Pages

Friday, November 30, 2007

The Admonitions in the Epistle to the Hebrews

by Steve Hays

There are four basic ways of construing the apostasy passages in Hebrews. The two traditional interpretations are the (i) Reformed and the (ii) Arminian. A third, more recent, but influential interpretation is (iii) the antinomian, while a fourth interpretation is (iv) un-iversalism.

Because Arminians and antinomians agree on the Christian identity of the apostates/ backsliders in Heb 6 & 10, their interpretation converges on the Christian experience of the subjects, but diverges over the judgment which they face, whether temporary and remedial or eternal and retributive.

I. Arminian

1. Exposition

According to the Arminian interpretation, the apostates were true, regenerate believers who lose their salvation. Libertarian freewill always allows for the possibility of apostasy.

In traditional Arminian theology, this would result in eternal damnation, although annihilationism and postmortem evangelism have become a live option in contemporary Arminianism (e.g. Clark Pinnock, John Sanders, Jerry Walls, Gabriel Fackre).1

Representatives of this position vis-à-vis Hebrews include R. T. France, Philip Hughes, Scot McKnight, William Lane, I. H. Marshall, Grant Osborne, and Robert Picirilli.

By “Arminian,” I don’t necessarily mean someone who is a doctrinaire Arminian, but merely some who offers an Arminian interpretation of Heb 6 & 10, regardless of his overall theology. Some of them embrace a rather eclectic and compartmentalized theology.

Hughes interpretation is somewhat ambiguous. But if you compare his commentary on Hebrews with his final book on The True Image, which documents a vehement repudiation of Calvinism, it’s clear where he’s headed.

Scot McKnight lays out a standard argument for the Arminian interpretation:

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

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

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

Second, the author calls his audience “brothers.” 3:1, 12; 10:19; 13:22. Perhaps 3:1 needs to be quoted: “holy brothers who share in the heavenly calling.” At 2:11-17 we have the following thread about what “brother” means: “For this reason Jesus is not ashamed to call them brothers [and sisters], 12 saying, “I will proclaim your name to my brothers [and sisters], in the midst of the congregation I will praise you.”… 17 Therefore he had to become like his brothers [and sisters] in every respect, so that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make a sacrifice of atonement for the sins of the people.

Third, at 4:3 he calls his audience “believers.” This text is not distinguishing genuine from false, but believers from non-believers. Believers, it says, enter into the rest. [Yes, it needs to be noted: a believer who enters the rest perseveres. But, this does not mean that those who do not persevere were not believers, but that those who do not persevere will not enter the rest.]

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

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

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

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

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

Enlightened: see 10:32. An early Christian conversion term._Tasted…: see 2:9; 6:4, 5. This does not mean “taste” as in dabble, but is a metaphor for “experience.” See at 2:9 — one does not merely “dabble” in death; it means to die. Partaken in the Spirit: refers to early Christian experience of the Holy Spirit. Tasted Word… again, experienced the powers of God’s Word. Again, these verses put it all together: a full Christian experience.

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

My conclusion is this: the author of Hebrews saw his audience as believers but knew that some would fall away, or had fallen away, or might fall away. For those who did, there would be no final rest. The implication is that a believer can fall away.2


2. Evaluation

It’s true that the distinction between nominal and genuine believers comes to us by way of systematic theology rather than Hebrews, per se. It’s a theological construct based on the overall teaching of Scripture.

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

However, the author does draw other distinctions, between one group and another. McKnight draws attention to one such division: Those who persevere and those who don’t.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ii) Narrative referent: Those about whom he is writing.

ii) intersects with (i), but does not coincide with (i). (ii) includes the cautionary example of OT apostates, whom the author uses, in turn, to illustrate their NT counterparts.

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

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

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

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

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

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

More precisely, both groups had been evangelized (4:2,6), as well as witnessing signs and wonders attesting the messenger.

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

I agree with McKnight that “to taste” doesn’t mean merely to dabble. Likewise, I.H. Marshall claims that "when Christ is said to have tasted death (Heb 2:9), there is no suggestion that he got off lightly with a mere taste and nothing more; rather, he experience this bitter taste to the full."3

But this definition, while narrowly correct, is broadly false when it is taken to mean that the import of a verb varies with the noun it takes. It is a semantic fallacy to argue that the import of a verb is defined by its object. Does geuomai have a humble human import in Jn 2:9, but take on a divine import in Mt 27:33? This confuses intension with extension.

Along similar lines, William Lane claims that the verb "is appropriate to an experience that is real and personal."4 But his statement suffers from a couple of flaws:

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

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

iv) Drawing on the parallel passage in 10:32, Scot McKnight argues that photizo (6:4) denotes conversion.5 Lane is guilty of the same circular reasoning when he defines the verb in terms of "saving illumination" of heart and mind by appeal to 10:32.6

This is a valid inference, but doesn’t advance their case against Calvinism, for if 6:4 is ambiguous, taken by itself, that same ambiguity will attach to the parallel. The question is whether the verb denotes conversion in the dogmatic sense.7 William Lane goes so far as to claim that,

In the NT the term is used metaphorically to refer to a spiritual or intellectual illumination that removes ignorance through the action of God or the preaching of the gospel (cf. John 1:9; Col 4:6; Eph 1:18; 2 Tim 1:10; Rev 18:1). What is signified is not simply instruction for salvation but renewal of the mind and of life.8

There are two problems with this analysis:

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

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

The appeal to 2 Tim 1:12 suffers from two problems:

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

In Frege’s classic illustration, "the Morning Star" and "the Evening Star" share the same referent (the planet Venus), but they don’t share the same sense inasmuch as they denote different phases of the planet. Barr generalized this distinction in terms of his "illegitimate totality transfer" fallacy.10 While I’m sure that Arminian scholars have read the book, they have failed to absorb its bearing on traditional Arminian arguments.

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

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

vi) On Heb 10:29, it is anachronistic to construe "sanctify" as it has come to be used in systematic theology. The author tells us that the apostate was sanctified by blood of Christ rather than action of the Spirit. That automatically removes it from the dogmatic cate-gory. His usage is figurative and consciously cultic (9:13,20; cf. Exod 29:21; Lev 16:19, LXX). It is concerned with a status rather than a process. By taking it to mean what it would normally mean in Pauline theology, the Arminian is confounding different universes of discourse. It is also possible that the verb takes the "covenant."11 On this construction, the blood "sanctifies" the covenant, not the apostate.

McKnight and other Arminians also misconstrue the function of Biblical admonitions. As Schreiner and Caneday point out:

Conditional warnings in themselves do not function to indicate anything about possible failure or fulfillment. Instead, the conditional warnings appeal to our minds to conceive or imagine the invariable consequences that come to all who pursue a course of apostasy from Christ.12

Robert Picirilli has also made the case for the Arminian interpretation of this passage.13 The page limit on this assignment precludes me from interacting with his arguments. I have, however, written a critical review of his book in which I do just that.14

II. Antinomian

1. Exposition

According to the antinomian interpretation, the apostates are true believers and backsliders. It is possible, on this view, for a regenerate child of God to become an unbeliever and die in a state of impenitent sin, yet still be saved. He will suffer temporal, remedial punishment rather than everlasting, retributive judgment.

Representatives of this position include Charles Ryrie, Zane Hodges, Robert Wilkin, Robert Lightner, Michel Eaton, and R. T. Kendall, as well as various popularizers of their respective arguments.

Hal Harless has done a good job of summarizing the antinomian interpretation of Heb 6 & 10:

First, Hebrews 10:32 uses photizo for conversion, so the fallen are genuine believers.

Second, Hebrews 6:4 describes the fallen as those who have once for all tasted (geusamenous) of the heavenly gift. Each of the ten other New Testament uses of dorea (“gift”) refer to receiving Christ, the Holy Spirit, or something given by Christ.21 …The fallen are believers, because they have experienced the gift of God’s Son and/or the Holy Spirit.

John 4:10; Romans 5:15, 17; 2 Corinthians 9:15; Ephesians 4:7 refer to Jesus as the gift. Acts 2:38; 8:20; 10:45; 11:17 refer to the Holy Spirit as the gift. The remaining passage, Ephesians 3:7, refers to God’s grace given to believers. However, Ephesians 4:7 connects that gift of grace to the gift of His Son.


Third, the fallen have been once for all made partakers (metochous genethentas) of the Holy Spirit (Hebrews 6:4)…They share in the Holy Spirit, so they are regenerate (cf. Romans 8:9; Titus 3:5–7).

Fourth, the fallen are those who have once for all tasted (geusamenous) the good word of God and the powers of the age to come (Hebrews 6:5). Again, this aorist middle participle of geuomai means have experienced for themselves. Not only are the fallen eternally saved, but also they had experienced personally the goodness of God’s word and His power.

This warning addresses sinners, not apostates. They had fallen down, not away. They were saved but were not holding fast to their confession (Hebrews 4:14; 10:23)…This put them under divine chastisement (Hebrews 10:26–31).

By the transgression of returning to the sacrificial system, they placed themselves beyond repentance. However, their state need not be enduring.

The impossibility of renewing them to repentance remains while they continue to again crucify to themselves the Son of God, and put Him to open shame.

Hodges notes that many misunderstand this image:

Naturally, the reference to “burned” has caused many to think of hell… In fact, to think of hell here is to betray inattention to the imagery employed by the author. The burning of a field to destroy the rank growth it had produced was a practice known in ancient times. Its aim was not the destruction of the field itself (which, of course, the fire could not effect), but the destruction of the unwanted produce of the field. Thereafter the field might be serviceable for cultivation.15

2. Evaluation

There are two basic problems with this interpretation:

i) Regarding the identity of the apostates in Heb 6 & 10, it commits the same methodological mistakes as the Arminian interpretation. So my critique of the Arminian interpretation is equally applicable to this aspect of the antinomian interpretation.

ii) Where it differs is with respect to the nature of the judgment facing the apostate. Here, Bruce Compton does a fine job of pointing out some of the exegetical errors in the antinomian interpretation:

Yet this view faces serious problems. First and foremost, the threat in the warning passages appears to be much more extensive than simply the loss of blessing and/or reward. In 4:11, the defection warned against involves a falling into judgment and a missing out on God’s Sabbath rest (4:9). The Sabbath rest that those in view are in jeopardy of missing is nothing less than heaven itself. In 10:27, the threat is presented as “a terrifying expectation of judgment” involving a “raging fire that will consume the enemies of God.” This consuming of the enemies of God with a raging fire can hardly be a description of God’s treatment of the re-deemed. The same may be said in 10:39, where those who persevere in the faith to the saving of the soul are contrasted with those who “shrink back unto destruction.” The contrast between saving the soul and destroying the soul is found elsewhere in the NT of the contrast between salvation and eternal judgment. Finally, in 12:15, the danger warned about involves a “missing” or “being excluded” from the grace of God.

The unmistakable impression from these combined threats is that nothing short of eternal condemnation and punishment is in view for those guilty of not heeding these warnings. Added to this is the a fortiori argument employed in several of the warning passages in Hebrews comparing and contrasting the judgment of those in the OT who rejected the Law with the judgment of those in the present era who spurn the gospel (2:1–4; 10:26–31; 12:25–27). The argument is that the judgment of those who reject the gospel is not only more certain but also more severe. The force of the logic appears compelling. Those in the OT who rejected the Law forfeited their lives and were excluded from the rest associated with entering the land of promise (3:7–19; 10:28). The more certain and severe corollary must be that those who spurn the gospel face nothing less than eternal death and exclusion from heaven.

A second liability with this view concerns the problem that has elicited the warnings. If the problem is simply a lack of spiritual maturity or commitment, as some have suggested, then why is it “impossible,” to bring those who are guilty to repentance? On the other hand, if the problem is that of apostasy, as others have argued, how can apostasy be describing the action of a regenerate individual?

This is particularly problematic in that the author of Hebrews has specifically identified persevering in the faith as the mark of a “partaker of Christ,” that is, as the mark of a genuine believer, one who is truly saved (3:14).16

III. Universalist

1. Exposition

The universalist is indifferent to the distinction between believers and unbelievers since, for him, everyone will eventually be a believer, if not in this life, then in the next. He interprets the fiery judgment as purgatorial and remedial.

In a sense, he interprets the judgment passages (in Hebrews 6 & 10) the same way as the antinomian. But he extends remediation into the afterlife.

Universalism is very much a minority position in contemporary Evangelicalism, but as Evangelicalism moves to the left, it is picking up steam.

A representative of this position is Thomas Talbott. According to Talbott: “If we adopt a Pauline perspective, however, then we must regard all punishment, even the harsh punishment to which the author of Hebrews alludes [Heb 10:26-27], as an expression of mercy,” The Inescapable Love of God (Universal Publishers/uPUBLISH.com 2002), 104

2. Evaluation

There is no brief way of responding to Talbott, because his claim is bound up with his broader interpretation of the NT texts on eschatological judgment.

I have, however, written a critical review of his entire book in which I take issue with his interpretive approach:

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2004/05/somewhere-over-rainbow-2.html

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2004/05/somewhere-over-rainbow-3.html

IV. Reformed

1. Exposition

According to the Reformed interpretation, the apostates in Heb 6 & 10 are nominal believers who defect from the faith. They are unregenerate.

John Owen is a paradigmatic representative of this position.

2. Evaluation

I’ve noted the methodological deficiencies in the Arminian interpretation. Beyond that negative defect, there are also a number of positive lines of evidence for the perseverance of the saints in this epistle:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Endnotes

1 The identity of contemporary Arminianism has become increasingly fuzzy and fluid to the degree that it shades into open theism.
2 http://www.jesuscreed.org/?p=242
3 I. Marshall, Kept By the Power of God (Bethany, 1969), 142.
4 W. Lane, Hebrews 1-8 (Word 1991), 141.
5 S. McKnight, "The Warning Passages in Hebrews," TrinJ 13 (1992), 45-56.
6 Ibid., 141.
7 Cf. Grudem, W. “Perseverance of the Saints: A Case Study from the Warning Passages in Hebrews,” T. Schreiner & B. Ware, eds. Still Sovereign (Baker 2000), 141-44.
8 Ibid. 141.
9 Ibid. xlix.
10 Cf. J. Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language (Oxford, 1961).
11 Cf. P. Ellingworth, Commentary on Hebrews (Eerdmans/Paternoster, 1993), 541.
12 Schreiner, T. & A. Caneday, The Race Set Before Us: A Biblical Theology of Perseverance & Assurance (IVP 2001).
13 R. Picirilli, Grace, Faith, Free Will (Randall House 2002), 211-29.
14 http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2004/10/grace-faith-freewill-1.html
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2004/10/grace-faith-and-freewill-2.html
15 http://www.chafer.edu/journal/back_issues/Vol%209-1%20ar1.pdf
16 http://www.dbts.edu/journals/1996_1/HEB6.PDF

16 comments:

  1. Very helpful essay. Here are some more interesting points made about Hebrews 6 from a Reformed perspective that may be helpful.

    Biblical Reflections on Hebrews 6
    http://www.reformationtheology.com/2006/02/biblical_reflections_on_hebrew.php

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'd like to add a little something here, that all of these views often (and IMO generally) neglect: the audience is also Jewish. The title of the letter is "Hebrews" and it is "Hebrews" for a reason. It is not generally addressed to a specific church, like Ephesians or Colossians. It's addressed to a whole community of people who identify not as a local church,but as Jews, an ethic and religious category.

    Obviously, these are Jews who are either (a) also Christians, defined as both true and nominal believers and / or (b) Jews who know the gospel but have not yet decided which way to go. All of these categories can be assumed to be present.

    So, when we speak in terms of "Christians" from our perspective, we should keep in mind that most of these arguments are analogizing from the original category to the present one. A similar example occurs in our reading of Romans 1 - 3. If I might explain before continuing. One of the themes of Romans 2 and 3 is that both Jew and Gentile are alike insofar as both are under sin's condemnation. On the other hand, Jews had, at the time of writing, enjoyed advantages the Gentiles did not generally enjoy: namely the Scriptures, the promises,the covenant, circumcision, etc. Both are condemned for rejection of God's revelation on somewhat different grounds. The Jews had all the benefits of being the covenant community. The Gentiles did not. So, we infer from this that the Jew is "first in judgment," consequently more blameworthy than the pagan never exposed to special revelation, but both are nevertheless condemned. Sin is the great equalizer, and justification by faith alone is the same remedy for sin, via Christ and His gospel. In turn, from this, we analogize in our present historical situation that Jews have long since apotastaized and fallen under the curse of Talmudic Judaism, which is far removed from 1st century and OT Yahwism. Likewise, we infer from this that the man, woman or child who is exposed to all the benefits of the covenant community in the New Covenant age: Scripture, the sacraments, the gospel (all of which make, in NT theology for a far more complete picture as it is), are, if they reject the Gospel "first in judgment" whereas the pagan is not, yet both are condemned under the curse of sin. So, today, the 21st century Christian stands in largely the same relation as the 1st century Jew - the cardinal difference being that, unlike the 21st century Christian, Jesus Himself walked among the Palestinian Jews of the 1st century, as did the Apostles.

    Getting back to Hebrews, the writer is writing on the premise that these Jews perceived themselves (and I would argue at that time) were living under the Old Covenant proper. That is to say, this letter is written to make it abundantly clear that the OC has ended and a new administration of the covenant has come: the New Covenant. Consequently, we get all the language about what is "better."

    The warnings of apostasy are not simply addressed to Christians. They take as their main reference point, Jews of the first century living in this transitional frame. The message here for them is clear: if you wish to remain a true, pious Jew, you must enter the New Covenant. Remaining "in the covenant" or "in the faith" is not simply remaing in the New Covenant, it is remaining in the one covenant which has, for the Jew, transitioned from the Old to the New. There is really only one covenant for Jews; they have no option if they wish to remain in the covenant community, for there is only one such community. He is saying to them that they must not, indeed cannot abandon the New Covenant for the Old Covenant, for there is nothing for them in the Old Covenant should they do so. His point of departure is OT theology, OT imagery, etc. To "apostatize" therefore, is not simply to leave the faith, but to turn back, not to a life of sin itself, but to life under the Old Covenant. It is equivalent to refusing to enter the Promised Land for the Jew of that time not to enter the New Covenant. It is equivalent to turning back to the bondage of Egypt to turn back to the Jewish system, which was, if we follow the language, still in place in the Temple, which had not yet been sacked. So, the message here is for Jews first. We can analogize to Christians, but, any exegesis here must take this into account before it can proceed to analogize

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yes Gene

    Thats right. Considering it is directed toward hebrews ...The passage that warns the Hebrews against falling away is warning them against one thing: abandoning trust in Christ alone by going back to now worthless and obsolete things, such as trusting in the temple sacrifice and the Law in order to be justified. The warnings are given to those in the community that they would not be tempted to turn from trusting Jesus alone (who is God over all) for some lesser or meaningless ritual act that supposedly now can curry God's favor. Trusting in anything except Christ alone, who is the light that scatters all shadows, is said to be tantamount to "trampling under foot the Son of God" believing that His once of all sacrifice is insufficient in itself to save. If something in place of, or in addition to, Jesus is trusted in it is no different than a denial of Him. So in context, the persons who go back by trading in Christ for the now-empty ritual of the temple (that itself was meant to point to the fulfillment in Christ), are then re-crucifying the Son to their shame. Hebrews 6:4-8 is often read in isolation apart from this context.

    Ironically, those who teach that this passage speaks of the ability of regenerate Christians to fall away are actually committing the very error the passage itself warns against. How do I figure? The very assertion that a Christian can lose their salvation is tantamount to saying that what Christ accomplished on the cross was insufficient to save completely and so you need to trust in yourself to maintain your own righteousness, and this is not unlike Roman Catholic theology. To say Christ can lose us is the same as believing that what Christ did is not enough for someone... That you MUST MAINTAIN YOUR OWN JUSTIFICATION.

    This is a form of legalistic self-justification to believe that you can either attain or maintain your own righteousness before God and it is itself a denial of Christ, the very error the Hebrews were tempted to make, that the author was speaking of. In fact this is a backdoor to the Galatian heresy where Paul says, "Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?" (Gal 3:3) To believe one can lose salvation, therefore, is trusting in something other than Jesus Christ to keep you righteous in Him. The Hebrews were tempted to go back to temple sacrifice (trusting in something other than Christ) and the doctrine that one can lose salvation is likewise trusting in ones' own moral ability to maintain a just standing before God, since Jesus, according to them, is unable to save completely those who He came to save. Either we are trusting in Christ alone to both attain and maintain our justification or we are trusting in something worthless which the author of Hebrews gives severe warnings about. Quite ironic. That passage is a warning passage for the very error those who teach we can lose salvation are making.

    JWH

    ReplyDelete
  4. I just hovered over the link below and it seems to be an adult site. Readers beware. Steve or Gene or anybody with powers to delete links, please look into that.

    ReplyDelete
  5. We can control backlinks and comments of posts that we author ourselves. The 3 admins can do more. Bernabe, go into the dashboard's edit function. You'll see a console underneath the editing box.

    Open it. Click "deny" for backlinks. Save the changes, etc.

    Then go back to the main page and see if this removed the backlink. Otherwise, an admin will have to remove it.

    John,

    Thx for your additional comments. :D

    ReplyDelete
  6. This is probably a dumb question, but I will ask it anyway. Looking at justification and sanctification and how they apply to perseverance of the saints, if we are justified before God and it is a one time event then how can one not persevere? I could see how someone's sanctification may be hindered by his "old self". If we are justified one time that is, but what would happen if we are justified and then fall away would that person then have to be re-justified?

    As usual thanks for helping a dull mind come to grips with this stuff.

    ReplyDelete
  7. That's a good question, and Arminians are divided over this. From time to to time, you do actually run into one who thinks you can gain and lose your salvation many times. This infers a chain of justification, loss of it, and subsequently being rejustified.

    Most, in my experience at least, would say that apostasy is an exceedingly difficult thing to commit, and once committed, there is no returning from it.

    The Reformed have consistently stated that since this is the work of God, He will bring it to pass. Indeed, that's one of the major themes of Romans. God sanctifies that which He justifies.

    We agree with Arminians over the definition of apostasy. Essentially, it has a three part definition as offered by RBC Howell:

    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.

    I would add to Dr. Howell's statements that the questions we have arise not over anyone who perseveres to the end, but over those who don't and those who constantly vacillate. We live in an age of antinominianism and declension in the churches, so it is no wonder that this question frequently arises.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Hello Magnus,

    You asked:

    “This is probably a dumb question, but I will ask it anyway. Looking at justification and sanctification and how they apply to perseverance of the saints, if we are justified before God and it is a one time event then how can one not persevere? I could see how someone's sanctification may be hindered by his "old self". If we are justified one time that is, but what would happen if we are justified and then fall away would that person then have to be re-justified?”

    When I have taught classes and I have done so in different contexts ranging from a local church Sunday school class to a seminary class, if someone asks a question that goes to the nature of justification or sanctification or understanding the nature of salvation, I **never** consider that a “dumb question.” There is so much confusion and false teaching in this area that I relish the opportunity to address these issues with someone who has sincere questions.

    I see justification as being an action by God that he does only one time, when someone initially becomes a Christian. It is a declaration by God Himself that the person is righteous. A major error in non-Christian religions is to teach or imply that we justify ourselves before God by something that we do. The bible teaches otherwise, especially in the book of Romans where Paul repeatedly makes the point that God is the one who justifies sinners, sinners do not and cannot justify themselves by their own works. Since I believe that justification only occurs once, someone cannot become “unjustified” or need to be “rejustified.”

    Some will suggest that if a believer commits a certain sin (or number of sins) they will then lose their salvation and in effect become unjustifed. I have a couple of problems with this reasoning. First, I believe that not only is it true of a believer that they are justified by God Himself and by God alone. When they are justified they also have all of theirs sins forgiven. And if all of the sins of the believer are forgiven at that time, then that also includes the sins they will commit in the future as Christians (so they cannot commit the X sin or number of sins that will later lose their salvation and unjustify them). This is my major problem (aside from clear bible passages teaching that we do not lose our salvation) with the teaching that a person can lose their salvation. How can you lose your salvation based upon some sin or sins that you later commit as a believer if the sins which were forgiven by the Lord include ALL of your sins including those committed as a believer?

    Magnus you are right to distinguish between our experience of justification (which occurs one time when we are first saved and need not ever occur again) and our experience of sanctification which may ebb and flow depending upon our obedience to God and His word (which may fluctuate throughout our life on earth). If a believer backslides (which involves some sort of sin) that does not invalidate their justification nor do they lose their salvation as their sins committed when backsliding are also covered by the atonement of Christ which covered all of their sins. Sanctification involves our choices, our actions and our weaknesses and so again may ebb and flow. But justification is not something that we do, God alone justifies.

    Hope that helps,

    Robert

    ReplyDelete
  9. Robert said:
    ---
    How can you lose your salvation based upon some sin or sins that you later commit as a believer if the sins which were forgiven by the Lord include ALL of your sins including those committed as a believer?
    ---

    This is true enough, but I also have to ask: How can you not be saved based upon some sin or sins that you commit after Christ died for them if Christ's death pays the penalty for ALL of your sins, as well as everyone else's sins?

    In other words, as an Arminian, you are holding to salvation by means other than the blood of Christ, because Christ's blood "atones" for all sins except not really.

    Further, in the scheme you present (wherein asking forgiveness once = salvation forever, even if you commit apostacy later) one must wonder why does Christ, who wants all men saved (according to your presuppositions), require faith in the first place? That is, if faith is not required to keep one's salvation, then why is it required to get it in the first place?

    Don't get me wrong. I appreciate that Robert is correct on the importance of Justification and differentiating it from Sanctification. However, he cannot provide a consistent Arminian view here. As long as salvation is dependent upon libertarian free will choices, the Arminian cannot consistently preach assurance of salvation.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Pike asked:

    “This is true enough, but I also have to ask: How can you not be saved based upon some sin or sins that you commit after Christ died for them if Christ's death pays the penalty for ALL of your sins, as well as everyone else's sins?”

    I make a distinction between the provision of Christ for the sins of the world, and the application of that provision only to those who respond in faith to the gospel message. So Jesus died for the sins of the world in the sense of being a provision for everyone. But if you do not believe then the provision is not applied to you individually. Biblically while the provision is sufficient for all, it is only applied to those who believe, those you as a calvinist term “the elect.” In this way, I can take the universalistic atonement passages according to their clear and explicit meaning. I also avoid universalism which the bible does not teach and which orthodox Christians deny.

    “In other words, as an Arminian, you are holding to salvation by means other than the blood of Christ, because Christ's blood "atones" for all sins except not really.”

    I am not Arminian so your words here do not apply to me or my view. Salvation is only through the blood of Jesus. Both Justification and the forgiveness of sins that comes through the atonement of Christ come only to those who have faith in the gospel message (with the possible exception of babies, the mentally incompetent and those who have never had the opportunity to hear the gospel message; but I am speaking about able bodied/minded persons who do in fact hear the gospel message, for them they must respond with faith or they will not be justified, not have their sins forgiven, not have the atonement applied to them individually).

    “Further, in the scheme you present (wherein asking forgiveness once = salvation forever, even if you commit apostacy later) one must wonder why does Christ, who wants all men saved (according to your presuppositions), require faith in the first place?”

    God loves people but at the same time seeks those who trust Him to be His people. Salvation is about rescue from the consequences of sin, the condition of separation from God, and hell. Salvation is also about a personal relationship with the Lord (as the song puts it “trust and obey for there is no other way to be happy in Jesus but to trust and obey”, God wants people who love Him and trust Him, since that is very important to Him, Hebrews 11 makes this especially clear, that is what He wants to see from His people, this was true in the Old Testament and it is true today).

    “That is, if faith is not required to keep one's salvation, then why is it required to get it in the first place?”

    Romans says that God did it this way, salvation through faith alone, so that it would be by grace and so that no one would boast. God hates pride but gives grace to the humble. If salvation was through what we do, through our works and not faith, then we would have reason to boast. Besides faith and love, God wants His people to be humble and gracious and thankful that He is the one who rescues/saves them, not themselves. That is His way and so whatever way He wants it to be is the way it is going to be.

    “Don't get me wrong. I appreciate that Robert is correct on the importance of Justification and differentiating it from Sanctification. However, he cannot provide a consistent Arminian view here.”

    Again, I am not Arminian, though I do hold to what you call libertarian free will.

    “As long as salvation is dependent upon libertarian free will choices, the Arminian cannot consistently preach assurance of salvation.”

    Again, I am not Arminian, you need to deal with my position not pretend that I am Arminian so that you can argue against my view. Regarding salvation being dependent upon libertarian free will choices, that is not quite accurate. Again salvation is about rescue, and who rescues whom when it comes to salvation? Who justifies? God alone does. Who forgives the sins of His people based upon the work of Christ alone? God does. Who gives the Holy Spirit to His people? God does. Who guides and leads His people to do the right thing? God does. Who raises the dead (or transforms the saints who are alive at His second coming)/glorifies His people? God does. So the key events that comprise our rescue, our salvation, are completely done by God alone, which is why the bible describes salvation as being of the Lord, not being according to our works.

    Robert

    ReplyDelete
  11. Robert,

    As I recall, you affirm eternal security. Not a problem.

    However, I Magnus question is addressed to those who

    1. Deny eternal security.

    2. Affirm an antinominan version of eternal security. Bob Wilkin, in his own material, has identified 3 groups within his camp with respect to the issue of perseverance connected to eternal security. Of these, only one can be rightly identified, under the terms he outlines himself, as "perseverance of the saints. The other two allow for the possibility of not persevering to the end.

    Nobody denies backsliding occurs. The distinction drawn is over apostasy, not backsliding, and while I appreciate what you wrote about backsliding, it is utterly irrelevant to the definition and construal of apostasy.

    The inner logic of the two positions above would be over the nature of saving faith.

    1. The former would construe saving faith no different than Calvinism yet still hold on to the possibility of apostasy.

    2. The other reduces the nature of saving faith to Sandemanianism.

    So, I'm not so sure you answered his question.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I make a distinction between the provision of Christ for the sins of the world, and the application of that provision only to those who respond in faith to the gospel message

    So, the application of the benefits of redemption is contingent on libertarian freedom. God elects those who elect themselves. God regenerates those who elect to be regenerate. This is functionally Unitarian. Election and regeneration are put outside a chain of grace and made contingent on man. Only the cross is in view. The Father and Spirit are outsiders.

    So Jesus died for the sins of the world in the sense of being a provision for everyone.

    So, it is has no intrinsic sufficiency beyond being "provisional.". It is only effacious by faith.

    So, is rejection of Christ, (eg. unbelief) a sin for which Jesus atoned?

    Biblically while the provision is sufficient for all, it is only applied to those who believe, those you as a calvinist term “the elect.”

    We've been over this before. You define "sufficient for all" is subbiblical terms. Where does the Bible call the atonement provisionary? Rather, it says that it saves. God is satisfied.

    In this way, I can take the universalistic atonement passages according to their clear and explicit meaning.

    Yes, we've reviewed your slipshod exegesis before.

    Salvation is only through the blood of Jesus.
    No, you have stated it is only a provisionary atonement. It must be appropriated by the individual. It's not via the blood of Jesus, it's by the blood of Jesus + application by way of libertarian freedom.

    and those who have never had the opportunity to hear the gospel message

    So, according to Robert, there is another method of justification that does not involve believing in Christ. So much for the missionary enterprise.

    If salvation was through what we do, through our works and not faith, then we would have reason to boast.

    According to you, God justifies those who believe. We agree, but for you that decision arises from the libertarian agent, not as a result of the application of redemption via the regenerating work of the Holy Spriit. Why does one man believe and not another?

    Besides faith and love, God wants His people to be humble and gracious and thankful that He is the one who rescues/saves them, not themselves.

    In the words of Dr. Ergun Caner, you believe that you were elected because you selected.


    Again, I am not Arminian,

    As we've stated before, we generally use that term here to refer to those who include Libertarian action theory in their soteriology and/or doctrine of Providence. You're an Arminian who affirms eternal security, a position which is inconsistent with holding to LFW, for it introduces an ad hoc restriction into LFW.

    Regarding salvation being dependent upon libertarian free will choices, that is not quite accurate

    Everything you've listed we've covered before. It's as if you've never paid attention. All of these items are contingent on the libertarian choices of the person. So, God only justifies, forgives, etc. those who, from their own autonomy, agree to it. Sorry, but calling on these items does not negate Peter's charge.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Perhaps it's just me, but does anyone else wonder what in the world "provisional sufficiency" means?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Gene Bridges responds:

    “So, the application of the benefits of redemption is contingent on libertarian freedom. God elects those who elect themselves. God regenerates those who elect to be regenerate. This is functionally Unitarian. Election and regeneration are put outside a chain of grace and made contingent on man. Only the cross is in view. The Father and Spirit are outsiders.”

    This is kind of bizarre “reasoning” here. God alone applies the atonement to whomever He desires to do so (and we know from scripture that He applies it to believers, those who respond in faith to the gospel message). We do not elect ourselves, this is again a bizarre claim and misrepresentation of what noncalvinists believe. God elects us in Christ (Ephesians 1) and we know that a person is unified with Christ (to be “in Christ” is to be unified with Christ) through faith alone, not works lest any man should boast. God initiates our salvation, our rescue from the consequences of sin, separation from God and death, by the incarnation (Jesus coming in the flesh and then dying on the cross and rising from the grave and ascending to Heaven).

    The Father also sends the Holy Spirit who then convicts the world of sin, righteousness and judgment. I think that Gene gets confused about what actions we do and what actions that God alone does. Election is something that God does in Christ, faith is something we do in response to the gospel message.
    Because salvation is a relationship it will involve actions by both parties to the relationship. When it comes to the rescue elements of salvation, God alone does those actions, we do not do any of those actions. In my thinking the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all involved in the incarnation and the process of bringing people into personal relationship with Christ, so it is not “functionally Unitarian” as Gene claims.

    ”So, it is has no intrinsic sufficiency beyond being "provisional.". It is only efficacious by faith.”

    The atonement is provided for all, because God desires that all men be saved (1 Tim. 2:1-6, Jn. 3:16; 1 Jn. 2:2). At the same time it is only efficacious for those who are believers. And God only applies the atonement to believers. God loves all but saves only those who trust Him for salvation and place their confidence in the finished work of Christ alone for their salvation. The atonement by its nature is efficacious but is only applied to people who have faith. The power in all this is not the human person’s faith, but is the object of this faith, God, who does the miraculous actions that comprise our salvation.

    ”So, is rejection of Christ, (e.g. unbelief) a sin for which Jesus atoned?”

    This is an old trick question from Owens regularly brought up by calvinists seeking to argue for their conception of limited atonement. The trick/”reasoning” goes like this: if Jesus dies for you, that must mean that he dies for all of your sins, your sins include unbelief, so if Jesus dies for all people then he dies for all of their sins including their unbelief. If Jesus dies for them and so all of their sins including their unbelief are covered, then if they do not become believers, there would be a double jeopardy situation in which Jesus is punished for their sin of unbelief and later they are punished for the same unbelief. God would not do this as it is unjust, so obviously Jesus must not have died for those who remain in unbelief. And if he does not die for those who remain in unbelief then he only dies for the elect. If he only dies for the elect then limited atonement as conceived by calvinists is true.

    This argument assumes that the atonement of Jesus is efficacious, that is completely successful for those for whom it is intended. What this argument leaves out, is that atonement includes some different elements. One element is that the atonement is efficacious for those who believe. Another element is that God desires to save all persons. If He desires to save all persons then He has to come up with an atonement designed to be sufficient to cover everybody’s sins. Another element is that while the atonement is sufficient to cover everybody’s sins, it will only be applied to believers. When we keep in mind these different aspects of the atonement we then can understand how while the atonement is provided for all, because God desires for all to be saved. It is limited in its application or efficaciousness to only those who are believers. What the calvinist does is to argue from its efficacious element against its universalistic elements (that God desires for all to be saved, that Jesus is given for the world, that God loves all enough to send Jesus to die for them all) attempting to restrict the intention of the atonement to only the preselected elect. In other words, since the calvinist wants to believe in unconditional election (that God preselects who will be save and who will not be saved and then acts according to this preselection) he has to argue against the universalistic elements associated with the atonement (so the calvinist argues that God does not love all with a salvific love, that God only loves the preselected elect with a salvific love, that Jesus only died for the preselected elect).

    I stated:
    Biblically while the provision is sufficient for all, it is only applied to those who believe, those you as a calvinist term “the elect.”

    Gene replied:

    ”We've been over this before. You define "sufficient for all" is subbiblical terms. Where does the Bible call the atonement provisionary? Rather, it says that it saves. God is satisfied.”

    Notice that Gene is engaging in the typical calvinist argument in the last couple of sentences here: arguing from the element that the atonement is in fact efficacious to argue against its universal elements (that it is provided for all). The atonement does save all to whom it is applied and God is satisfied with it as He designed it and Jesus died on the cross (but what is left out is that because God loves the world and wants to see all saved He designed an atonement that was provided for all so that all could be saved). Calvinists will also argue that this then makes the atonement merely potential that it does not actually save. But this confuses the provision aspect of the atonement which is potential and intended for all; with the efficacious aspect of the atonement which is actual and intended to save only those who are believers.

    I stated one of the strengths of my view in that I can handle and present the universalistic passages very well:

    In this way, I can take the universalistic atonement passages according to their clear and explicit meaning.
    Gene replied:

    ”Yes, we've reviewed your slipshod exegesis before.”

    Gene does not like my exegesis of the universalistic texts because I conclude from them that the atonement is provided for all human persons (apart from Jesus himself). It is not slipshod exegesis to take verses such as Jn. 3:16, 1 Jn. 2:2, and 1 Tim. 2:1-4 and interpret them in their ordinary and plain meaning. This interpretation/exegesis is in fact the standard interpretation/exegesis held by the vast majority of Christians across all denominational lines.

    Prior to Augustine and the Reformers who came later, no one took these passages in anything other than their ordinary meanings. It was theological determinists who came alone and ran rough shod over the biblical texts, reinterpreting clear passages in ways that fit their determinism and in particular their belief in unconditional election. So though God says He loves the world enough to send Jesus as a provision for that world, the calvinist comes along and argues that God really does not love the world in a salvific way, nor does He want all to be saved. These calvinist claims go directly against the plain and intended meanings of these texts. Which is why they are wrong and why most Christians do the right thing and reject them.

    I stated a biblical doctrine which I have been teaching as long as I have been a Christian:
    Salvation is only through the blood of Jesus.

    Instead of affirming this basic Christian belief, Gene Bridges due to his commitment to calvinism argues against it:

    ”No, you have stated it is only a provisionary atonement. It must be appropriated by the individual. It's not via the blood of Jesus, it's by the blood of Jesus + application by way of libertarian freedom.”

    This is a major and intentional misrepresentation of my view by Gene here. I do not argue that the atonement is “only a provisionary atonement”, it is in fact efficacious for all believers to whom it is applied. The atonement is applied to us by God alone. God applies it only to believers. So in fact our salvation is only through the blood of Jesus and having that personally applied to us by God. Gene is conflating the provisional and applicational elements of the atonement (as is typically done by calvinists). Yes the aspect of provision is the element that because God loves mankind he provides an atonement for mankind. But the application of that atonement is only for those who believe. If the provision AND application were both universal, then universalism would be true. But the bible clearly presents that the provision of atonement is universal and that the application is particular and that not every one is saved, so universalism if false. But here again the calvinist seeking to argue for limited atonement as calvinistically conceived, argues correctly that the atonement is only applied to believers. But they incorrectly argue that God does not want to save all and that the atonement is not provided for all but is only provided for the elect.

    Now Gene gets really sneaky.

    I had made the following statement:

    Both Justification and the forgiveness of sins that comes through the atonement of Christ come only to those who have faith in the gospel message (with the possible exception of babies, the mentally incompetent and those who have never had the opportunity to hear the gospel message; but I am speaking about able bodied/minded persons who do in fact hear the gospel message, for them they must respond with faith or they will not be justified, not have their sins forgiven, not have the atonement applied to them individually).

    Note I said that justification and forgiveness of sins comes through the atonement of Christ only to those who have a faith response to the gospel message. I then stated some possible exceptions to this principle and I stated it literally in parentheses. The exceptions are babies/those who die before the age of accountability; the mentally incompetent incapable of having a faith response; and those who never hear the gospel message and so never have an opportunity to respond in faith to the gospel. If any of these exceptions are going to be saved it will have to be by having the atonement applied to them by God, but apart from a faith response on their part. I also made it clear that this exception does not apply to able bodied-minded persons.

    Gene intentionally quotes just one line of my statement and it is a line from within the parenthetical statement about the exceptions:
    and those who have never had the opportunity to hear the gospel message.

    Gene then writes:

    ”So, according to Robert, there is another method of justification that does not involve believing in Christ. So much for the missionary enterprise.”

    This is really a cheap shot. Gene presents it as if I believe in multiple methods of justification, one of which does not involve believing in Christ. There is only one method of justification; when God sovereignly decides to justify a particular individual by declaring him/her righteous and forgiving them their sins. The book of Romans makes this absolutely clear that this justification occurs in connection with a faith response by an able bodied-minded person. And Romans makes it clear especially Romans 10 that God uses the preaching of the gospel to get the gospel message out to the able bodied-minded (“how will they hear without a preacher?”). If the exceptions are saved (i.e., babies, mentally incompetent those who have never heard), then they will also be sovereignly declared righteous by God and have their sins forgiven as well, apart from a faith response to the gospel on their part. That is not a different method of justification but different subjects of the one and only way of justification (an action that God alone does).

    Then after selectively quoting to make it look bad Gene adds sarcastically:

    “So much for the missionary enterprise.”

    I believe in missions and personal evangelism and I have been fortunate enough to have been used by the Lord to lead others to Christ. My evangelistic efforts have been done in the real world. What does Gene do? He takes shots at people who are actually in the streets witnessing, twisting their words so that it appears their views entail that we do not need to do missions or take missions seriously. And why is Gene arguing in this way? To defend his calvinism. Cheap shots are acceptable for Gene if the cause is his theological determinism.

    I had said:

    If salvation was through what we do, through our works and not faith, then we would have reason to boast.

    Gene responded: “According to you, God justifies those who believe. We agree, but for you that decision arises from the libertarian agent, not as a result of the application of redemption via the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit. Why does one man believe and not another?”

    I am going to set aside that last question as this is another set up and deserves a post of its own.

    Our faith does originate in us and is in fact developed by the Holy Spirit when He is telling us about Christ, revealing Christ and his work to us, showing us our sinfulness, showing us our need for a savior, showing us that Christ alone is that savior, showing us that we need to turn to Christ, to place our faith in Christ, that we need to humble ourselves and repent of our sin and that we need to ask for forgiveness, etc. etc. But just because we choose to trust in Christ does not mean that this faith is a work or that this faith merits something from God.
    According to the bible the kind of faith that is involved in salvation does not lead to boasting and is not considered by the bible to be a religious work.
    Now if a person responds with that kind of faith to the gospel message, God chooses to save such persons. And when God saves such persons it is God who then regenerates them, declares them righteous, forgives their sin, places them into the body of Christ, adopts them into the family of God, gives them the Holy Spirit, and later glorifies them preparing them for eternity. God does all of these actions which are essential to salvation and are aspects of salvation. We do not do any of these things. We just have faith.

    But the power is not in our faith. Unless Gene holds to some sort of word of faith/positive confession view of faith as held by charismatics that claims the power is in fact in our faith. No, the power is in the object of faith, in God himself who saves, who forgives, who justifies, who glorifies . . .

    I wrote:

    Besides faith and love, God wants His people to be humble and gracious and thankful that He is the one who rescues/saves them, not themselves.

    Now any bible believing and affirming Christian should have no problems with my statement. I state that God saves us, rescues us, we do not save ourselves and that our response to this saving work of God ought to be humility, graciousness and being thankful.
    And yet Gene disagrees and responds with:

    ”In the words of Dr. Ergun Caner, you believe that you were elected because you selected.”

    God elects us in Christ according to Ephesians 1. God elects all of those who are united to Christ. God does so because the real and most important election is the election of Christ by the Father. None of us deserves to be saved or merits salvation and yet if we are in union with Christ, the elect one, we can be saved. Since none of it is deserved and none of it is accomplished by us, it is described as grace. Since it is through faith, it is not merit or religious works earning our standing and relationship with God. God does choose those who trust Him to be His people, but our response of faith to His grace is not something that has merit or earns anything.

    Because salvation involves both elements of rescue and is a relationship, as a relationship it will involve actions by both parties to the relationship. Because determinism is not true, we are neither robots or machines or puppets, we are human persons whom God desires that they freely choose to be in relationship with Him. If you are going to argue that we do absolutely nothing, (do not even make choices to be in relationship with God) not only are you foolishly arguing against the reality of free will, you are making us into something less than human.

    You are also completely out of touch with the nature of faith. Biblical faith is an action of trust with God as its object. And this act of trust is an action that we do, no one does it for us or in our place.

    Gene likes to pigeonhole me as an Arminian so he can use his standard arguments against Arminianism. This is lazy and shows that he really does not want to deal with what I am saying. He would rather create easy straw men to topple down. So I stated:

    Again, I am not Arminian,

    Gene responded:

    ”As we've stated before, we generally use that term here to refer to those who include Libertarian action theory in their soteriology and/or doctrine of Providence. You're an Arminian who affirms eternal security, a position which is inconsistent with holding to LFW, for it introduces an ad hoc restriction into LFW.”

    So really “Arminian” is a catch-all term for anyone who does not hold to theological determinism who holds to “Libertarian action theory” instead: according to Gene.
    How is my position inconsistent Gene? Are you claiming that if one holds to “Libertarian action theory” then one must of necessity deny eternal security? If eternal security is based on a proper understanding of the atonement in which all of our sins were covered, atoned for, forgiven (which it is). Then once we are justified isn’t it true that we can never lose our salvation, never be unjustified, no matter what choices we make after we have been justified? So how is holding to LFW inconsistent with eternal security? Common Gene I really want to see you attempt to argue this one. Show the inconsistency Gene.

    I had said:

    Regarding salvation being dependent upon libertarian free will choices, that is not quite accurate

    Gene responded:

    “Everything you've listed we've covered before. It's as if you've never paid attention. All of these items are contingent on the libertarian choices of the person. So, God only justifies, forgives, etc. those who, from their own autonomy, agree to it.”

    Again, Gene is really off here. I had stated some actions/realities that I thought anyone including Gene, could acknowledge as being actions that God alone does, actions that do not depend upon what we do. Here they are again:
    Regarding salvation being dependent upon libertarian free will choices,that is not quite accurate. Again salvation is about rescue, and who rescues whom when it comes to salvation? Who justifies? God alone does. Who forgives the sins of His people based upon the work of Christ alone? God does. Who gives the Holy Spirit to His people? God does. Who guides and leads His people to do the right thing? God does. Who raises the dead (or transforms the saints who are alive at His second coming)/glorifies His people? God does. So the key events that comprise our rescue, our salvation, are completely done by God alone, which is why the bible describes salvation as being of the Lord, not being according to our works.

    Gene just refuses to take my view seriously. I make careful distinctions between what we do and what God does. And there are some actions that God alone does. These include justifying people. God alone declares a person righteous. These include giving the Holy Spirit to people. These include raising the dead and transforming people’s bodies at the end.

    Gene how exactly do my little ole actions cause or accomplish these things? Gene you make a logical error here: just because these actions occur in connection with a person who has faith, does not mean that their faith is itself the cause of these supernatural actions. Only God does these things.

    In the New Testament stories where a miracle was done when someone had had faith, was it their faith that caused these miracles or was it God sovereignly choosing to do miracles in the lives of people who had faith? What was the real cause of these miracles Gene, was it the people’s faith, or God’s power alone? Gene you better revise your conception of faith and get away from the name it and claim it/word of faith, conception of faith. Biblical faith trusts in God and His word no matter what happens. Though he slay me yet will I trust Him. We trust Him whether things go the way we would like or not. And our faith does not cause God to do the supernatural and miraculous actions that He does.

    Robert

    ReplyDelete
  15. Gene Bridges often likes to ask a certain question. I believe it is a set up question, intended to argue that if someone says that a person is able to have a faith response (which is a libertarian action of free will) to the gospel (without having been regenerated), then the person’s action is argued to be a “work”, an action that merits salvation, and an action that ultimately is what saves that person. Here are some words of Gene’s with the little time bomb at the end:

    “According to you, God justifies those who believe. We agree, but for you that decision arises from the libertarian agent, not as a result of the application of redemption via the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit. Why does one man believe and not another?”

    I have seen calvinists use this argument that if we do ANYTHING at all in the process of salvation (including even the decision/choice to trust in Jesus), then what we do (if it is an action conceived of in a libertarian free will manner) is a religious WORK, an action that MERITS salvation from God, and an action that means we ULTIMATELY save ourselves. All of this confusion is caused by the calvinist like Bridges being so intent upon arguing for his determinism that he ends up making JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH into a work that we do that ultimately saves us.

    The question is also sometimes worded as: why do some believe and others do not?”

    The book of Romans in particular teaches that justification is by faith. In Romans faith is also distinguished from works and the kind of faith that is involved is seen as a faith that excludes boasting. The noncalvinist comes along and says that the gospel is offered to people and those who respond with faith are saved, those who do not are not saved. The noncalvinist also understands that the faith involved is an action done by the person. This faith is not done by God or another person, but is the action by the individual person who has it. Their action is to freely choose to place their confidence in what Jesus did, rather than what they do, in order to be saved. The object of the faith is Jesus and His works. The confidence is not in our own works to save us (or even in our faith to save us) but in what Jesus did. All of this is biblical and really ought to be non-controversial.

    Except that the Calvinist determinist like Gene comes along and as they are so intent upon arguing for their determinism, rather than simply taking God at His Word on the subject of justification by faith. They attempt to argue that this action of faith is a religious work that earns salvation, that this faith is an action that merits, and that this faith action ultimately saves the person (so since they had this faith action and it is this action that ultimately saves the person, the person ultimately saves themselves). Now if we said that the faith the person has is predetermined by God the determinist would be satisfied. But noncalvinists do not believe that the faith that we have involves determinism, rather, the faith is an action that we freely choose to do in response to the gospel message. And here is where it is considered a problem by the determinist: in their thinking, if the action is done by us and involves libertarian freedom, then that action is attacked as a human work that merits salvation.

    We should see some immediate problems with this argument by determinists. First of all, the bible itself distinguishes faith from works. So according to the bible, faith is not considered to be a work that merits salvation. Second, the faith that saves is a confidence not in our own works (including confidence in our own faith or faith in faith) but in the works that JESUS DID. The determinist like Gene wants to argue that if the faith action involves libertarian free will then we will have reason to boast in our action of having faith. But this completely ignores the nature of this faith; it is not confidence in our own actions (including faith) but confidence in the actions of Jesus alone.

    The bible is absolutely clear and explicit that this kind of faith that saves does not lead to boasting or confidence in our own actions to save: “Where then is boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith. For we maintain that a man is justified apart from works of the Law” (Romans 3:27-28).

    Determinists like Gene who want to argue that a libertarian action of faith may lead to boasting intentionally ignore this scripture. If they took this scripture seriously they would not try their little set up argument. If you talk to Christians about how they came to the Lord, whether Calvinist or non-calvinist, they will say that while they developed a trust and confidence in the work of Jesus to save them, they do not boast in their action of faith or believe that their faith is what ultimately saved them. The grounds of their faith is the finished redemptive work of Christ, their faith is only the means of accessing that grace.

    I also have a problem with the claim by calvinists that if the action is a libertarian free will action, then the initial act of faith/decision to trust, is what ultimately saves us. This claim that a single decision ultimately saves an individual is what I would term “decisionism”. “Decisionism” becomes a kind of faith in faith. Perhaps you have met someone who glowingly speaks about the “decision” that they made years ago, when “they got saved by their decision at the church camp.” Even though you can hardly find them at a church service and they disappear from the planet when some physical work needs to be done at the local church facility. And even though they live lives remarkably similar to the nonbelievers around them. They just know that they made that decision years ago so they must be saved. “Decisionism” is a form of faith in faith because rather than placing your confidence in the finished work of Christ and then living a life appropriate to that confession, these folks trust in their decision.

    While “decisionism” exists in some places, this false form of faith is not entailed by noncalvinism. The noncalvinist can be against “decisionism” just as much as the calvinist. I have been a proponent of what MacArthur calls “Lordship salvation” for many years.

    Biblical saving faith is not like a self confident Pharisee trusting in his own works and righteousness (“certain ones who trusted in themselves”, Lk. 18:9), but more like the publican who recognizes his sinfulness and does not make any claims on God (“God be merciful to me, the sinner” Luke 18:9-14). A person who begs God to forgive him to have mercy on him. True believers are all beggars when it comes to being saved by faith. Their confidence is not in themselves or their own works, but solely in Christ and his perfect work.

    To attempt to argue that this faith if it is a libertarian action leads to boasting or is seen as what ultimately saves us is to malign the biblical teaching of justification by faith. But the determinists keep presenting this argument that a faith that involves libertarian free will may lead to boasting and is what ultimately saves a person. What ultimately saves a person is the ground of their salivation the finished work of Jesus. That is why I can say that we are saved through the blood of Jesus alone. Our putting our confidence/faith/trust in Jesus and His actions is not what ultimately saves us. Faith is a conduit but the power and the important actions that saves us are not our own actions but the actions of Jesus.

    Gene asks: “Why does one man believe and not another?”

    The simple answer is that one chooses to trust in the finished work of Jesus and another rejects that work, does not place their confidence in Jesus but retains their confidence in themselves. If we go further and examine the reasons that one had faith and the other did not, we will not find a single set reason for having faith or rejecting Christ. Instead we will find that different people have different reasons. If Gene wants me to share some testimonies of how people came to faith in Jesus I can do so. And it will be seen that while there are some common denominators, their testimonies are not identical and their reasons for having faith vary.

    But I don’t think Gene is interested in the facts of people’s testimonies and their varied circumstances and reasons. No, Gene asks the question as a set up. An attempt to argue that if faith involves libertarian freedom then it gives reason to boast and is a meritorious work and ultimately saves a person. Gene is so intent to argue against libertarian free will that he ends up arguing against the biblical notion that justification is by faith. For him it can only be justification by faith if the action of faith is determined and not a libertarian free will action. This is arbitrary and self-serving: anything to support his beloved determinism. The bible simply states that justification is by faith. It does not require us to only accept a faith that was predetermined.

    The determinist starts with his assumption of exhaustive determinism and unconditional election and then reads this in/eisegetes this into scripture (especially some favored “proof texts” such as Romans 9). Because they are so intent upon reading in their determinism into the bible, they do the same with the human action of faith. For them faith absolutely cannot be a libertarian action, a choice whose source is the person, it has to be a pre-determined action. But this necessity is not derived from scripture but from their system of determinism. As Van Til put it, they have glasses on, and their glasses are of a deterministic hue, so the bible is reinterpreted in line with the glasses they have on/determinism. The system drives their eisegesis of scripture, rather than exegesis of scripture determining the conclusions.

    Robert

    ReplyDelete
  16. Robert, in the future, I think you would save yourself (not to mention everybody who reads what you write) a lot of time if you would reasonably limit your resposes to what's actually been written, and not the possible motives of the person you're responding to. If you think someone holds a certian motive or belief, it wouldn't hurt to simply ask them if they in fact do so, especially if you plan on writing very long posts that are largely based on an assumption that they do.

    ReplyDelete