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.
http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2009/09/living-each-day-by-promises-in-gods.html
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).
But of course, we don't know what believers are going to remain believers.
ReplyDeleteTrue. But that's hardly a Reformed distinctive. Lutherans, Anglicans, Arminians, Anabaptists, Pentecostals, &c., all have their share of apostates. So why are you raising this as if it were an objection to Calvinism, per se?
ReplyDelete"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."
ReplyDeleteLawl.
"I would be curious to see what a Calvinist pastoral theology looks like in response to this."
ReplyDeleteI think this is the more interesting statement here.
How does a Calvinist pastor counsel someone who is curious as to whether the promises of Scripture apply to them? Scripture doesn't name names or races or classes of people. Are we simply talking degrees of certainty?
It seems the only reasonable reply is "It seems by your life and deeds and words today that they do apply. However, it is conceivable that in ten or twenty years you could jettison your faith completely, in which case, God's promises evidently did not apply to you. Come back and ask me then. But by then, you probably won't care."
John said:
ReplyDeleteHow does a Calvinist pastor counsel someone who is curious as to whether the promises of Scripture apply to them? Scripture doesn't name names or races or classes of people. Are we simply talking degrees of certainty?
It seems the only reasonable reply is "It seems by your life and deeds and words today that they do apply. However, it is conceivable that in ten or twenty years you could jettison your faith completely, in which case, God's promises evidently did not apply to you. Come back and ask me then. But by then, you probably won't care."
1. What you've said in your first paragraph would apply to any Christian, not only Calvinistic Christians. After all, how does any evangelical pastor counsel someone who is curious as to whether the promises of Scripture apply to them?
2. Your "reasonable reply" is hardly a reasonable reply. Could you honestly imagine a good pastor offering this sort of counsel? Or are you implying something else such as there aren't any good Calvinistic pastors?
3. We could likewise put words into some fictitious Arminian pastor's mouth: "It seems by your life and deeds and words today that they do apply. However, it is conceivable that in ten or twenty years you could jettison your faith completely, in which case, God's promises would no longer apply to you. Just as you've freely chosen to believe in him in the past, you might freely choose to disbelieve in him in the future. There's simply no guarantee you'll always believe in God let alone that you'll go to heaven. There's simply no guarantee God will save you and bring you home safely, because it's ultimately not up to him but up to you to make it through to the end. And you know how fickle we can be. But by then, you probably won't care."
4. For those who genuinely want a "reasonable reply," however, I thought Paul Helm had really good pastoral counsel in his book Beginnings: Word and Spirit in Conversion. (Also, check out Helm's Callings and Last Things as well.) John Frame has solid advice scattered across his many articles and books too (e.g. see his chapter "Sanctification and Assurance" in Salvation Belongs to the Lord). One could also refer to the relevant sections in a good systematic theology. Tom Schreiner et al similarly tackle the topic and surrounding issues in the book The Race Set Before Us. For more sophisticated counsel, check out Helm's Faith with Reason.
"After all, how does any evangelical pastor counsel someone who is curious as to whether the promises of Scripture apply to them?"
ReplyDeleteThe promises of Scripture, to the Arminian, are all-inclusive, so there's no question there. "God wants all to be saved." The work is done, therefore, some power lies in the person's own hands as to whether they want to partake of it. I would think such a premise might be more hopeful. I'm not saying whether this is correct or not, just what might be said.
"Could you honestly imagine a good pastor offering this sort of counsel?"
Well, it might not be sensitive or caring, but it would have to be the truth. I don't see how someone like Piper can guarantee any of his parishioners that God hasn't decided they would later become an apostate. He can't. He can only reassure them to a degree based on the incomplete knowledge he has today.
I don't think most Calvinist pastors will do that, though. I think they would tend to be more on the optimistic side, if you will.
JOHN SAID:
ReplyDelete"The promises of Scripture, to the Arminian, are all-inclusive."
To the Arminian, they're not all-inclusive. Rather, they're promises to believers.
Moreover, their fulfillment or non-fulfillment is contingent on the libertarian freedom of the individual.
Unlike Calvinism, it's not a unilateral promise in which God ensures the outcome.
"I don't see how someone like Piper can guarantee any of his parishioners that God hasn't decided they would later become an apostate. He can't. He can only reassure them to a degree based on the incomplete knowledge he has today."
An Arminian pastor can't guarantee that his parishioner won't later lose his salvation. He can only reassure him to a degree based on the incomplete knowledge he has today.
John said:
ReplyDeleteThe work is done, therefore, some power lies in the person's own hands as to whether they want to partake of it. I would think such a premise might be more hopeful. I'm not saying whether this is correct or not, just what might be said.
1. But isn't hope bound up with truth? If something isn't true or perhaps if it's unknown, then I'd think "hope" is at best an illusory attitude one projects onto the world (all other things equal). So the question of whether it'd be more "hopeful" for a person to be told one thing or another would depend more on the person, wouldn't it? I mean, who knows -- maybe for Andy the Arminian it'd be more "hopeful" to tell him he'll definitely make it to heaven no matter what, don't worry God's got your back, and so on than it would be to tell Andy he'll only make it if he hangs onto his faith until he dies?
2. Why do you think it'd be more hopeful to tell a Christian it's possible to end up disbelieving in God by their own choice vs. telling the same Christian it's possible to end up disbelieving in God if they aren't truly saved in the first place? In the former, salvation ultimately rests in the person's hands. In the latter, it ultimately rests in God's hands. Wouldn't placing something as important as salvation in our hands be less reliable and therefore less hopeful than placing it in God's? I think an Arminian such as yourself could agree the Bible tells us the world is full of dangers and pitfalls; people can be intolerably cruel and evil toward one another; life is full of pain and suffering; the future is full of uncertainty; the devil is a far more intelligent being than we are, yet full of lies and deceptions and doing all he can to lead us astray since he's like a roaring lion seeking to devour someone; and of course our own hearts are desperately wicked and deceitful. And I think you could agree the Bible also tells us God is all-powerful, he knows all things, and he is all-loving and good toward Christians. So wouldn't it be more "hopeful" to tell a Christian whether he eventually makes it home depends not on him but rather on God?
Well, it might not be sensitive or caring, but it would have to be the truth.
1. The words I put into the Arminian pastor's mouth are "truthful" as far as Arminianism is concerned. What I've said is in line with a pastor who subscribes to LFW.
2. Also, you're now framing the pastoral advice in terms of hope. So wouldn't "sensitivity" and "care" be part of what a pastor should consider in order to give "hope" to a Christian?
Yet, why, on the one hand, do you put insensitive and uncaring words into the Calvinist's pastor's mouth and tell us it's the [cold, harsh] truth that ultimately matters, but on the other hand you argue it'd be more "hopeful" to give someone Arminian-based pastoral advice than Calvinistic-based pastor advice? In other words, why is it the [cold, harsh] truth which really matters when it comes to the Calvinist pastor, but it's hope irrespective of truth which really matters when it comes to the Arminian pastor? Why the double standard?
I don't see how someone like Piper can guarantee any of his parishioners that God hasn't decided they would later become an apostate. He can't. He can only reassure them to a degree based on the incomplete knowledge he has today.
Well, we could say the same about an Arminian pastor: "I don't see how someone like Olson [or fill in the blank with your fave Arminian pastor or theologian] can guarantee any of his parishioners that they won't later decide to become an apostate. He can't. He can only reassure them to a degree based on the incomplete knowledge he has today."