Victor Reppert entitled a recent post of his “A redated April Fool's Day meditation.”
And now that I think of it, quite a few of his posts qualify for that belated distinction. Case in point:
I'm still sick of the question of Calvinism. But the following occurred to me. (This always happens).
Maybe this is no problem for Calvinism. But it seems to me that if Calvinism is true a number of bibilical promises which one would have thought could be appropriated by believers in a straighforward manner have suppressed election clauses in them. I mean God can't be issuing these promises to people he has reprobated, surely…The point is that these biblical letter-writers presumably issued these promises to church members in general, some of whom left the fold subsequently and died pagans. I would be curious to see what a Calvinist pastoral theology looks like in response to this.
Yes, indeedy! Whatever should we say in response to this? Well, one thing that comes to mind is when the Bible makes a promise to and for believers, then the promise is…I don’t know quite how else to put this…to and for believers.
And a promise to and for believers is not a promise to and for unbelievers. Likewise, a promise to and for believers and not a promise made to apostates. I hope that’s not too subtle or anything.
By the same token, when a man and woman exchange wedding vows, there’s a tacit understanding that neither one will subsequently undergo a sex-change operation.
N.B. I realize that this generous presumption may not apply within the city limits of San Francisco, but permit me to pass on that for now.
This doesn’t mean the Bible has no promises for unbelievers. Take a back-to-back promise for each alternative:
“Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God” (Jn 3:18).