comical.
GENE: A. Notice that Orthodox has yet again failed to accurately represent the opposing position. We don't claim that James is conflating justification and sanctification at all. We've been over this ground with him before, and he keeps getting it wrong.
Exegesis of James shows that James is using "justify" to mean "declared righteous" before men, not by God - his works prove his faith is genuine
ORTHODOX: Really. I don't recall hearing anybody in this forum mention "righteousness before men" as being the context.
I do note however that the context of this section of scripture is James 2:14 "Can that faith save him?" which would hardly indicate a context of allowing men to see if faith is genuine and 2:23 "he was called the friend of God." Sounds like it is about God, not about man.
And what are we to say then? That men ought to understand righteousness differently to God?
And anyway, aren't the Calvinists here claiming that nobody can know if faith is genuine seeing as all these people keep fooling us and proving it only when they apostatize?
GENE: This is where a disputant uses one Bible writer’s usage to interpret another Bible writer’s usage. For example, James’ use of “justification” is employed to reinterpret Paul’s usage—and thereby disprove sola fide.
ORTHODOX: Since I never mentioned Paul, nor did I mention him the first time this topic came up and accusations started flying, I find this comical.
GENE: C. But theosis in particular is dependent on a Platonic interpretation of 2 Peter 1:4. This then becomes the interpretive grid for the rest of what Orthodox soteriology teaches.
ORTHODOX: Theosis is not just based on 2 Pe 1:4. It's a theme of scripture starting in Genesis 1:26 that man's calling is to be the likeness of God. The theme of all of scripture is man's fall and his journey to restoration.
Plato Phffft.
GENE: A. For Orthodox to attempt to exegete Scripture, by his own admission in discussions about Sola Scriptura is nothing more than private speculation. Why should we take him seriously, given his own stated beliefs? Isn't this just an example of "speculation" on his part?
ORTHODOX: Tradition is the sum-total understanding of the entire church. If individuals had no understanding, there would be no tradition. So to say that tradition means that individuals can't explain the tradition is about as opposite to the concept as one could get. I might just as well accuse sola scriptura as meaning you can't give a sermon or discuss theology in this forum because that would not be sola scriptura.
GENE: In the Johnanine corpus itself, the concept of regeneration occurs many times such that:
"He who is of God hears the words of God."
ORTHODOX: Oh ok, so you can assume that "of God" means born again, but I can't assume that a "partaker of the Holy Spirit" is born again (Heb 6:4). This is the problem with this entire arbitrary theology. Some terms are used of believers: born again, new creature etc. But then you assume this phantom other category of unborn believers.
GENE: I'd also add that Orthodox affirms libertarian action theory, which is directly undercut by this same concept, for, in 1 John 5:1, we believe because we are born again. Our faith has an antecedent cause.
ORTHODOX: 1John 5:1 Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God
ROFLOL. I wish I'd thought to bring up this verse.
There is no antecedent cause here for one thing.
But the other thing, which just destroyed the entire thread for you folks is that EVERYONE who believes is born of God!!! Where did your category of non born again believers go???
YOU JUST LOST THIS ONE BIG TIME.
GENE: The text literally reads: Everyone believing (present active participle) that Jesus is the Christ out of God has been begotten (literally “generated/born”) - (perfect passive participle), and everyone loving (present active) the one begetting (aorist active participle) (NAS idenifies this as The Father, but pater is not in the text) loves the one having been begotten of him (God).
ORTHODOX: Which proves exactly zero. That someone believing NOW, was born again in the past is obvious and devestating to your position.
GENE: This is precisely what we teach about monergistic regeneration. The perfect passive participle referring to the child of God indicates abiding effects. And since this is an act of God, God's work cannot be undone.
ORTHODOX: Claiming that God will not allow his work to be undone is entirely assuming what you haven't proven.
ORTHODOX SAID:
ReplyDelete“Yes well, there was a thread way back where I gave the scriptures proving that real believers can fall away, but the reformed folks had no stomach for interacting with that. You know where they are as well as I.”
At one time or another I’ve posted material on all of the usual prooftexts against the doctrine of perseverance. The ball is in your court, not mine.
“Who mentioned John 6:66 anyway? Which straw man are you refuting?”
Sorry you can’t follow the implications of your own argument. You say that born-again Christians can commit apostasy. And the focus of this thread has been on Johannine soteriology.
So what examples can you cite in Johannine literature (e.g. Fourth Gospel; 1 John) which says that a born-again Christian fell away from the faith?
There are examples of apostasy in the Johannine corpus, viz. Jn 6:66 and 1 Jn 2:19. But where does it ever say, in the Johannine literature (Gospel of John, Jn 1-3; Revelation) that apostates were born-again Christians? You haven’t cited a single specimen to support your contention.
“Nowhere does John say that being born again distinguishes true from nominal believers. He can't say that because he never mentions a category of nominal or non-born again believers.”
Once again, I realize that mental discipline is not your strong suit, so we’ll spell it out for you for the umpteenth time. There’s a theological discipline known as systematic theology. This involves the integration of various theological teachings in Scripture to form a theological construct on one subject or another.
By process of elimination, both Gene and I have argued for a distinction between regenerate and unregenerate believers.
a) John teaches the priority of regeneration of saving faith. For the exegetical arguments, consult Murray, Ridderbos, Schreiner.
b) John also teaches the perseverance of born-again believers. For the exegetical arguments, consult Baugh, Carson, Murray.
c) John further teaches that some believers defect from the faith.
d) In light of (a)-(b), the apostates in (c) must be unregenerate believers.
But since you have an illogical mind, I don’t expect you to follow a logical argument.
“As discussed before and elsewhere, the immunity does not extend to being prevented the choice to leave.”
Gene and I have argued for our position. You have substituted your bare denial for a counterargument.
“No, you assume without evidence that a certain degree of immunity from sin means out and out inability to commit the act of leaving grace. However not even you would claim this immunity is absolute because you don't claim that believers never sin. So all you do is draw an entirely arbitrary conclusion about what sin you can and cannot commit.”
i) Either you lack the mental discipline to absorb the argument or you’re being evasive. As Baugh explained, the syntax of 1 Jn 3:9 doesn’t mean that a Christian cannot sin. It does, however, rule out living in sin. Same with 1 Jn 5:18.
But apostasy would be the limiting case of living in sin. If 1 John rules out the lesser offense, it rules out the greater offense.
I could quote more from Baugh’s syntactical analysis if need be. You have not begun to offer an alternative interpretation to the interpretation that Gene and I have presented for these verses.
ii) Instead, your tactic is to quote some other verse to negate the force of 3:9 or 5:18. You misconstrue another verse, then you redeploy that misinterpretation to misconstrue these verses as well. You are nothing if not consistent—albeit, consistently wrong.
iii) And beyond the specifics of 1 Jn 3:9 and 5:19, John argues at a more general level for a family resemblance between God and the regenerate. The regenerate take after their spiritual Father—just as the unregenerate take after their spiritual father—the devil. Like father/like son(s).
“Context context context. The context is about the brother getting forgiveness for their sin by praying to God.”
i) A “brother” is just a conventional designation for members of the religious in-group. In context, some brothers are backsliders while other brothers are apostates.
ii) In addition, you aren’t even reading what 1 Jn 5:16 actually says. It is not the backslider or apostate who is praying to God for remission of sin. Rather, it is a second party who is praying on his behalf.
In cases of spiritual restoration, that would be the result of second-party prayer. The prayer of a fellow “brother.”
iii) V16 also distinguishes between backsliders and apostates. Some are restored, but others—guilty of mortal sin—are not. So the brethren (v16) are subdivided into two different classes: backsliders and apostates.
“This is not a picture of an unbeliever except in the warped Calvinist world where believers and unbelievers are indistinguishable.”
Naturally the individual who prays for the restoration of the wayward brother is not an unbeliever. This doesn’t mean that the wayward brother is not an unbeliever.
He may or may not be an unbeliever. Whether a stray sheep returns to the fold is what distinguishes a backslider from an apostate.
“The reason we believe the madman mad is that their beliefs don't coincide with reality.”
My you’re dense. The analogy is not with what a man in his right mind thinks of a madman. Rather, what does a madman think of himself?
Try to pay attention, hard as that is for your undisciplined mind. The fact that a nominal Christian is spiritually self-deluded is no more reason for a regenerate believer to doubt his own salvation than the fact that a madman may be self-deluded is reason for a man in his right mind to doubt his own sanity.
"The issue is not those sincerely believing a lie, rather it is those sincerely in the truth."
You think a man must be regenerate to believe anything in Scripture? There are outright unbelievers like Robin Lane Fox, Alexander Sherwin-White, and J. A. T. Robinson who nevertheless credit some of the historical claims of Scripture. They sincerely believe parts of Scripture.
“If there is not one true church, how on earth can you be identified as leaving it by your physical absence?”
i) 1 Jn 2:29 isn’t talking about the universal church, but a local church. Indeed, 1 John was written to a local church or set of churches in Asian Minor.
ii) The fact, moreover, that this local church had a number of closet apostates who later came out of the closet goes to show how tenuous the distinction is—between a true or false church. A “true” church can become a false church over time—when the reprobate outnumber the elect.
The seven churches of Asia Minor were apostolic sees. Yet some of them were already dying churches at the time of Rev 2-3.
“Since nobody can get inside someone else's head to compare quality of experience, my accusation remains unassaulted.”
Once again you can’t keep track of your own argument. You original argument is that Calvinism destroys the assurance of salvation if it’s possible for a professing Christian to be self-deluded.
The objection does not turn on what a second-party can know about the spiritual status of the first party. Rather, the objection is what the first party can know about his own spiritual status.
Is there something about being Orthodox that makes you intellectually obtuse? Why do I have to constantly explain your own argument to you?
Whether a second party can verify the first party’s state of grace is irrelevant to the first party’s state of grace.
“Ahh original sin, another unbiblical phrase.”
Fine. Eastern Orthodox theology is chock-full of unbiblical nomenclature. If unbiblical nomenclature falsifies a belief-system, then you have falsified your own adopted tradition.
Thanks! That’s a real timesaver. Gene and I can turn to other matters of concern now that you’ve blown a whole in the bottom of your own dingy.
“And anyway, aren't the Calvinists here claiming that nobody can know if faith is genuine seeing as all these people keep fooling us and proving it only when they apostatize?”
The fact that the reprobate can fool themselves hardly shows that the elect can fool themselves.
Likewise, the fact that a lunatic can fool himself doesn’t mean that every man in his right mind should suddenly doubt his own sanity.
“Oh ok, so you can assume that ‘of God’ means born again, but I can't assume that a ‘partaker of the Holy Spirit’ is born again (Heb 6:4).”
Same tactic. Instead of interpreting an author according to his own usage, Orthodox tries to dilute the force of one verse by invoking the usage of another author.
One needs to determine Johannine usage on the basis of Johannine usage, just as one needs to study the usage of Hebrews on its own terms. One also needs to study Johannine pneumatology on its own terms, as well as the pneumatology of Hebrews. Orthodox has made no attempt to exegete Heb 6:4 in relation to the pneumatology of Hebrews.
“But the other thing, which just destroyed the entire thread for you folks is that EVERYONE who believes is born of God!!! Where did your category of non born again believers go??? YOU JUST LOST THIS ONE BIG TIME.”
Orthodox doesn’t know how to do systematic theology. He would make an excellent Arian. He would quote Jn 14:28 and leave it at that.
But a Bible writer doesn’t say everything he has to say all at once, in a single verse. We need to interpret each verse on its own terms, in context, according to the narrative flow or flow of argument, taking parallel passages and literary allusions into account.
Considered in isolation, a particular verse may be open to more than one meaning. But as you compare various strands in his overall teaching, that narrows down the interpretive options.
ess GENE BRIDGES is in scripture, that doesn't tell us a lot.
ReplyDeleteWow, what to do with such an intellectual response? Scripture gives tests for true and false faith. One need only apply these tests. Again, we’ve discussed this many times on this blog in discussing assurance, and I even listed several for you above in discussing 1 John.
So let me get this straight. According to you sincerity has no bearing on whether you hope to be saved? If you are insincere in your faith you ought to have just as much assurance as if you are insincere?
No, I said, “sincerity” is not a measure of genuine faith. One can be sincere – sincerely wrong; sincerely deluded, but this does not mean another person is also self-deluded.
Were did I state that you stated such a thing? All I did was observe that no Calvinist can know if he has true faith, which ordinary rational people would find to be rather comical.
No, that’s not true. Once again you can’t follow your own arguments.
GENE: Calvinism does not look for warrants to believe or for proof of election in order to gain assurance.
ORTHODOX: Then where do you look for assurance?
So, I can only think that you believe that in order to know one has assurance he would have to determine that he is regenerate, and regeneracy is, of course proof of election, so, yes Orthodox, you did state such a thing, since the natural outcome of your objection would track all the way back to determining if a person is “elect.” You’re employing a rather standard libertarian objection to Calvinism on this point.
Really. I don't recall hearing anybody in this forum mention "righteousness before men" as being the context.
I do note however that the context of this section of scripture is James 2:14 "Can that faith save him?" which would hardly indicate a context of allowing men to see if faith is genuine and 2:23 "he was called the friend of God." Sounds like it is about God, not about man.
And what are we to say then? That men ought to understand righteousness differently to God?
A. We’ve exegeted James 2 several times in this forum. Evan May has done a particularly good job. Too bad you’re too lazy to look in the archives.
And anyway, aren't the Calvinists here claiming that nobody can know if faith is genuine seeing as all these people keep fooling us and proving it only when they apostatize?
No, it isn’t – and you’ve been told that several time snow. Further, if you’d take the time to read what we’ve written on assurance in the archives you would know that. We’ve been over this several times.
What we have claimed about others is that our knowledge of another person’s faith is limited to a credible profession of faith. I went into great detail above in replying to my young friend Andy. You just cruised by that apparently.
Since I never mentioned Paul, nor did I mention him the first time this topic came up and accusations started flying, I find this comical.
On the contrary, we’ve been over this ground with you before. You specifically appeal to James to contradict what we say about Paul. Try keeping up with your own arguments.
Theosis is not just based on 2 Pe 1:4. It's a theme of scripture starting in Genesis 1:26 that man's calling is to be the likeness of God. The theme of all of scripture is man's fall and his journey to restoration.
No, in Orthodoxy, theosis is an ontological category in soteriology. You won’t find your neoPlatonic theology in Scripture. That has to be read back into the text.
And notice that Orthodoxy tell us that Scripture is about mans’ fall and journey. No, it’s about God’s great covenant of grace.
Tradition is the sum-total understanding of the entire church. If individuals had no understanding, there would be no tradition.
I don’t think your views are part of Holy Tradition – but then you’ve never told us exactly where in the historical record we can find Holy Tradition.
And what you're doing is trying to say that you're not trying to explain Scripture, but Holy Tradition, but let's not forget what you've said about Holy Tradition.
So to say that tradition means that individuals can't explain the tradition is about as opposite to the concept as one could get.
This is coming from a person who in, I believe May, said he doesn’t need councils and popes to ground his doctrine and who further said that he only needs something like 10 percent of the theologians in his communion to agree with him without giving us any infallible interpretations from them and without telling us where to find the rules to adjudicate disputes among them.
Forgive me for thinking you aren’t competent to defend “Holy Tradition.”
I might just as well accuse sola scriptura as meaning you can't give a sermon or discuss theology in this forum because that would not be sola scriptura.
That’s cute, but this doesn’t remove the fact that in the past you’ve objected to our rule of faith because it involves “private speculation,” and, as we’ve discussed before, unless your communion has made some infallible pronouncements on these Scriptures, you’re borrowing capital from our rule of faith to make your arguments. Just yesterday I was told on another blog by another Orthodox member that you Orthodox “don’t go to Scripture for anything.” So, who should I believe, Orthodox – you or him?
Oh ok, so you can assume that "of God" means born again, but I can't assume that a "partaker of the Holy Spirit" is born again (Heb 6:4). This is the problem with this entire arbitrary theology. Some terms are used of believers: born again, new creature etc. But then you assume this phantom other category of unborn believers.
As Steve pointed out to you, you have a nasty habit of, rather than interacting exegetically with one text or with our own exegesis of the texts you invoke, shifting to another text to blunt the force of the other. This whole thread has largely revolved around Johanine theology. If you’d like to talk about Hebrews, we certainly can, but you’ve not exegeted the text. We’re the ones doing the heavy lifting in that regard.
“Regeneration” is typically a Johnanine category. You can make that assumption if you wish, but that would be a classic example of semantic inflation to import one category into another.
It would also involve semantic anachronism on your part. For example, Arminians treat the mere occurrence of words like “repentance” (Heb 6:2,6), “bought” (2 Pet 2:1), and “sanctify” (Heb 10:29), as if these were technical terms which carried the same specialized meaning as dogmatic usage, and then appeal to these verses to disprove perseverance or special redemption.
But Peter is not using the verb “to buy” as a synonym for penal substitution, which is a theological construct (cf. Isa 53; Rom 5; 2 Cor 5:18,21; Gal 3:13; Col 2:14; 1 Pet 2:24; 3:18). Rather, his usage is allusive of false OT prophets like Balaam (2:15; cf. Jude 11), as well as the Exodus generation (cf. Deut 32:6; 2 Sam 7:23)
The author of Hebrews is not using “repentance” in the rotund sense of the Westminster Confession: “repentance unto life is an evangelical grace…” (WCF 15).
Likewise, he is not using “sanctify” in the later dogmatic sense, but in the cultic sense of ritual purity (9:13,20; cf. Exod 29:21; Lev 16:19, LXX)). Notice that the apostate is “sanctified” by the blood of Christ, not the Spirit of God. This is a status, not a process. More generally, the author’s usage in Heb 6 and 12 goes back to the archetypal rebellion at Kadesh, recorded in Num 14 and expounded in Ps 95.
The writer specifically says in 6:9 that his readers have not done these things, for things do not comport with the signs of being saved at all. The passage proves that faith in Christ can be limited to external items and thus false faith. It does not refer to genuine believers at all. Throughout this letter, the author’s emphasis is on the phenomenology rather than psychology of faith. His few references to the work of the Spirit are confined to the Spirit’s agency in inspiration and the charismata or sign-gifts.
What does it mean, then, to the author of Hebrews, to have tasted of the Spirit? It isn’t enough to say that they tasted of the Holy Spirit. You have to ask how the work of the Spirit is delineated in the Book of Hebrews. Is this equivalent to regeneration—or inspiration? Is this about the New Birth? Or is it related to the agency of the Holy Spirit in the authorship of Scripture? Are they resisting the grace of regeneration? Or are they resisting the voice of the Spirit speaking in Scripture? The text never mentions the psychology of faith, only the externals of believing. To taste of the Spirit is to partake but at the same time to taste, not to imbibe the whole meal internally. The people are resisting the grace of the inspiration of Scripture, the evidences of miracles, and the offer of the gospel to them, not their own internal regeneration and salvation. The author is indexing this text to a specific OT example from Deuteronomy/Joshua, where all the referents are also external, not internal.
1John 5:1 Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God
ROFLOL. I wish I'd thought to bring up this verse.
There is no antecedent cause here for one thing.
Libertarian action theory reduces to uncaused choices.
On the contrary, Orthodox, we have a definite structure here:
Every one believing that Jesus is the Christ
present participle
has been born of God (Him)
perfect passive
The latter modifies the former. The latter is the antecedent cause of the former.
Every one believing that Jesus is the Christ
present participle
has been born of God (Him)
perfect passive
Regeneration is the antecedent cause of faith
At best, the verse is ambiguous if taken alone, and therefore neutral on this question, but where John does clarify the causal relation in 3:9, regeneration takes precedence, and in 3:9, the causal relation is spelled out, verbatim.
It’s also spelled out here: 8:47 He who is of God hears the words of God; for this reason you do not hear them, because you are not of God.
John writes a grammatical construction exactly like I John 2:29, 5:1, and 4:7! He first spells out, verbatim, the causal relationship between ability to hear and understanding in v. 43 and endcaps with v.47's end that says "for this reason..." "He who is of God, hears the words of God." for this reason, you do not hear them, because you are not of God. There is a logical, , causal relationship, verbatim.
Once again, you’re advertising your biblical illiteracy.
But the other thing, which just destroyed the entire thread for you folks is that EVERYONE who believes is born of God!!! Where did your category of non born again believers go???... Which proves exactly zero. That someone believing NOW, was born again in the past is obvious and devestating to your position.
Steve gave you the systematic argument; I’ll supply the exegetical side from 1 John:
In 1 John, John describes the qualities of saving faith; so those who “believe” here are all believers, and belief is characterized as being impervious to apostasy.
Those who left were not of us, and those not “of us” were not genuine believers.
All of these are tests for regeneracy:
1 John 2:29, 4:7, and 5:1 also are this same construction:
He who is of God hears the words of God.
They hear because they are "of God."
You do not hear them because you are not of God
They do not hear because they are not of God
Everyone who practices righteousness is born of Him.
They practice righteousness because they are born again.
Everyone who loves is born of God and knows God.
They love because they are born again and know God.
Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God.
They believe because they are born again.
And that’s not all. 5:18 and 3:9 can be added, so that the effect is cumulative.
And the purpose of 1 John is found in 5:13. So, if these things are true of you, you can know that you are born again and, within the bounds of reason –to which you above stipulated (Neither one of us offers genuine, money-back absolute guaranteed knowledge that we will be saved.), which was the substance of your original claim.
Claiming that God will not allow his work to be undone is entirely assuming what you haven't proven.
Notice that Orthodox merely makes a claim and doesn’t interact with the exegesis I gave at all. That’s precisely what the grammar shows, so, no Orthodox, I did prove my case.
STEVE: At one time or another I’ve posted material on all of the usual prooftexts against the doctrine of perseverance. The ball is in your court, not mine.
ReplyDeleteORTHODOX: Yawn, and others have posted contra material. Are we going to play "Somewhere out there" again?
STEVE: So what examples can you cite in Johannine literature (e.g. Fourth Gospel; 1 John) which says that a born-again Christian fell away from the faith?
ORTHODOX: Firstly, since John only uses the term born again or similar a handful of times, it begs the question to ask for a passage specifically combining those concepts.
Secondly, as we've seen, the Johannine categorization is that WHOEVER believes Jesus is the Christ is born of God.
This is extremely simple, there cannot be any non-born-again believers in Johannine categories, because all believers are born again. We don't need to engage in some systematic theology to read the plain meaning of the text.
STEVE: Once again, I realize that mental discipline is not your strong suit,
ORTHODOX: If that's true it just goes to show the foolishness of sola scriptura where every man is for himself in interpreting scripture.
STEVE: There’s a theological discipline known as systematic theology.
ORTHODOX: Is there? What verse says that Mr Sola Scriptura man?
STEVE: By process of elimination, both Gene and I have argued for a distinction between regenerate and unregenerate believers.
ORTHODOX: So you've got a long chain of supposed logic by which you plan to overturn the plain statement of John that whoever believes is born of God. [sigh]. Very well, let's look at this long chain.
STEVE: a) John teaches the priority of regeneration of saving faith. For the exegetical arguments, consult Murray, Ridderbos, Schreiner.
ORTHODOX: "Somewhere out there" again. Since Gene seems to want to attempt this, I'll deal with that when I get to him.
STEVE: b) John also teaches the perseverance of born-again believers. For the exegetical arguments, consult Baugh, Carson, Murray.
ORTHODOX: "Somewhere out there" again. I can sit here and name drop people who exegete differently, but I don't see the point in name dropping.
STEVE: c) John further teaches that some believers defect from the faith.
d) In light of (a)-(b), the apostates in (c) must be unregenerate believers.
ORTHODOX: Since there are critical gaps in proving the links in this chain, there's certainly no refutation here.
STEVE: As Baugh explained, the syntax of 1 Jn 3:9 doesn’t mean that a Christian cannot sin. It does, however, rule out living in sin. Same with 1 Jn 5:18.
ORTHODOX: Then logically, such a person ceases to be a Christian if they start living in sin. That's the obvious conclusion not requiring some long chain of tortuous logic.
STEVE: ii) Instead, your tactic is to quote some other verse to negate the force of 3:9 or 5:18. You misconstrue another verse, then you redeploy that misinterpretation to misconstrue these verses as well. You are nothing if not consistent—albeit, consistently wrong.
ORTHODOX: Just bluster to claim that my interpretation is wrong.
STEVE: iii) And beyond the specifics of 1 Jn 3:9 and 5:19, John argues at a more general level for a family resemblance between God and the regenerate.
ORTHODOX: Oooohh. Sounds like theosis.
STEVE: The regenerate take after their spiritual Father—just as the unregenerate take after their spiritual father—the devil. Like father/like son(s).
ORTHODOX: Nothing here but vague rhetoric.
STEVE: ii) In addition, you aren’t even reading what 1 Jn 5:16 actually says. It is not the backslider or apostate who is praying to God for remission of sin. Rather, it is a second party who is praying on his behalf.
ORTHODOX: (a) I never said who was doing the praying. (b) It is irrelevant anyway.
STEVE: iii) V16 also distinguishes between backsliders and apostates. Some are restored, but others—guilty of mortal sin—are not.
ORTHODOX: Now you're sneakily avoiding the important point. There aren't merely two categories, but John is commanding that WE ONLY PRAY FOR ONE CATEGORY.....
STEVE: He may or may not be an unbeliever. Whether a stray sheep returns to the fold is what distinguishes a backslider from an apostate.
ORTHODOX: ..... and yet you claim that you can't know who is a backslider and who is apostate UNTIL THEY DIE! In other words, you make a mockery of John's command. You make it unworkable.
STEVE: “The reason we believe the madman mad is that their beliefs don't coincide with reality.”
My you’re dense. The analogy is not with what a man in his right mind thinks of a madman. Rather, what does a madman think of himself?
ORTHODOX: The point is, both the madman and the sane man think they are in their right mind. That means either (a) nobody can know if they are sane or (b) We check sanity by its correspondance to reality. I go with (b).
STEVE: Try to pay attention, hard as that is for your undisciplined mind. The fact that a nominal Christian is spiritually self-deluded is no more reason for a regenerate believer to doubt his own salvation than the fact that a madman may be self-deluded is reason for a man in his right mind to doubt his own sanity.
ORTHODOX: And yet you won't give us the criteria by which we can discover if we are deluded or regenerate. How convenient for your pie in the sky theology yet again.
STEVE: You think a man must be regenerate to believe anything in Scripture? There are outright unbelievers like Robin Lane Fox, Alexander Sherwin-White, and J. A. T. Robinson who nevertheless credit some of the historical claims of Scripture. They sincerely believe parts of Scripture.
ORTHODOX: So are you inserting a new criteria for judging our regeneration: whether we believe ALL of scripture? If not, what is the point of this waffle?
STEVE: “If there is not one true church, how on earth can you be identified as leaving it by your physical absence?”
i) 1 Jn 2:29 isn’t talking about the universal church, but a local church. Indeed, 1 John was written to a local church or set of churches in Asian Minor.
ORTHODOX: (a) If it's written to a number of churches, then it isn't written to a local church. (b) You (again) make John's words into a nonsense. If there were merely going out of one local church, they could be just planning to join another local church. Thus "going out" would be no bad thing in itself. Only assuming the universal church makes sense. (c) Just because people write to local churches doesn't mean they can't refer to the universal church. That is absurd.
STEVE: ii) The fact, moreover, that this local church had a number of closet apostates who later came out of the closet goes to show how tenuous the distinction is—between a true or false church. A “true” church can become a false church over time—when the reprobate outnumber the elect.
ORTHODOX: (a) Pure fabrication. Nowhere does it say anything about 51% reprobate making a church untrue. (b) Since you repeatedly lecture us that nobody knows who is reprobate, according to you there is a concept of a true church, but nobody can know if they are in it. (c) You contradict John who says the church stays true because the false brothers leave.
STEVE: The seven churches of Asia Minor were apostolic sees. Yet some of them were already dying churches at the time of Rev 2-3.
ORTHODOX: I'm reminded of Genesis 18:32 that God will not punish the group as long as some faithful remain.
STEVE: “Since nobody can get inside someone else's head to compare quality of experience, my accusation remains unassaulted.”
Once again you can’t keep track of your own argument. You original argument is that Calvinism destroys the assurance of salvation if it’s possible for a professing Christian to be self-deluded.
The objection does not turn on what a second-party can know about the spiritual status of the first party. Rather, the objection is what the first party can know about his own spiritual status.
ORTHODOX: Uh huh, but how do you know a good quality cake until you compare it to a range of them? I'm grasping here because you refuse to tell us what this "quality" is, so I'm trying to guess how you judge this quality.
STEVE: If unbiblical nomenclature falsifies a belief-system, then you have falsified your own adopted tradition.
ORTHODOX: Orthodoxy has an authority structure for defining theological terminology. You don't.
STEVE: The fact that the reprobate can fool themselves hardly shows that the elect can fool themselves.
ORTHODOX: More nonsense waffle. If you can't tell us HOW the elect know they are not fooled, you are just blathering.
STEVE: “Oh ok, so you can assume that ‘of God’ means born again, but I can't assume that a ‘partaker of the Holy Spirit’ is born again (Heb 6:4).”
Same tactic. Instead of interpreting an author according to his own usage, Orthodox tries to dilute the force of one verse by invoking the usage of another author.
ORTHODOX: Talk about setting up silly rules that can't work. Since the author of Hebrews never uses "born of God", we can never know supposedly when he is referring to people of this category.
Which again brings us back to the problem that your theology requires two categories of people that scripture never deliniates and which supposedly requires a long chain of logic to figure out is taught at all. An unworkable system!
STEVE: But a Bible writer doesn’t say everything he has to say all at once, in a single verse. We need to interpret each verse on its own terms, in context, according to the narrative flow or flow of argument, taking parallel passages and literary allusions into account.
ORTHODOX: Which is all very well, but doesn't amount to an argument for your side.
GENE: Scripture gives tests for true and false faith. One need only apply these tests.
ReplyDeleteORTHODOX: Except that ex-believers have passed all these tests. Ouch.
And one might ask what marks a backslider would get on these tests.
GENE: So let me get this straight. According to you sincerity has no bearing on whether you hope to be saved? If you are insincere in your faith you ought to have just as much assurance as if you are insincere?
No, I said, “sincerity” is not a measure of genuine faith.
ORTHODOX: Wow. So two people, one sincere and the other not, have just as much assurance if they get the same marks on the other "tests". Wow.
GENE: All I did was observe that no Calvinist can know if he has true faith, which ordinary rational people would find to be rather comical.
No, that’s not true. Once again you can’t follow your own arguments.
ORTHODOX: Another non-response.
GENE: o, I can only think that you believe that in order to know one has assurance he would have to determine that he is regenerate, and regeneracy is, of course proof of election, so, yes Orthodox, you did state such a thing, since the natural outcome of your objection would track all the way back to determining if a person is “elect.” You’re employing a rather standard libertarian objection to Calvinism on this point.
ORTHODOX: Is it my fault that you equate being regenerate with being elect? I take it that if you know you are regenerate, then you know you are elect? Reasonable assumption? And Jesus said to Nicodemus, "Don't you understand these things and you are Israel's teacher? You must be born again". Obviously Jesus thinks whether we are born again is a very knowable proposition.
GENE: A. We’ve exegeted James 2 several times in this forum. Evan May has done a particularly good job. Too bad you’re too lazy to look in the archives.
ORTHODOX: It's near impossible to find anything in the mess of archives here.
GENE: And anyway, aren't the Calvinists here claiming that nobody can know if faith is genuine seeing as all these people keep fooling us and proving it only when they apostatize?
No, it isn’t – and you’ve been told that several time snow.
ORTHODOX: Baloney, Steve just said above that the only way we can tell the apostate from the backslider is whether they come back: i.e. not for sure until they die.
GENE: On the contrary, we’ve been over this ground with you before. You specifically appeal to James to contradict what we say about Paul. Try keeping up with your own arguments.
ORTHODOX: Since I've never discussed Paul, your claim is comical.
GENE: No, in Orthodoxy, theosis is an ontological category in soteriology. You won’t find your neoPlatonic theology in Scripture. That has to be read back into the text.
ORTHODOX: What a bunch of baloney. How about you quote a proposition about theosis that the Orthodox church teaches, and we'll see if it is found in the text or not. Anyone can make wild claims.
GENE: And notice that Orthodoxy tell us that Scripture is about mans’ fall and journey. No, it’s about God’s great covenant of grace.
ORTHDOOX: Typical Western thinking. It is not an either/or proposition. They are two sides of the one coin.
GENE: I don’t think your views are part of Holy Tradition – but then you’ve never told us exactly where in the historical record we can find Holy Tradition.
ORTHODOX: 2000 years of Christians weren't confused about where to find Holy Tradition, but you are. Perhaps you've a lot of work to do, to understand the Church Fathers. You know, the ones that protestants quote when it suits them? Like Chrysostom who said "If it's tradition, look no further". If you can't understand the ancient church, what claim have you to be an apologist?
GENE: This is coming from a person who in, I believe May, said he doesn’t need councils and popes to ground his doctrine
ORTHODOX: I hardly would have said that councils aren't useful in doctrine.
GENE: and who further said that he only needs something like 10 percent of the theologians in his communion to agree with him without giving us any infallible interpretations from them and without telling us where to find the rules to adjudicate disputes among them.
ORTHODOX: Yes I did tell you, but apparently it is too much effort for you to remember the theology of the church which has been around 2000 years. So I'll recap for you...
The Orthodox church acknowledges that it can take time for the mind of the church to become clear about the truth. It acknowledges that there are times in history when various issues may not be clear. However once the mind of the church comes to a consensus, it is the truth. An early example is the conflict prior to the Jerusalem council.
Now before you whine about this, need I start talking about the canon again?
STEVE: That’s cute, but this doesn’t remove the fact that in the past you’ve objected to our rule of faith because it involves “private speculation,” and, as we’ve discussed before, unless your communion has made some infallible pronouncements on these Scriptures, you’re borrowing capital from our rule of faith to make your arguments.
ORTHODOX: Everyone is welcome to engage in private speculation. But if it doesn't coincide with the mind of the church, it remains just that: private speculation. If everybody's private speculation arrives at the same point, then we say the Holy Spirit has led the Church into all truth.
The upshot is, there is no milage for you here.
GENE: Just yesterday I was told on another blog by another Orthodox member that you Orthodox “don’t go to Scripture for anything.” So, who should I believe, Orthodox – you or him?
ORTHODOX: Not knowing the context of your discussion I can hardly comment.
GENE: For example, Arminians treat the mere occurrence of words like “repentance” (Heb 6:2,6), “bought” (2 Pet 2:1), and “sanctify” (Heb 10:29), as if these were technical terms which carried the same specialized meaning as dogmatic usage, and then appeal to these verses to disprove perseverance or special redemption.
But Peter is not using the verb “to buy” as a synonym for penal substitution, which is a theological construct (cf. Isa 53; Rom 5; 2 Cor 5:18,21; Gal 3:13; Col 2:14; 1 Pet 2:24; 3:18). Rather, his usage is allusive of false OT prophets like Balaam (2:15; cf. Jude 11), as well as the Exodus generation (cf. Deut 32:6; 2 Sam 7:23)
ORTHODOX: What a bunch of nonsense sophistry.
a) You assume that penal substitution is the lens (and the only lens) through which we can understand redemption, and look at everything else through that grid.
b) Your argument really comes down to saying "My favourite verses are technical terms and theological constructs. Yours are mere allusive fluff." Using this method we can ignore whatever passages suit us. No wonder they say that Orthodoxy is all the passages that protestants don't underline.
c) We might just as well reverse the argument and see what it looks like: "But Paul is not using the verb analogy of substitution as a synonym for God's purchase of us in redemption, which is a theological construct (cf. 2 Pe 2:1, Rev 5:9, 1Cor 7:23). Rather, his usage is allusive of OT imagery (cf Is 53)."
GENE: The author of Hebrews is not using “repentance” in the rotund sense of the Westminster Confession: “repentance unto life is an evangelical grace…” (WCF 15).
ORTHODOX: Bold assertions, but no evidence presented. And ignoring the actual context since he links repentence with the crucifixition of the Son of God (6:6) as well as referring it to needing to be "renewed", implying that it was this very thing which initially brought the believer into a relationship with the crucifixition of Christ.
So apparently you can just wave your hands about and CLAIM that it can't mean what it ought to mean both normally AND in the context and you have a valid argument? Pffft.
GENE: Likewise, he is not using “sanctify” in the later dogmatic sense, but in the cultic sense of ritual purity (9:13,20; cf. Exod 29:21; Lev 16:19, LXX)).
ORTHODOX: Firstly, verses like Ex 29:21 and Lev 16:19 are not about mere ritual purity they are about sacrifies and blood shed for sin which is the direct precursor of Christ's sacrifice.
Secondly, the author links sanctification with being "from the Father" and being one of the "brethren". (2:11) . He links it directly with Christ's sacrifice in 10:10. In 12:14 he links it with salvation. In 13:12 he again links it with Christ's blood.
Or to sum up, what are you smoking?
GENE: The writer specifically says in 6:9 that his readers have not done these things, for things do not comport with the signs of being saved at all.
ORTHODOX: Which proves what exactly? You and Steve have already lectured that nobody can (a) know with much certainty the state of someone else and (b) know the state of someone else until you find out if they persevere. That the author finds no evidence in his initial audience that they have this problem does not therefore mean he has any certain knowledge about it.
GENE: Throughout this letter, the author’s emphasis is on the phenomenology rather than psychology of faith.
ORTHODOX: Wow, some big words you need there to weasel your way out of this passage. Since phenomenology of faith and psychology of faith aren't even biblical categories and have no history in the exegesis of scripture, why should I even care about this sillyness?
And havn't I just been lectured that sincerity (a psychological category if ever there was one) is irrelevant to testing one's salvation? So if Hebrews had been talking about the psychology of faith you would again reject it as mere psychology and reject it. A no win scenario.
GENE: Every one believing that Jesus is the Christ
present participle
has been born of God (Him)
perfect passive
Regeneration is the antecedent cause of faith
ORTHODOX: If I said "everyone believing in Islam has been to Mecca", it wouldn't indicate a causal relationship between going to Mecca and being a Muslim.
GENE: At best, the verse is ambiguous if taken alone,
ORTHODOX: Ah huh. So you fired your best shot and now you admit it was a blank.
GENE: but where John does clarify the causal relation in 3:9, regeneration takes precedence, and in 3:9, the causal relation is spelled out, verbatim.
ORTHODOX: 1John 3:9 No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
Belief isn't even mentioned here, so you can't use it to establish a relationship between belief and regeneration.
And again, I could just as much, actually more so, accuse you of trying to contradict scripture with scripture trying to refute that "whoever believes is born of God". That argument works both ways.
And again, you interpret scripture in a mechanical way that you would never do in normal real life. If I said "No-one who has joined the Church sins, because he is too afraid of being found out", it wouldn't indicate that nobody can leave the church and start sinning.
GENE: It’s also spelled out here: 8:47 He who is of God hears the words of God; for this reason you do not hear them, because you are not of God.
ORTHODOX: Again, you interpret scripture in a mechanical way, that you would not do in real life.
If I was at church, and some visitor came in, who wasn't serious about learning about God, and started heckling the priest's sermon, saying that it doesn't make sense, I wouldn't hesitate to tell him to his face that the reason he doesn't understand is because he is not of God. However, having said such a thing, that wouldn't mean I am a Calvinist who thinks him incapable of repenting, taking it seriously, and learning what it means.
GENE: Once again, you’re advertising your biblical illiteracy.
ORTHODOX: The trouble is, my interpretation is perfectly logical. It accords with how we understand things in real life. It does not involve trying to get around plain statements in John ("whoever believes is born of God", and it doesn't involve some five step chain of logic and some categories of people never mentioned in scripture to get there.
GENE: So, if these things are true of you, you can know that you are born again
ORTHODOX: Great, except that apostates testify that they had all these things. So we have to fall back to saying all or most apostates are liars, which is pretty silly.
ORTHODOX SAID:
ReplyDelete“Yawn, and others have posted contra material. Are we going to play ‘Somewhere out there’ again?”
Contra material to what? To what I posted in defense of perseverance? Unless it’s targeted to what I wrote, it’s no counterargument to what I wrote.
I realize that you have the attention-span of a 2-year-old (with due apologies to all 2-year-olds), so it’s hard for you to remember your own argument, but when you raise an objection to your opponent’s position, and he points out that he has already responded to that objection, then he is answering you on your own terms.
I could give you the links, but you’ve demonstrated no ability or willingness to interact with exegesis, much less offer your own.
“Firstly, since John only uses the term born again or similar a handful of times, it begs the question to ask for a passage specifically combining those concepts.”
It hardly begs the question when you yourself are asserting that every apostate was a born-again Christian.
“Secondly, as we've seen, the Johannine categorization is that WHOEVER believes Jesus is the Christ is born of God. This is extremely simple, there cannot be any non-born-again believers in Johannine categories, because all believers are born again. We don't need to engage in some systematic theology to read the plain meaning of the text.”
It’s simple for a simpleton. But the Apostle John ascribes a number of attributes to the regenerate. To be regenerate, according to John, you must exemplify all these properties, not just one.
“Is there? What verse says that Mr Sola Scriptura man?”
To take a couple of examples, both Paul (e.g. in Romans) and the author of Hebrews employ the methodology of systematic theology. Pity you’re too ignorant to know that.
“So you've got a long chain of supposed logic by which you plan to overturn the plain statement of John that whoever believes is born of God. [sigh].”
i) Thanks for admitting that one has to be illogical to be Orthodox.
By contrast, Jesus took logic quite seriously:
http://www.dwillard.org/articles/artview.asp?artID=39
ii) There’s more than one verse in 1 John. And the regenerate have more than one attribute. The Apostle John ascribes a number of qualities to the regenerate. To be a born-again Christian, you must exemplify all of them, not just one.
“I can sit here and name drop people who exegete differently, but I don't see the point in name dropping.”
It’s not for your benefit, I assure you. You’re too lazy and anti-intellectual to do real research. I mention it the lurkers at Tblog.
Serious students of the Bible compare and contrast different interpretations.
“Since there are critical gaps in proving the links in this chain, there's certainly no refutation here.”
You *say* it but you don’t *show* it. So the only gaps are in your own threadbare assertions to the contrary.
“Then logically, such a person ceases to be a Christian if they start living in sin.”
That’s not what 1 Jn 3:9 and 5:18 say. They don’t say a born-again Christian can live in sin, at which point he ceases to be a Christian.
Rather, they say just the opposite: a Christian, by virtue of the new birth and the abiding presence of God, is kept from living in sin. But you despise the word of God whenever it conflicts with your manmade tradition.
“Just bluster to claim that my interpretation is wrong.”
I didn’t *claim* your interpretation is wrong. I argued you down.
Gene and I present arguments while you counter with empty denials.
“Nothing here but vague rhetoric.”
The like father/like son principle is explicitly made in both the Fourth Gospel and 1 John. But you despise the word of God whenever it conflicts with your manmade tradition.
“I never said who was doing the praying.”
You cited 1 Jn 5:16. You then said “the context is about the brother getting forgiveness for their sin by praying to God.”
That is not what the verse says. But because the word of God means nothing to you, you don’t bother to get it right.
“And yet you claim that you can't know who is a backslider and who is apostate UNTIL THEY DIE!”
Can you quote me on that? No.
By definition, a backslider is someone who returns to the faith. This can happen long before he dies. Often does.
“The point is, both the madman and the sane man think they are in their right mind. That means either (a) nobody can know if they are sane or (b) We check sanity by its correspondance to reality. I go with (b).”
You’d flunk Philosophy 101, assuming you ever took Philosophy 101. Insanity distorts our perception of reality. That’s what makes a madman mad.
“And yet you won't give us the criteria by which we can discover if we are deluded or regenerate. How convenient for your pie in the sky theology yet again.”
i) I don’t have to make up criteria on demand. I only need to be faithful to Scripture. If Scripture gives criteria, I’ll give you scriptural criteria.
ii) In fact, 1 John is very much concerned with such criteria, as Gene has laid out in some detail.
“So are you inserting a new criteria for judging our regeneration: whether we believe ALL of scripture? If not, what is the point of this waffle?”
Once again, you’re too feebleminded to keep track of your own argument. You’re the only who denies that someone can be an unregenerate believer. I’m simply pointing out that many outright unbelievers believe certain portions of the Bible. So where to *you* draw the line?
“If it's written to a number of churches, then it isn't written to a local church.”
Which doesn’t mean it was written to the universal church.
“If there were merely going out of one local church, they could be just planning to join another local church. Thus ‘going out’ would be no bad thing in itself.”
You’re being simpleminded again. Bad for whom? Bad for apostates? Yes. It’s bad to be an apostate. Bad to be hellbound.
Bad for the church they left behind? No. It’s good to purify the church of the evil yeast.
“Just because people write to local churches doesn't mean they can't refer to the universal church.”
The universal church is an abstraction. It doesn’t exist at one time and place. The apostates couldn’t leave the universal church even if they wanted to. For the universal church includes many church members who would only be born centuries later.
In context, they were leaving a specific, 1C Christian fellowship (probably a house-church) in Asia Minor. John is combating a particular group of heretics who are creating problems for one or more of the churches under his jurisdiction.
Their departure is a datable, addressable event. It occurs in real space and real time. You’re suprahistorical gloss is completely acontextual.
“Since you repeatedly lecture us that nobody knows who is reprobate, according to you there is a concept of a true church, but nobody can know if they are in it.”
Once again, I realize that you’re not the brightest bulb in the constellation, so we have to keep reminding you of what we already said. In church discipline, we judge by what people do or say, not by what they privately think or feel.
We don’t need to know if someone is “really” a reprobate to exercise church discipline. It’s more than sufficient if he acts like a reprobate.
“You contradict John who says the church stays true because the false brothers leave.”
No contradiction, because you are illicitly trying to universalize from a particular case. If the false brethren leave a local church, then it retains its spiritual integrity—at least for a time.
But local churches have gone bad times without number throughout church history.
“Uh huh, but how do you know a good quality cake until you compare it to a range of them? I'm grasping here because you refuse to tell us what this ‘quality’ is, so I'm trying to guess how you judge this quality.”
1 John is a good place to start. But that won’t help you out since you refuse to do exegesis. You’d die from anaphylactic shock if your Orthodox theology were ever exposed to real exegesis.
“Orthodoxy has an authority structure for defining theological terminology. You don't.”
Now you’re backing away from your original objection. Your original objection was to “unbiblical” nomenclature.
So many of your new arguments (or assertions) refute your old arguments that you save Gene and me a lot of time and effort. Thanks for your self-refuting methodology.
“More nonsense waffle. If you can't tell us HOW the elect know they are not fooled, you are just blathering.”
More nonsense waffle. If you can't tell us HOW a man in his right mind knows he isn’t not fooled, you are just blathering.
“Typical Western thinking. It is not an either/or proposition. They are two sides of the one coin.”
So Orthodox rejects binary logic. Yet he denies that someone can be an unregenerate believer.
If, however, he denies binary logic (ya know, that “typical Western, either/or thinking”), then the same man can be, at one and the same time, both a believer and an unbeliever, both Monophysite and Eastern Orthodox, both saved and damned.
“Great, except that apostates testify that they had all these things. So we have to fall back to saying all or most apostates are liars, which is pretty silly.”
“Silly.” I see. And how did the Apostle John describe the apostates he was dealing with?
1 John 2:3-4
3We know that we have come to know him if we obey his commands. 4The man who says, "I know him," but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
1 John 2:22
22Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the antichrist—he denies the Father and the Son.
1 John 4:20
20If anyone says, "I love God," yet hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen.
The Apostle John was such a silly man. But don't take my word for it. Just ask Orthodox.
Except that ex-believers have passed all these tests. Ouch.
ReplyDeleteAnd one might ask what marks a backslider would get on these tests.
If they are ex-believers, they have not passed those tests, or they wouldn't be ex-believers.
And, as I've already stated, the removal of assurance is a means to get the backslider to return.
Another non-response.
Another non-response.
ORTHODOX: Is it my fault that you equate being regenerate with being elect? I take it that if you know you are regenerate, then you know you are elect? Reasonable assumption? And Jesus said to Nicodemus, "Don't you understand these things and you are Israel's teacher? You must be born again". Obviously Jesus thinks whether we are born again is a very knowable proposition.
Neither Steve nor I have said that one cannot know he is regenerate.
And notice that Orthodox is backing down from his original claim that he wasn't interacting with hyperCalvinism. Now, he's admitting it.
Baloney, Steve just said above that the only way we can tell the apostate from the backslider is whether they come back: i.e. not for sure until they die.
Steve did not state this, and it does not therefore follow from our doctrine of assurance that nobody can have assurance right now. In fact, you stipulated that neither of can say for sure one way or the other right now.
So, we've already answered your arguments.
What a bunch of baloney. How about you quote a proposition about theosis that the Orthodox church teaches, and we'll see if it is found in the text or not. Anyone can make wild claims.
I'm not the one whose soteriology turns on this, so, rather than punt to me, the onus is on you to demonstrate this, particularly when I have done all the heavy lifting in terms of providing exegetical discussion here.
Typical Western thinking. It is not an either/or proposition. They are two sides of the one coin.
It's nice to see that Orthodox rejects binary logic.
2000 years of Christians weren't confused about where to find Holy Tradition, but you are.
Notice that Orthodox still can't tell us where Holy Tradition is located.
I hardly would have said that councils aren't useful in doctrine.
Actually, you denied that you need popes and councils for your doctrine.
Everyone is welcome to engage in private speculation.
Not according to you, for you've said that Sola Scriptura should be rejected on that basis.
If everybody's private speculation arrives at the same point, then we say the Holy Spirit has led the Church into all truth.
So, how do you know the mind of the Church in order to make this claim?
a) You assume that penal substitution is the lens (and the only lens) through which we can understand redemption, and look at everything else through that grid.
No, I'm merely pointing to what Arminians say. I do believe in PST, and if you have another alternative doctrine from Scripture, by all means present it.
Your argument really comes down to saying "My favourite verses are technical terms and theological constructs. Yours are mere allusive fluff."
Fluff? Notice that Orthodox talks about fluff without interacting with what was stated.
"But Paul is not using the verb analogy of substitution as a synonym for God's purchase of us in redemption, which is a theological construct (cf. 2 Pe 2:1, Rev 5:9, 1Cor 7:23). Rather, his usage is allusive of OT imagery (cf Is 53)."
In the New Testament, “bought” is used both salvifically and non-salvifically. In every case where it is used with reference to the atonement, there are specific indicators, usually referring to a price. None of those indicators are in this text!
“Master” is never used in a redemptive context. It refers to the rulership of Christ or God as a whole, not the priestly or prophetic works of Christ. The text is paraphrasing Deut. 32:6, where God is called the Creator of the nation. These men are false teachers who are not all genuine believers and who are, by falsely professing Christ and intentionally trying to mislead the Christians, defying their Master (either Christ as their King or God as their creator and king), “(W)ho bought them” is a literary device from the Torah pointing to this text in Deuteronomy. The Jews were “bought” by God in the Exodus. To a Jew/Jewish Christian, “Lord” and “Master” in this context, could refer to God the Father, not Christ. In addition, if his interlocutors were Jewish, then Christ is already their master by virtue of them being part of the Old Covenant. As Jews, they were part of the covenant community to which Deuteronomy refers.
But for you, semantic inflation is, apparently, perfectly acceptable.
Bold assertions, but no evidence presented. And ignoring the actual context since he links repentence with the crucifixition of the Son of God (6:6) as well as referring it to needing to be "renewed", implying that it was this very thing which initially brought the believer into a relationship with the crucifixition of Christ.
The author of Hebrews is not dealing with the internal psychology of repentance and faith. Rather, he's taking his cue from OT imagery and dealing with external phenomena, not internals.
And the theme here is the High Priesthood of Christ. If Christ cannot keep us from apostasy, then how is that superior?
He links it directly with Christ's sacrifice in 10:10.
One cannot help but notice that Orthodox makes some claims but offers no exegesis, all the while telling me above that I've assumed what I must show.
Apparently, he operates with two standards: one for him and one for me.
In Hebrews 10, we have to ask what does it mean then, to the author of Hebrews, to "go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth...?" What, to the author of Hebrews, is the nature of "the knowledge of the truth?" Is it knowledge communicated by regeneration, real experience, e.g. salvation, or is it the message itself, its preaching, the new Scriptures being written, the explanation of the way Christ's sacrifice is once for all, the explanation of Christ's mediatorial work, the observation of the miracles associated with the message at this time in a manner analogous to the OT miracles, the revelation that the NC has come, etc. and the further knowledge as a result of that content that the proper response for the Jew, who is already under a covenant obligation to God is be confirmed as a member of the NC, which means not turning his back on all of this and to do what a consistent Jew should do: be a Christian and not turn back from his profession. To resist all of this is to trample Christ's mediatorial, prophetic, priestly, sacrificial role under his feet, thereby denying the revelation of God which is better than that of the prophets, the angels, etc., because the Mediator is God the Son Himself, and to reject the knowledge of that revelation, for the Jew, is equivalent to insulting God's Spirit and rejecting the covenant. God cut off individuals and whole generations who did that in the OT. How much more negative judgment will the Jew incur now that the shadows have been made clear and the sacrifice that really does propitiate for sin has been made and the clear revelation of the mysteries of the OT and the shadows of the OC have been explained clearly so that he has no excuse!
Note also that some exegetes take the “he” of 1029 to refer to Christ Himself not the individual.
GENE: At best, the verse is ambiguous if taken alone,
ORTHODOX: Ah huh. So you fired your best shot and now you admit it was a blank.
GENE: but where John does clarify the causal relation in 3:9, regeneration takes precedence, and in 3:9, the causal relation is spelled out, verbatim.
ORTHODOX: 1John 3:9 No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
Belief isn't even mentioned here, so you can't use it to establish a relationship between belief and regeneration.
_____
There is no change at all in my argument here, for what I argued is that the linguistic parallels all point to a logical, causal relationship by way of a cumulative presentation, or is it your position that good works, loving the brethren, etc. all cause us to be "born again?"
If you're going to argue that Regeneration is not the antecedent cause of faith in 1 John, then you need to actually interact with the text.
I know, exegesis isn't your strong point, but at least try to keep up.
GENE: It’s also spelled out here: 8:47 He who is of God hears the words of God; for this reason you do not hear them, because you are not of God.
ORTHODOX: Again, you interpret scripture in a mechanical way, that you would not do in real life.
No, Orthodox, I merely taking what Jesus said at face value, or is it your position that He is teachng that hearing causes us to be "of God?"
ORTHODOX: The trouble is, my interpretation is perfectly logical. It accords with how we understand things in real life. It does not involve trying to get around plain statements in John ("whoever believes is born of God", and it doesn't involve some five step chain of logic and some categories of people never mentioned in scripture to get there.
Problem is, Orthodox, it fails to interact with the text. All we have from you is a list of denials.
ORTHODOX: Wow, some big words you need there to weasel your way out of this passage. Since phenomenology of faith and psychology of faith aren't even biblical categories and have no history in the exegesis of scripture, why should I even care about this sillyness?
And havn't I just been lectured that sincerity (a psychological category if ever there was one) is irrelevant to testing one's salvation? So if Hebrews had been talking about the psychology of faith you would again reject it as mere psychology and reject it. A no win scenario.
Notice that Orthodox tries to weasel his way out of Hebrews 6 but without exegeting Hebrews 6.
And no, for "sincerity" is not a measure of saving faith in Scripture.
In Hebrews 6, we're dealing with the phenomenonlogy of faith, not it's internal psychology.
And if Orthodox wants to talk about "unbiblical categories" then we can certainly start to parse what his Communion uses in what passes for exegesis.
Firstly, verses like Ex 29:21 and Lev 16:19 are not about mere ritual purity they are about sacrifies and blood shed for sin which is the direct precursor of Christ's sacrifice.
Yes, and these did not take away sin and were thus cultic with regard to ritual purity.
hSTEVE: Contra material to what? To what I posted in defense of perseverance? Unless it’s targeted to what I wrote, it’s no counterargument to what I wrote.
ReplyDeleteORTHODOX: What you wrote "Somewhere out there"? Why do I have to refute some imagined argument "somewhere out there"? You go and refute all the contra exegetes out there and get back to me.
STEVE: I realize that you have the attention-span of a 2-year-old (with due apologies to all 2-year-olds)
ORTHODOX: Can I ask, do you have a spiritual advisor who knows how you treat people on the internet? If not, don't you think you ought to have one?
STEVE: I could give you the links, but........
ORTHODOX: Queue the song... somewhere out there....
STEVE: “Firstly, since John only uses the term born again or similar a handful of times, it begs the question to ask for a passage specifically combining those concepts.”
It hardly begs the question when you yourself are asserting that every apostate was a born-again Christian.
ORTHODOX: Notice that Steve doesn't deal with the irrationality of his request to find a verse using a particular phrase used a hand full of times that deals with the topic he wants dealt with.
STEVE: But the Apostle John ascribes a number of attributes to the regenerate. To be regenerate, according to John, you must exemplify all these properties, not just one.
ORTHODOX: For someone espousing the benefits of binary logic, you don't seem to have much familiarity with it. You would get a lowish score on an IQ test with this kind of analysis.
If John says everyone who believes is born of him. And he also says that everyone who practices righteousness is born of him. And he says that everyone who loves is born of him. Then what it means is that if someone fulfills ANY of these attributes then he is born of God.
If probably implies that anyone who fulfills ANY of these attributes will fulfill ALL of them, however this isn't required by strict binary logic.
If John, using binary logic, had wanted to say what you claim, he would have had to say that if anyone loves AND believes AND practices righteousness he is born again.
101 binary logic.
STEVE: To take a couple of examples, both Paul (e.g. in Romans) and the author of Hebrews employ the methodology of systematic theology. Pity you’re too ignorant to know that.
ORTHODOX: Really. So you would claim that all Paul's and Hebrew's use of OT scripture is completely defensible on a strict exegetical basis?
STEVE: “So you've got a long chain of supposed logic by which you plan to overturn the plain statement of John that whoever believes is born of God. [sigh].”
i) Thanks for admitting that one has to be illogical to be Orthodox.
ORTHODOX: I sigh because these long chains of logic are what one often finds in Jehovah's witness publications among many. The chains of logic are often fine on a superficial level.
STEVE: You *say* it but you don’t *show* it. So the only gaps are in your own threadbare assertions to the contrary.
ORTHODOX: Queue the music "somewhere out there". You know, I've got this amazing argument that totally refutes all your arguments, but just like you I'm not going to say what it is.
STEVE: “Then logically, such a person ceases to be a Christian if they start living in sin.”
That’s not what 1 Jn 3:9 and 5:18 say. They don’t say a born-again Christian can live in sin, at which point he ceases to be a Christian.
ORTHODOX: Hey, it's a simple one step jump of logic. Christians don't live in sin, so if you live in sin you cease to be Christian. Very straight forward logical deduction of the kind you espouse.
STEVE: “I never said who was doing the praying.”
You cited 1 Jn 5:16. You then said “the context is about the brother getting forgiveness for their sin by praying to God.”
ORTHODOX: Yes, the BROTHER (not myself) gets forgiveness by my praying to God. Like your scripture interpretations, you get fascinated by one interpretation and can't see the others.
STEVE: That is not what the verse says. But because the word of God means nothing to you, you don’t bother to get it right.
ORTHODOX: Now that you've been shown you misinterpreted my statement, how about an apology?
STEVE: “And yet you claim that you can't know who is a backslider and who is apostate UNTIL THEY DIE!”
Can you quote me on that? No.
By definition, a backslider is someone who returns to the faith. This can happen long before he dies. Often does.
ORTHODOX: (a) if it doesn't happen, the final assessment has to wait until they die. (b) Even if they do return they could apostacize again, so you still have to wait till they die to see what the final state is.
STEVE: You’d flunk Philosophy 101, assuming you ever took Philosophy 101. Insanity distorts our perception of reality. That’s what makes a madman mad.
ORTHODOX: Even madmen are typically aware that their reality doesn't match everyone else's reality. They may think they are Napoleon, but they can't understand why nobody else realizes it.
STEVE: “If there were merely going out of one local church, they could be just planning to join another local church. Thus ‘going out’ would be no bad thing in itself.”
You’re being simpleminded again. Bad for whom? Bad for apostates? Yes. It’s bad to be an apostate. Bad to be hellbound.
ORTHODOX: You're obfuscating again. John states that we know these people who went out were "not of us" by the fact that they physically went out. If all they went out of was the local church, it could well be to join a different local church - which is no bad thing. So you've made a mockery of John and are obfuscating to get out - naughty naughty.
STEVE: The universal church is an abstraction. It doesn’t exist at one time and place. The apostates couldn’t leave the universal church even if they wanted to. For the universal church includes many church members who would only be born centuries later.
ORTHODOX: ????
How does it follow that because some people aren't born yet that an apostate can't leave the universal church? Total non-sequitur.
STEVE: In context, they were leaving a specific, 1C Christian fellowship (probably a house-church) in Asia Minor. Their departure is a datable, addressable event. It occurs in real space and real time. You’re suprahistorical gloss is completely acontextual.
ORTHODOX: What's wrong with leaving a specific fellowship? NOTHING. If that is John's point to tell you that if someone leaves a fellowship you know they were never "of us", then changing fellowships is a grave sin. Is that what John meant? Of course not.
STEVE: “Since you repeatedly lecture us that nobody knows who is reprobate, according to you there is a concept of a true church, but nobody can know if they are in it.”
Once again, I realize that you’re not the brightest bulb in the constellation, so we have to keep reminding you of what we already said. In church discipline, we judge by what people do or say, not by what they privately think or feel.
ORTHODOX: The topic wasn't church discipline, the topic was your claim that 51% apostates makes for a non-true church.
STEVE: “You contradict John who says the church stays true because the false brothers leave.”
No contradiction, because you are illicitly trying to universalize from a particular case. If the false brethren leave a local church, then it retains its spiritual integrity—at least for a time.
ORTHODOX: Local or universal, John's statement is that false brothers leave and true brothers stay.
Now let me see, what is more reasonable to interpret: that no fellowship can ever apostatize, or that the universal church can never apostatize. If John is speaking locally, then no fellowship can apostatize.
STEVE: Now you’re backing away from your original objection. Your original objection was to “unbiblical” nomenclature.
ORTHODOX: unbiblical nominclature is a difficulty for the sola-biblicist.
STEVE: “Typical Western thinking. It is not an either/or proposition. They are two sides of the one coin.”
So Orthodox rejects binary logic. Yet he denies that someone can be an unregenerate believer.
ORTHODOX: No, I reject binary logic that only knows the *OR* operator and hasn't also discovered the *AND* operator.
STEVE: “Great, except that apostates testify that they had all these things. So we have to fall back to saying all or most apostates are liars, which is pretty silly.”
“Silly.” I see. And how did the Apostle John describe the apostates he was dealing with?
1 John 2:3-4
3We know that we have come to know him if we obey his commands. 4The man who says, "I know him," but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
ORTHODOX: Yes, more tests. Trouble is the apostates fulfilled these tests TOO... for a time.
GENE: If they are ex-believers, they have not passed those tests, or they wouldn't be ex-believers.
ReplyDeleteORTHODOX: Well they passed all the tests EXCEPT perseverance in the other tests. Or in other words, you can't know if you are regenerate until you die.
GENE: And, as I've already stated, the removal of assurance is a means to get the backslider to return.
ORTHODOX: Whoa, so these tests for who is regenerate aren't actually that? They are really tests for who is a non-backslidden regenerate? Where does it say that? Oh I forgot, you have these cateogories of folks: backslidden regenerates, who scripture knows nothing about. Since scripture doesn't mention them, I guess you'll have to be my authority for telling me about them. So what are they like? Are they living in sin? Not loving? Failing all the tests of regeneration? Failing all the BIBLICAL tests for regeneration, yet you will argue against scripture in saying they are still regenerate?
Of course, if you can pass OR fail the tests and still be regenerate, it ain't much of a test is it?
GENE: Steve did not state this, and it does not therefore follow from our doctrine of assurance that nobody can have assurance right now. In fact, you stipulated that neither of can say for sure one way or the other right now.
ORTHODOX: But I'm saying one can have the same assurance a sane man normally has about everyday life: That their knowledge of reality corresponds to their knowledge of truth (scripture) and the tests therein.
But you are telling us that the tests don't work half the time in any shape or form. Steve is telling us that John mucked up his binary logic. And we know that apostates testify that they used to pass all these tests. So where your assurance comes from, I do not know.
GENE: What a bunch of baloney. How about you quote a proposition about theosis that the Orthodox church teaches, and we'll see if it is found in the text or not. Anyone can make wild claims.
I'm not the one whose soteriology turns on this, so, rather than punt to me, the onus is on you to demonstrate this, particularly when I have done all the heavy lifting in terms of providing exegetical discussion here.
ORTHODOX: Demonstrate what? I wouldn't even have the faintest idea what a protestant might find objectionable about theosis. Your question is about as wide-ranging as if a Muslim said the onus is on me to demonstrate Christianity.
GENE: 2000 years of Christians weren't confused about where to find Holy Tradition, but you are.
Notice that Orthodox still can't tell us where Holy Tradition is located.
ORTHODOX: It's in the CHURCH Gene. I can just picture you rolling up to a church in 40AD, and saying "Sorry folks. I'll come back when you get it enscripturated".
GENE: I hardly would have said that councils aren't useful in doctrine.
Actually, you denied that you need popes and councils for your doctrine.
ORTHODOX: Context context context.
GENE: Everyone is welcome to engage in private speculation.
Not according to you, for you've said that Sola Scriptura should be rejected on that basis.
ORTHODOX: Sola scripture is rejected because (a) it is a private speculation that is contrary to the mind of the church, and (b) it is a private speculation that is not found in revelation.
And even propositions that pass these two obstacles remain mere private speculation. If you want to admit sola scripture is mere speculation, we will have moved forward.
GENE: If everybody's private speculation arrives at the same point, then we say the Holy Spirit has led the Church into all truth.
So, how do you know the mind of the Church in order to make this claim?
ORTHODOX: Sometimes it is because the bishops meet in ecumenical council. Othertimes it is through more informal communication channels.
GENE: No, I'm merely pointing to what Arminians say. I do believe in PST, and if you have another alternative doctrine from Scripture, by all means present it.
ORTHODOX: Most if not all the verses you quoted for penal substitution in fact do not teach that.
Penal substitution paints God as an angry judge, needing a substitute victim so that he can bear to set eyes upon and forgive the sinner.
However, scripture paints God as the father of the prodigal son. When he was a long way off, the Father ran out to him and kissed him.
God sent his Son into the world because he loved the world. Penal substitution is all about emphasizing that God sent his Son because he was angry with the world.
Penal substitution only, is unbalanced in its view of God.
GENE: In the New Testament, “bought” is used both salvifically and non-salvifically. In every case where it is used with reference to the atonement, there are specific indicators, usually referring to a price. None of those indicators are in this text!
ORTHODOX: Sounds like you are assuming what you wish to prove because everytime scripture talks about God purchasing people you are going to assume it is not about the atonement, and everytime it does mention the price you assume it does. This is called special pleading.
Rev 14:4 These have been purchased from among men as first fruits to God and to the Lamb.
I might just as well say that when it comes to God purchasing people, no other price is mentioned other than Christ, ergo to posit the existance of some other price begs the question.
GENE: “Master” is never used in a redemptive context.
ORTHODOX: Lk 2:29 “Now Master, you are releasing your servant to depart in peace,
according to your word for my eyes have seen your SALVATION.
GENE: It refers to the rulership of Christ or God as a whole, not the priestly or prophetic works of Christ.
2Tim. 2:21 Therefore, if anyone cleanses himself from these things, he will be a vessel for honor, sanctified, useful to the Master, prepared for every good work.
Isn't the sanctification of the believer part of Christ's priestly work?
GENE: The author of Hebrews is not dealing with the internal psychology of repentance and faith. Rather, he's taking his cue from OT imagery and dealing with external phenomena, not internals.
ORTHODOX: Translation:
The author of Hebrews is not dealing with the [INSERT SOME SCHOLAR BUZZWORDS HERE] of repentance and faith. Rather, he's taking his cue from [INSERT SOME OTHER BUZZWORDS], therefore I can insert whatever meaning into the text that I like.
GENE: And the theme here is the High Priesthood of Christ. If Christ cannot keep us from apostasy, then how is that superior?
ORTHODOX: Oh gee, how about superior in the way it says it is superior, and not whatever you would like to insert into the text?
GENE: In Hebrews 10, we have to ask what does it mean then, to the author of Hebrews, to "go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth...?"
ORTHODOX: Strawman. The important issue is the phrase "there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins". That means there was a sacrifice for sins, but it doesn't remain under the stated circumstances.
GENE: There is no change at all in my argument here, for what I argued is that the linguistic parallels all point to a logical, causal relationship by way of a cumulative presentation,
ORTHODOX: Except that I demonstrated that the passages share a parallel of NOT demonstrating a causal relationship. If one passage doesn't show it, then 100 parallel passages still won't show it.
GENE: or is it your position that good works, loving the brethren, etc. all cause us to be "born again?"
ORTHODOX: There is no cause in these verses at all. Stop looking for what isn't there. All that is stated is a correlation, and as any good statistician will tell you, correlation does not equate to cause.
GENE: If you're going to argue that Regeneration is not the antecedent cause of faith in 1 John, then you need to actually interact with the text.
ORTHODOX: What is there to interact with? Every believer is born of God. There's no great hidden mystery here requiring discussion of Greek tenses.
GENE: No, Orthodox, I merely taking what Jesus said at face value, or is it your position that He is teachng that hearing causes us to be "of God?"
ORTHODOX: Again, I demonstrated that the grammar in no way indicates causal relationship. Thus there is no "face value" for you to hang your hat on, and I don't need to posit some alternative causal scenario.
GENE: Firstly, verses like Ex 29:21 and Lev 16:19 are not about mere ritual purity they are about sacrifies and blood shed for sin which is the direct precursor of Christ's sacrifice.
Yes, and these did not take away sin and were thus cultic with regard to ritual purity.
ORTHODOX: Sure they took away sins, as the bible says. They just didn't take them away on any permanent basis due to the imperfect nature of the sacrifice and its requirement for repetition.
orthodox said...
ReplyDelete“You go and refute all the contra exegetes out there and get back to me.”
Been there, done that:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2005/08/post-calvinism-2.html
The ball is back in your court, gathering dust.
“Can I ask, do you have a spiritual advisor who knows how you treat people on the internet? If not, don't you think you ought to have one?”
I have several spiritual advisors—from Moses through John the Revelator. They reserve some very choice language for false teachers and apostates.
And the elders at my church are well-aware of my blogging activities. Indeed, they’ve even been known to ask me for advice. Next question?
“Notice that Steve doesn't deal with the irrationality of his request to find a verse using a particular phrase used a hand full of times that deals with the topic he wants dealt with.”
Notice that Orthodox doesn’t deal with the irrationality of his refusal to shoulder his own burden of proof.
“You would get a lowish score on an IQ test with this kind of analysis.”
Can I ask, do you have a spiritual advisor who knows how you treat people on the internet? If not, don't you think you ought to have one?
“If John says everyone who believes is born of him. And he also says that everyone who practices righteousness is born of him. And he says that everyone who loves is born of him. Then what it means is that if someone fulfills ANY of these attributes then he is born of God.”
That is not what he says. And that is not implicit in what he says. You are driving a wedge between different Johannine statements.
John attributes all of these qualities to a born-again Christian. That’s the mark of a born-again Christian. Therefore, according to John, a born-again Christian must exhibit all these qualities.
An individual who only has one such quality, but not another, is not a born-again Christian as John defines him, for John is making categorical claims about the essential and distinctive features of the regenerate. To be regenerate is to have all of these qualities. For regeneration generates all of these qualities in the regenerate. These are varied effects of the same cause.
“If probably implies that anyone who fulfills ANY of these attributes will fulfill ALL of them, however this isn't required by strict binary logic.”
John is not mounting a probabilistic argument. He is making declarative statements.
“If John, using binary logic, had wanted to say what you claim, he would have had to say that if anyone loves AND believes AND practices righteousness he is born again.”
He attributes all these properties to the regenerate qua regenerate. You, by contrast, are denying what John explicitly says, for you are claiming that a born-again Christian can have one of these properties, but not another.
That is not what John says. To the contrary, John says that a born-again Christian will have each and every one of these properties by virtue of his regeneration. You deny what John affirms. Your position is the polar opposite of his.
John says, “Whoever has been born of God…” then specifies a resultant effect. Indeed, he specifies several effects.
You, however, defiantly deny that a born-again Christian must have a particular trait, even though John explicitly says otherwise.
For John, to be regenerate is to be characterized by a, b, c. and d. Not a rather than b, or c rather than d.
For John, this is what distinguishes the children of God from the apostates who departed.
“Really. So you would claim that all Paul's and Hebrew's use of OT scripture is completely defensible on a strict exegetical basis?”
Naturally I do. That’s because I’m a Christian. I can also defend their exegesis.
But I realize that you, as a faithless liberal, think that Jesus and the apostles misinterpreted OT passages, ripping verses out of context and imposing artificial constructions onto the text, in flagrant violation of original intent. You’re just a smells-n-bells version of John Spong. You perfume your stinking view of Scripture with lots of incense to cover the stench of your pungent disbelief.
“Christians don't live in sin, so if you live in sin you cease to be Christian. Very straight forward logical deduction of the kind you espouse.”
i) Invalid syllogism. The valid syllogism would be: “Christians don't live in sin, so if you live in sin you’re not a Christian.”
“Cease to be” doesn’t follow from the premise. Logic 101.
ii) Moreover, the promises in 3:9 and 5:18 are far stronger than “doesn’t.” Rather, they take the form of “cannot.” Due to the new birth and the abiding presence of God, the Christian cannot live in sin.
“Like your scripture interpretations, you get fascinated by one interpretation and can't see the others.”
Another diversionary tactic on your part. This was not a question of interpretation. Rather, you misstated the actual wording of the verse you cited.
But since the word of God means nothing to you, I’d expect you to be sloppy.
“Now that you've been shown you misinterpreted my statement, how about an apology?”
No misinterpretation on my part. You are trying to patch up your original misstatement after the fact—and only because I had to point out your careless error.
“Even madmen are typically aware that their reality doesn't match everyone else's reality.”
And their “reality” is real to them.
“You're obfuscating again. John states that we know these people who went out were ‘not of us’ by the fact that they physically went out.”
No, that is not all he said. They are “not of us,” not merely because they physically absented themselves, but because of what they taught. Their false doctrine. That’s a recurring theme in 1 John. Have you ever read 1 John?
“How does it follow that because some people aren't born yet that an apostate can't leave the universal church? Total non-sequitur.”
My you’re dim. By definition, the universal church is a totality. That’s what makes it universal. The 1C church is not the universal church. For the 1C church does not include the 2C church, or the 3C church, or the 21C church.
“Local or universal, John's statement is that false brothers leave and true brothers stay.”
John is not making a general statement. Rather, he’s making a statement about a specific circumstance in the life of a particular church or set of churches in 1C Asia Minor.
It is historically false to claim that false brothers leave and true brothers remain in every local church that ever existed. That is not John’s claim, and your claim is demonstrably false.
STEVE: And the elders at my church are well-aware of my blogging activities. Indeed, they’ve even been known to ask me for advice. Next question?
ReplyDeleteORTHODOX: Next question is not whether they are merely "aware" that you blog, are they aware how you treat people online? Would you treat me like this if we met in real life?
STEVE: Notice that Orthodox doesn’t deal with the irrationality of his refusal to shoulder his own burden of proof.
ORTHODOX: I suppose we could draw up a massive grid. Down one side are all the descriptions applied to believers, one of which is "born again". Down the other side of the grid are all the attributes given to believers who hold that description. Trouble is, out of a grid with hundreds of squares, maybe 10% would have ticks in them. By this, I suppose the scholastic western thinker might conclude there hundreds of categories of believer, but only certain patterns of attributes indicate the saved ones.
You can keep this scholastic sillyness, and I'll stick with believers and unbelievers.
STEVE: “If John says everyone who believes is born of him. And he also says that everyone who practices righteousness is born of him. And he says that everyone who loves is born of him. Then what it means is that if someone fulfills ANY of these attributes then he is born of God.”
That is not what he says. And that is not implicit in what he says. You are driving a wedge between different Johannine statements.
ORTHODOX: Yes, that is what he says, and it in no way drives any wedges anywhere. Waving your hands wildly does not an argument make.
STEVE: John attributes all of these qualities to a born-again Christian. That’s the mark of a born-again Christian. Therefore, according to John, a born-again Christian must exhibit all these qualities.
ORTHODOX: You're missing the point. If I said "anything with leaves is a tree". If I also said that "anything with bark is a tree". Purely on this data alone it may be that all trees have BOTH bark and leaves.
HOWEVER, the important point here is that ALL things with leaves are trees. I needn't go looking for bark to double check.
Now I might come along later and add more information: "All trees have bark AND leaves". That's fine, but it doesn't negate my previous statements.
In other words, if I come along later and find somethiing with leaves, I STILL don't need to check for bark. Rather with this new information I already know it has bark by the fact it has leaves.
So if we apply this to John, whoever believes is born of God. I don't need to check if he loves his brother, because John has said that everyone believing is born of God, and everyone born of God loves his brother.
That's all we can discover from pure rational logical based analysis of the verses so far. There may well be more verses which expand the picture, but don't give me this nonsense these verses teach what you just claimed, because it's nonsense. You don't understand the fundamentals of logic.
John's clear statement remains unassaulted: Everyone who believes is born of God. No ifs, buts or maybes. That all believers have ALL the attributes doesn't matter, since if you have one, you have 'em all. One in, all in is John's teaching.
STEVE: “Really. So you would claim that all Paul's and Hebrew's use of OT scripture is completely defensible on a strict exegetical basis?”
Naturally I do. That’s because I’m a Christian. I can also defend their exegesis.
But I realize that you, as a faithless liberal, think that Jesus and the apostles misinterpreted OT passages, ripping verses out of context and imposing artificial constructions onto the text, in flagrant violation of original intent.
ORTHODOX: If we could harness the heat generated by your burning of straw men, we could solve the energy crisis.
There's a difference between a misapplied interpretation and an interpretation that is completely defensible on pure exegetical grounds.
Take Gal. 3:16 "Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as referring to many, but rather to one, “And to your seed,” that is, Christ. "
I would never for a minute claim that Paul's interpretation is in ANY WAY wrong. However, by the same token, if we were Jews sitting around with only Genesis in our laps, we would hardly be able to prove on a pure exegetical historical grammatical basis that the meaning of Genesis 22:17 is a reference to Christ.
STEVE: You’re just a smells-n-bells version of John Spong.
ORTHODOX: Speaking of smells, why doesn't your church obey the scriptural directive to use incense?
Mal. 1:11 For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the LORD of hosts.
STEVE: Christians don't live in sin, so if you live in sin you cease to be Christian. Very straight forward logical deduction of the kind you espouse.”
i) Invalid syllogism. The valid syllogism would be: “Christians don't live in sin, so if you live in sin you’re not a Christian.”
ORTHODOX: No argument about why it is an invalid syllogism.
Your version is invalid however, because we know of people who pass the Johannine tests at one time, and fail later on.
STEVE: “Cease to be” doesn’t follow from the premise. Logic 101.
ORTHODOX: No, you're just listing an alternative deduction, which logically is equally valid, but theologically presents insurmountable problems.
STEVE: ii) Moreover, the promises in 3:9 and 5:18 are far stronger than “doesn’t.” Rather, they take the form of “cannot.” Due to the new birth and the abiding presence of God, the Christian cannot live in sin.
ORTHODOX: Alternative deduction: You become unborn of God before you sin continuously.
STEVE: Another diversionary tactic on your part. This was not a question of interpretation. Rather, you misstated the actual wording of the verse you cited.
ORTHODOX: No I didn't. This is instructive. You won't even accept the stated meaning of the author when it fits the grammar of what he said. In other words, if John himself were here now, you'd be arguing with him too about what he meant.
STEVE: No, that is not all he said. They are “not of us,” not merely because they physically absented themselves, but because of what they taught. Their false doctrine. That’s a recurring theme in 1 John. Have you ever read 1 John?
ORTHODOX: You're obfuscating again. The issue is not why they were "not of us". The issue is how you can KNOW that they are "not of us". John's test is "they went out from us".
So the ones who go out of the church are those with false doctrine. The ones who stay in are those with true doctrine. That is why the church over time can know it is in the truth, because over time, the false brothers leave.
STEVE: “How does it follow that because some people aren't born yet that an apostate can't leave the universal church? Total non-sequitur.”
My you’re dim. By definition, the universal church is a totality. That’s what makes it universal. The 1C church is not the universal church. For the 1C church does not include the 2C church, or the 3C church, or the 21C church.
ORTHODOX: Which is irrelevant to the question of whether one can leave the universal church. [yawn]
STEVE: John is not making a general statement. Rather, he’s making a statement about a specific circumstance in the life of a particular church or set of churches in 1C Asia Minor.
ORTHODOX: Nonsense, he is making general statements about the "many anti-christs", not one particular group
STEVE: It is historically false to claim that false brothers leave and true brothers remain in every local church that ever existed. That is not John’s claim, and your claim is demonstrably false.
ORTHODOX: Because it is YOUR claim this is about the local church, not mine. It is historically TRUE that the true brothers remain in the universal church and the false brothers leave. Just face up and admit John is discussing the universal church, or continue to make a nonsense of his teaching.
orthodox said...
ReplyDelete“Next question is not whether they are merely ‘aware’ that you blog, are they aware how you treat people online? Would you treat me like this if we met in real life? “
You are getting exactly what you deserve. You are a public enemy of the faith. You have repeatedly gone on record disbelieving the self-witness of Scripture. You refuse to believe what the Bible says about itself. When the Bible says, “Thus saith the Lord,” you respond in disbelief.
Instead, you only believe the Bible, if at all, in the derivative sense that you believe it if and only if a second-party (the Orthodox church) vouches for the Bible. You believe in your denomination rather than the word of God.
And, what is more, you try to undermine the faith of other Christians or seekers. You go around trying to discourage them from accepting the authority and veracity of God’s word.
You try to tear down the Bible to build up your denomination. You treat the Bible as inherently unbelievable. For you, it is only the word of your denomination that lends credibility to the Scriptures. Apart from your denomination’s ipse dixit, you treat the word of God as no more credible than any uninspired writing. When God speaks to us in Scripture, you deny that God is the speaker.
You disdain the Bible as no more or less credible than the Book of Mormon. Your faith is in your denomination, and not in the word of God. You put your faith in the word of man while you refuse to take God at his word.
“I suppose we could draw up a massive grid. Down one side are all the descriptions applied to believers, one of which is ‘born again’. Down the other side of the grid are all the attributes given to believers who hold that description. Trouble is, out of a grid with hundreds of squares, maybe 10% would have ticks in them. By this, I suppose the scholastic western thinker might conclude there hundreds of categories of believer, but only certain patterns of attributes indicate the saved ones.”
You’re confusing what constitutes a Christian with the supporting evidence for his Christianity identity.
“So if we apply this to John, whoever believes is born of God. I don't need to check if he loves his brother, because John has said that everyone believing is born of God, and everyone born of God loves his brother.”
i) John teaches that Christian identity is a package deal. There is more to Christian identity than bare belief. For example, a born-again Christian is also someone who overcomes the world (5:16).
But an apostate does not overcome the world. Just the opposite: an apostate is overcome by the world.
ii) There is, in 1 John, a distinctive quality of faith, love, and righteousness that is the result of regeneration.
The unregenerate can act loving. The unregenerate can behave in a certain way. But that’s entirely superficial—which is why it’s so fragile.
John is explicitly talking about something that goes deeper than that. A kind of faith, love, and righteousness that has its source in regeneration.
iii) And there are other consequences of regeneration as well. The regenerate overcome the world (5:4). The regenerate are safeguarded by God (5:18). The regenerate cannot live in sin (3:9; 5:18).
iv) As I’ve also said on several occasions, the Johannine prooftexts for perseverance are by no means limited to passages linking regeneration to perseverance.
“John's clear statement remains unassaulted: Everyone who believes is born of God. No ifs, buts or maybes. That all believers have ALL the attributes doesn't matter, since if you have one, you have 'em all. One in, all in is John's teaching.”
i) The apostates don’t have them all. They don’t have what is attributed to the regenerate in 3:9, 5:4, and 5:18.
ii) Indeed, the apostates lack any of these attributes, for the other attributes are of a particular kind or quality. The unregenerate can believe certain things about Jesus. The Pharisees believed that Jesus performed miracles. They didn’t deny that. Bare belief and saving faith are two different things.
“However, by the same token, if we were Jews sitting around with only Genesis in our laps, we would hardly be able to prove on a pure exegetical historical grammatical basis that the meaning of Genesis 22:17 is a reference to Christ.”
You share Perry Robinson’s simplistic grasp of the GHM.
“Speaking of smells, why doesn't your church obey the scriptural directive to use incense?”
I personally don’t care whether a church burns incense or not. I’ve never made a big deal about the aesthetics of Orthodox worship.
However, you’re merely quoting Mal 1:11 rather than exegeting Mal 1:11. Why doesn’t that surprising me?
“No argument about why it is an invalid syllogism.”
Because your conclusion doesn’t follow from anything contained in a major or minor premise. Try again.
“Your version is invalid however, because we know of people who pass the Johannine tests at one time, and fail later on.”
i) You don’t know the difference between a sound argument and a fallacious (invalid) argument.
ii) And, no, we don’t know people who pass every Johannine test.
But I quite understand why you defend the spiritual experience of the apostates, for your spiritual experience is no deeper than theirs. They are your soul mates.
“No, you're just listing an alternative deduction, which logically is equally valid.”
i) You haven’t given us a deductive syllogism (or if you have, it’s fallacious) since your premise does not entail your conclusion. Try to brush up on strict implication next time.
ii) I don’t need to recast John’s statements in syllogistic terms. John applies a number of different qualities to the regenerate. I only have to agree with his cumulative application.
“Alternative deduction: You become unborn of God before you sin continuously.”
If you want to play this game, I’m waiting for you to take John’s actual statements and work them into a logical syllogism wherein the conclusion follows from the major and minor premises.
Thus far you are indulging in highly compressed claims that do not form a logical syllogism.
“You're obfuscating again. The issue is not why they were ‘not of us’. The issue is how you can KNOW that they are ‘not of us’. John's test is ‘they went out from us’.”
You’re being simpleminded again. Their departure is not John’s only test.
“So the ones who go out of the church are those with false doctrine. The ones who stay in are those with true doctrine. That is why the church over time can know it is in the truth, because over time, the false brothers leave.”
Once again, that’s not John’s only argument. John also specifies what makes their doctrine false. That is another way of knowing that they are false teachers. John explicitly distinguishes between true and false Christology/soteriology in order to distinguish between true and false teachers.
“Nonsense, he is making general statements about the ‘many anti-christs’, not one particular group.”
This particular group exemplifies the spirit of the Antichrist.
STEVE: You are getting exactly what you deserve. You are a public enemy of the faith. You have repeatedly gone on record disbelieving the self-witness of Scripture.
ReplyDeleteORTHODOX: You're back to front as per usual. I am the one who advocates that scripture witnesses itself in God's church, and is this is reliably seen, not by making yourself a pope, but in the body. For you self-witness means being your own pope, always deciding for yourself what is right in your own eyes.
STEVE: You refuse to believe what the Bible says about itself. When the Bible says, “Thus saith the Lord,” you respond in disbelief.
ORTHODOX: Now you're lying.
STEVE: Instead, you only believe the Bible, if at all, in the derivative sense that you believe it if and only if a second-party (the Orthodox church) vouches for the Bible. You believe in your denomination rather than the word of God.
ORTHODOX: You folks have repeatedly come up empty handed when asked to tell us how you know what the word of God is. You tried the historical method which both failed and put historians, oftentimes unbelieving ones, above Christ's body. You tried becoming your own pope and merely proved you have an opinion and can pontificate like a real pope. And you tried the Orthodox approach of saying it is known through its use in the Church, but then pretended it was different to what Orthodox believe but couldn't tell us how.
So if that means something is supposedly "above" the word of God, what is it? You? Your church? Or the historians?
STEVE: And, what is more, you try to undermine the faith of other Christians or seekers. You go around trying to discourage them from accepting the authority and veracity of God’s word.
ORTHODOX: Nonsense.
STEVE: You try to tear down the Bible to build up your denomination.
ORTHODOX: We do what we do since before there were denominations. It is not us tearing down the bible but you tearing down Christ's body. Whatever you do to the least of the brothers, you do to Christ.
STEVE: You treat the Bible as inherently unbelievable. For you, it is only the word of your denomination that lends credibility to the Scriptures.
ORTHODOX: Hmm, like Augustine who said he wouldn't believe except on the authority of the catholic church? I thought Augustine was a reformed poster boy? But now he is an enemy of the faith? Ahh well, I guess protestants are not known for their consistency.
STEVE: you treat the word of God as no more credible than any uninspired writing. When God speaks to us in Scripture, you deny that God is the speaker.
ORTHODOX: Nonsense.
STEVE: You disdain the Bible as no more or less credible than the Book of Mormon.
ORTHODOX: Have you been getting lessons from Jack Chick or Peter Ruckman or something? It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.
STEVE: Your faith is in your denomination, and not in the word of God. You put your faith in the word of man while you refuse to take God at his word.
ORTHODOX: Funny how you're the ones quoting Josephus to establish where God's word is whereas we quote scripture that the Church is the foundation of the truth. Ahh well, selective quoting of scripture is the protestant ethos.
STEVE: i) John teaches that Christian identity is a package deal. There is more to Christian identity than bare belief. For example, a born-again Christian is also someone who overcomes the world (5:16).
ORTHODOX: Again, John's teaching is one in, all in. It's not like there is someone who is a believer, who loves his brother, who does good works, but then he doesn't overcome the world so he's not really regenerate. Rather if you have one, you have them all. There are none overcoming the world but not loving their brother. None loving their brother but not believing. None believing but not born of God. There is no such category in John. WHOEVER believes is born of God, full stop.
STEVE: But an apostate does not overcome the world. Just the opposite: an apostate is overcome by the world.
ORTHODOX: I agree, but why are you now being inconsistent? Your previous story was that you could be one thing, but not the rest. A believer but not born again. Are you now conceeding the whole ball game to me? Is it one in all in or not?
STEVE: ii) There is, in 1 John, a distinctive quality of faith, love, and righteousness that is the result of regeneration.
ORTHODOX: There may well be distinctive qualities of faith and love, but that doesn't prove they are a Johannine category of teaching. For once in your life, back up your claim instead of just pontificating a teaching.
STEVE: i) The apostates don’t have them all. They don’t have what is attributed to the regenerate in 3:9, 5:4, and 5:18.
ORTHODOX: We know the apostates don't have them all. Your former argument was that the apostates have some: i.e. faith.
STEVE: ii) Indeed, the apostates lack any of these attributes, for the other attributes are of a particular kind or quality. The unregenerate can believe certain things about Jesus. The Pharisees believed that Jesus performed miracles. They didn’t deny that. Bare belief and saving faith are two different things.
ORTHODOX: But the onus is on you to prove that "bare belief" is a Johannine category of teaching. In John's nominclature WHOEVER believes is born of God.
STEVE: “Speaking of smells, why doesn't your church obey the scriptural directive to use incense?”
I personally don’t care whether a church burns incense or not.
ORTHODOX: You wouldn't know it by all the disparaging remarks made about smells and bells. But I guess, why should the facts get in the way of colorful ad-hominem, right?
STEVE: However, you’re merely quoting Mal 1:11 rather than exegeting Mal 1:11. Why doesn’t that surprising me?
ORTHODOX: Refresh my memory again: which verse in scripture tells us to exegete?
STEVE: But I quite understand why you defend the spiritual experience of the apostates, for your spiritual experience is no deeper than theirs. They are your soul mates.
ORTHODOX: That's funny, before you repudiated the idea of getting in someone else's head to compare their experiences. But now you not only know my experience and that of apostates, but you can compare them as well. So many inconsistencies in such a small amount of text.
STEVE: i) You haven’t given us a deductive syllogism (or if you have, it’s fallacious) since your premise does not entail your conclusion. Try to brush up on strict implication next time.
ORTHODOX: And yet neither is your conclusion a strict implication. If it were there wouldn't be a number of alternative deductions.
STEVE: ii) I don’t need to recast John’s statements in syllogistic terms. John applies a number of different qualities to the regenerate. I only have to agree with his cumulative application.
ORTHODOX: John doesn't accumulate his qualities such that you have to pass them all before you can make judgment. One in all in is his teaching.
STEVE: “Alternative deduction: You become unborn of God before you sin continuously.”
If you want to play this game, I’m waiting for you to take John’s actual statements and work them into a logical syllogism wherein the conclusion follows from the major and minor premises.
ORTHODOX: Why is this so tough for you?
1) Whoever believes is born of God.
2) Whoever lives in sin is not born of God.
3) Thus, if you believe in God, and then at a later time live in sin, you must have ceased to be born of God.
Why I have to point out the most obvious of logic I don't know.
STEVE: “You're obfuscating again. The issue is not why they were ‘not of us’. The issue is how you can KNOW that they are ‘not of us’. John's test is ‘they went out from us’.”
You’re being simpleminded again. Their departure is not John’s only test.
ORTHODOX: Again, it's one in, all in. If "they went out from us", we don't need to test their doctrine. If they havn't yet gone out, well then we can go looking for other Johannine tests. But if they've gone out, it is enough.
STEVE: “So the ones who go out of the church are those with false doctrine. The ones who stay in are those with true doctrine. That is why the church over time can know it is in the truth, because over time, the false brothers leave.”
Once again, that’s not John’s only argument.
ORTHODOX: But it is his argument! We make progress then.
STEVE: John also specifies what makes their doctrine false. That is another way of knowing that they are false teachers. John explicitly distinguishes between true and false Christology/soteriology in order to distinguish between true and false teachers.
ORTHODOX: Great. Then if anyone is both (a) in the Church and (b) got proper teaching, then they can be a true teacher. But if they've only (supposedly) claiming proper teaching but are not in the church, then no good.
And again, it's the universal church. There's been no refutation that it only works as a statement about the universal church.
orthodox said...
ReplyDelete“I am the one who advocates that scripture witnesses itself in God's church, and is this is reliably seen, not by making yourself a pope, but in the body.”
Viciously circular reasoning since you reject the canon of Scripture as well as the interpretation of Scripture apart from your denomination’s say-so.
“For you self-witness means being your own pope, always deciding for yourself what is right in your own eyes.”
When you exercise your private judgment in opting for the Orthodox church over rival claimants, you anoint yourself your own pope, always deciding for yourself what is right in your own eyes.
“You folks have repeatedly come up empty handed when asked to tell us how you know what the word of God is.”
You most be a close relative of Baghdad Bob.
“We do what we do since before there were denominations.”
So the Russian Orthodox church existed in the 1C, along with the Serbia, Rumania, Bulgarian, &c.
“Hmm, like Augustine who said he wouldn't believe except on the authority of the catholic church?”
I take it that you’ve been mousing over to Catholic Answers for patristic sound bites.
As I already pointed out when I quoted Klaus Schatz in reply to Dave Armstrong, folks like you are quoting Augustine out of context. Thanks for putting your ignorance of church history on public display.
“I thought Augustine was a reformed poster boy?”
Another incorrigibly stupid statement on your part. Augustine is not my rule of faith. I go with whoever has the best argument.
“I agree, but why are you now being inconsistent? Your previous story was that you could be one thing, but not the rest.”
Precisely the opposite of what I repeatedly said. You’re thicker than a concrete slab.
“Again, John's teaching is one in, all in. It's not like there is someone who is a believer, who loves his brother, who does good works, but then he doesn't overcome the world so he's not really regenerate.”
Which disproves your own position since you believe in born-again apostates.
“WHOEVER believes is born of God, full stop.”
No “full stop,” since John does not begin and end with that statement.
“For once in your life, back up your claim instead of just pontificating a teaching.”
Been there, done that.
“Your former argument was that the apostates have some: i.e. faith.”
Wrong again. That’s your argument, not mine. I don’t equate bare belief with saving faith.
“But the onus is on you to prove that ‘bare belief’ is a Johannine category of teaching.”
You’re terminally muddleheaded. I’ve denied all along that bare belief is a Johannine category.
“That's funny, before you repudiated the idea of getting in someone else's head to compare their experiences. But now you not only know my experience and that of apostates, but you can compare them as well. So many inconsistencies in such a small amount of text.”
Pity you’re so obtuse. I don’t have to get inside the head of an apostate to know what the Bible has to say about the psychology of unbelief. And where you’re concerned, your own admissions supply the incriminating evidence.
“And yet neither is your conclusion a strict implication. If it were there wouldn't be a number of alternative deductions.”
As I’ve said repeatedly, but you’re too dense to figure out, I don’t need an implication when I have a direct statement from John.
“Why is this so tough for you?__1) Whoever believes is born of God.__2) Whoever lives in sin is not born of God.__3) Thus, if you believe in God, and then at a later time live in sin, you must have ceased to be born of God.__Why I have to point out the most obvious of logic I don't know.”
(3) is not entailed by (1)-(2). You’re equivocating with tenses. Sorry you’re such a klutz.
Moreover, your syllogism is tendentious because it leaves out the other criteria. John doesn’t say that at a later time a born-again Christian can live in sin. You’re assuming what you need to prove.
“Again, it's one in, all in. If ‘they went out from us’, we don't need to test their doctrine. If they havn't yet gone out, well then we can go looking for other Johannine tests. But if they've gone out, it is enough.”
Only under your acontextual confusion of a local church with the universal church.
“There's been no refutation that it only works as a statement about the universal church.”
There’s been plenty of refutation, but having gouged out your own eyes, you are blind to the refutation. Enjoy your self-imposed darkness. You’ve earned it.
Steve continues to sidestep the question of how accountable he is for his shocking behaviour in this forum. He has no shame about it, apparently then he thinks it is completely acceptable. So I wonder what RTS would think about his behaviour, seeing as he claims to be a TA there. Hmmm.. should I or shouldn't I....
ReplyDeleteSTEVE: “I am the one who advocates that scripture witnesses itself in God's church, and is this is reliably seen, not by making yourself a pope, but in the body.”
Viciously circular reasoning since you reject the canon of Scripture as well as the interpretation of Scripture apart from your denomination’s say-so.
ORTHODOX: And yet you take "my denomination's" NT canon hook line and sinker without being able to offer any other epistemology.
STEVE: “For you self-witness means being your own pope, always deciding for yourself what is right in your own eyes.”
When you exercise your private judgment in opting for the Orthodox church over rival claimants, you anoint yourself your own pope, always deciding for yourself what is right in your own eyes.
ORTHODOX: No, not "always" deciding, rather once deciding. The characteristic of being a pope is not deciding one thing then submitting to the church. Rather it is deciding anything and everything one wants on ones own authority.
STEVE: “We do what we do since before there were denominations.”
So the Russian Orthodox church existed in the 1C, along with the Serbia, Rumania, Bulgarian, &c.
ORTHODOX: Don't be obtuse, the issue is the Orthodox church, not particular local examples.
STEVE: “Hmm, like Augustine who said he wouldn't believe except on the authority of the catholic church?”
As I already pointed out when I quoted Klaus Schatz in reply to Dave Armstrong, folks like you are quoting Augustine out of context. Thanks for putting your ignorance of church history on public display.
ORTHODOX: [Yawn]. Nothing means what it means in Steve's warped world. Because Augustine is his poster boy, he won't let him speak for himself. So Augustine is a great fellow, and Orthodox are enemies of the faith if they believe the same.
STEVE: Another incorrigibly stupid statement on your part. Augustine is not my rule of faith. I go with whoever has the best argument.
ORTHODOX: Never said he was your rule of faith, but he is one of your poster boys. So much so that you describe your philosophy as Augustinian. So apparently you label yourself with the name of an enemy of the faith.
STEVE: “I agree, but why are you now being inconsistent? Your previous story was that you could be one thing, but not the rest.”
Precisely the opposite of what I repeatedly said. You’re thicker than a concrete slab.
ORTHODOX: ROFLOL. This was your initial proposition:
"The position, rather, as I explained before, is that apostates were either closet unbelievers (in some cases) or unregenerate believers (in other cases)."
So there we have it: unregenerate believers. Now you're disowning your initial posting. Ahh what a tangled web we weave when first we...
STEVE: Again, John's teaching is one in, all in. It's not like there is someone who is a believer, who loves his brother, who does good works, but then he doesn't overcome the world so he's not really regenerate.”
Which disproves your own position since you believe in born-again apostates.
ORTHODOX: Wrong again. I believe in formerly born-again but now not born again apostates. Big difference.
STEVE:: “WHOEVER believes is born of God, full stop.”
No “full stop,” since John does not begin and end with that statement.
ORTHODOX: That statement stands alone as a point of logic. It is not connected via binary operators to any other statements. Therefore this statement is true by itself.
STEVE: “Your former argument was that the apostates have some: i.e. faith.”
Wrong again. That’s your argument, not mine. I don’t equate bare belief with saving faith.
But the onus is on you to prove that ‘bare belief’ is a Johannine category of teaching.”
You’re terminally muddleheaded. I’ve denied all along that bare belief is a Johannine category.
ORTHODOX: So you just blew away your whole argument. You deny that John's statement that whoever believes is strictly true on the basis that some believers are just "bare" believers. But then you admit that bare belief is not a Johannine category of teaching. So in other words you have to eisegete into John some non-Johannine thought to make your system work. This is not the basis of a sound argument.
STEVE: Pity you’re so obtuse. I don’t have to get inside the head of an apostate to know what the Bible has to say about the psychology of unbelief. And where you’re concerned, your own admissions supply the incriminating evidence.
ORTHODOX: And yet you can't point to a single thing in the bible that I don't believe. So how "the psychology of unbelief" applies to me I don't know. Ahh, I guess what I don't believe are the Traditions of the reformed church.
STEVE: And yet neither is your conclusion a strict implication. If it were there wouldn't be a number of alternative deductions.”
As I’ve said repeatedly, but you’re too dense to figure out, I don’t need an implication when I have a direct statement from John.
ORTHODOX: What direct statement? You mean the ones where you finally had to admit they they didn't prove your case and you were firing blanks?
STEVE: “Why is this so tough for you?__1) Whoever believes is born of God.__2) Whoever lives in sin is not born of God.__3) Thus, if you believe in God, and then at a later time live in sin, you must have ceased to be born of God.__Why I have to point out the most obvious of logic I don't know.”
(3) is not entailed by (1)-(2). You’re equivocating with tenses. Sorry you’re such a klutz.
ORTHODOX: You continually seem to think that throwing out some sound bite amounts to an argument. Tenses have nothing to do with it. The logic is clear.
STEVE: Moreover, your syllogism is tendentious because it leaves out the other criteria. John doesn’t say that at a later time a born-again Christian can live in sin. You’re assuming what you need to prove.
ORTHODOX: That's the whole point of a syllogism, to fill in the unstated missing part with the logical conclusion. When I pointed to your long chain of logic and pointed out the lack of a biblical category of people with faith who are not born again, you told us not to worry about it because it was a deduction from the facts. Now you're complaining because I can't find a verse saying someone born again can live in sin. At best that puts us on equal footing. But not really because I've pointed out John's statement that you can save a brother's soul from death if you pull him back from his wayward ways. That would be impossible unless he was saved in the first place.
STEVE: “There's been no refutation that it only works as a statement about the universal church.”
There’s been plenty of refutation, but having gouged out your own eyes, you are blind to the refutation. Enjoy your self-imposed darkness. You’ve earned it.
ORTHODOX: Again a non-response. I've pointed out again and again that going out from a local church is no bad thing by itself. It just could mean you're joining another local church. But John says it is a test for being an apostate. Again you make the apostle's teaching into a nonsense.
STEVE: “Why is this so tough for you?__1) Whoever believes is born of God.__2) Whoever lives in sin is not born of God.__3) Thus, if you believe in God, and then at a later time live in sin, you must have ceased to be born of God.__Why I have to point out the most obvious of logic I don't know.”
ReplyDelete(3) is not entailed by (1)-(2). You’re equivocating with tenses. Sorry you’re such a klutz.
ORTHODOX: You continually seem to think that throwing out some sound bite amounts to an argument. Tenses have nothing to do with it. The logic is clear.
_______
No, you're basing this on what John says.
"Whoever believes" is an English way of saying, literally, "everyone believing." This is a participle, Orthodox. It indicates CONTINUAL belief.
The one who is born again does not sin - that is, he does not live in sin, or, put another way, he continually does not live in sin.
In 3 above, Thus, if you believe in God, and then at a later time live in sin, you must have ceased to be born of God.
Is false, for that could only be true if belief was not continual and if not living in sin was not continual.
The one who is born again continually believes - he does NOT cease believing.
The one who is born again continually refrains from living in sin - therefore, s/he does not NOT start living in sin.
So, yes, Orthodox, you ARE equivocating on the tenses.
orthodox said...
ReplyDelete“Steve continues to sidestep the question of how accountable he is for his shocking behaviour in this forum. He has no shame about it, apparently then he thinks it is completely acceptable.”
That’s really rich coming from the likes of you. By your lights, the only true church has a long history of violently persecuting theological dissent. Are you ashamed of how the Orthodox church has treated the opposing viewpoint?
I use words while your communion resorts to bloodshed—back when it had the political clout to do so.
“And yet you take ‘my denomination's’ NT canon hook line and sinker without being able to offer any other epistemology. “
You keep proving the point that you can only defend Orthodoxy by continually prevaricating about the alternatives.
i) To begin with, there’s your backdoor admission that we don’t uncritically adopt your denomination’s canon when you limit your comparison to the NT canon, since our OT canon is not conterminous with yours.
ii) Then there’s your demonstrably stupid equation of our NT canon with your denomination’s NT canon—by which you conveniently omit the Latin fathers (among others)—as if the 27 books of the NT are unique to the Orthodox canon.
iii) I’ve also introduced the evidence of intertextuality on multiple occasions.
So my epistemology is not interchangeable with yours.
“Funny how you're the ones quoting Josephus to establish where God's word is whereas we quote scripture that the Church is the foundation of the truth. Ahh well, selective quoting of scripture is the protestant ethos.”
i) Because God himself entrusted the OT Scriptures to the safekeeping of the Jews (Rom 3:2). So we’re taking our cue from Scripture.
ii) And Josephus is not the only example we’ve given to ground the OT canon. Or you chronically obtuse or chronically dishonest?
iii)As I’ve pointed out before, you cite 1 Tim 3:15 out of context. You’ve presented no counterargument.
“Don't be obtuse, the issue is the Orthodox church, not particular local examples.”
The “Orthodox church” is just a bunch of national churches. We only use the singular form as a linguistic convention.
“[Yawn]. Nothing means what it means in Steve's warped world. Because Augustine is his poster boy, he won't let him speak for himself. So Augustine is a great fellow, and Orthodox are enemies of the faith if they believe the same.”
You’re quoting Augustine out of context—because you’re too lazy and ignorant to acquaint yourself with the historical context. Schatz is a Jesuit church historian with a doctorate from the Gregorian, so I think he knows a wee bit more about the Latin Fathers than you do.
I’m cited a detailed explanation (which I quote in full in reply to Armstrong) from a Catholic source to counter your misinterpretation. Your argument is with Schatz, not with me.
“Never said he was your rule of faith, but he is one of your poster boys.”
I’ve never had a poster of Augustine on my wall. As a teenager, I had glossies of movie stars like Dietrich, Garbo, and Deneuve, but no poster of Augustine, either now or then. Sorry to disappoint you.
“So much so that you describe your philosophy as Augustinian.”
More patent sophistries at your end. I’m never cited Augustine as one of my authorities.
I can accept someone’s argument when he has a good argument without treating him as an authority-figure. This has been explained to you on many occasions. But because your own position is indefensible, you defend it by erecting endless strawmen to burn.
“So there we have it: unregenerate believers. Now you're disowning your initial posting. Ahh what a tangled web we weave when first we...”
You’re incorrigibly obtuse. You’re the one who includes apostates in 1 Jn 5:1, not me. What you’ve done, in your typically muddle-headed fashion, is to tacitly impute your misinterpretation of 1 Jn 5:1 to me (although I’ve repeatedly and explicitly rejected your misinterpretation), and then generate a bogus inconsistency as if I credited 1 Jn 5:1 to the apostates, but not the other Johannine criteria. I deny all the Johannine criteria to the apostates, as I’ve often said.
You’ve gotten your wires so crossed that you can’t even distinguish your own position from the stated position of your opponent.
“I believe in formerly born-again but now not born again apostates.”
A manufactured distinction that cuts against the grain of Johannine soteriology.
“That statement stands alone as a point of logic. It is not connected via binary operators to any other statements. Therefore this statement is true by itself.”
1 Jn 5:1 was never meant to be taken in isolation from John’s other statements, which is why the Apostle presents a set of criteria. And this very verse attributes more to the regenerate than mere belief. It includes love for God and his regenerate children—which the apostates did not exemplify.
“But the onus is on you to prove that ‘bare belief’ is a Johannine category of teaching.”
Which I’ve done.
“So you just blew away your whole argument. You deny that John's statement that whoever believes is strictly true on the basis that some believers are just ‘bare’ believers. But then you admit that bare belief is not a Johannine category of teaching. So in other words you have to eisegete into John some non-Johannine thought to make your system work. This is not the basis of a sound argument.”
Yet another example of your muddleheaded reasoning.
i) 1 Jn 5:1 is true in conjunction with other Johannine truths regarding the regenerate.
ii) Bare belief is a Johannine category. But 1 Jn 5:1 is not a reference to bare belief, for, as the Apostle also explains, the regenerate have a number of spiritual characteristics and spiritual immunities.
iii) I have based all of my arguments on Johannine data from the Fourth Gospel and 1 John.
“And yet you can't point to a single thing in the bible that I don't believe.”
There are many Biblical doctrines you deny, and of those you affirm, you only affirm them, not because of what God said, but what your denomination said.
“You continually seem to think that throwing out some sound bite amounts to an argument. Tenses have nothing to do with it. The logic is clear.”
My you’re dense. You’re guilty of equivocating. An equivocation of terms invalidates an argument. Logic 101.
i) In 1 Jn 5:1, the Apostle doesn’t say “Whoever believes at one time or another,” has been born again; “whoever used to believe,” has been born again, &c. Instead, he simply uses a present participle.
ii) In this very same verse, he connects regeneration with another attribute, which is love for the Father and his spiritual children (born-again Christians).
This is in contrast to the apostates, who don’t love the Father or his spiritual children. Hence, apostates don’t pass the 1 Jn 5:1 test. Rather, they explicitly fail the 1 Jn 5:1 test.
“Now you're complaining because I can't find a verse saying someone born again can live in sin. At best that puts us on equal footing.”
No, that’s not what I’ve said. You’re constitutionally incompetent to accurately state the opposing position. You’re problem is not the absence of a verse to prove your contention, but the presence of certain verses (1 Jn 3:9; 5:4,18) that positively disprove you contention.
“But not really because I've pointed out John's statement that you can save a brother's soul from death if you pull him back from his wayward ways. That would be impossible unless he was saved in the first place.”
I already refuted your misinterpretation. You’re simply repeating yourself by trotting out your original, discredited claim because you can’t handle my counterargument.
“But John says it is a test for being an apostate.”
In context, we’re talking about a local church or set of local churches (i.e. the seven churches of Asia Minor) that the apostle John personally oversaw. In *that* context, leaving *that* church would be an act of apostasy, for a church an apostle oversaw would be a true church as long as it enjoyed that kind of hands-on apostolic supervision. That’s the historical context of the statement. It’s a true Christian fellowship because the Apostle John is keeping it true to the faith. Therefore, the schismatics would be leaving a true Christian fellowship, and—what is more, as John explains—they’d be leaving this church on account of their false doctrine. So, by definition, they are leaving it for something false. Choosing falsehood over truth. You have no textual basis to extrapolate from this case to the universal church.