There are better commentaries available on Rom 8:15-16 and Gal 4:6 but these might offer a good starting point:
1. Rom 8:15-16: "For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, 'Abba! Father!' The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God."
a. Here's Craig Keener on Rom 8:15-16 from The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament:
"Roman adoption—which could take place at any age—canceled all previous debts and relationships, defining the new son wholly in terms of his new relationship to his father, whose heir he thus became. . . . As a legal act, Roman adoption (cf. 8:15) had to be attested by witnesses; the Spirit is here the attesting witness that God adopts believers in Jesus as his own children."
b. Here's Douglas Moo on Rom 8:14-17 from The New Bible Commentary:
"The Spirit of adoption. As ‘life’ is the ruling idea in vs 1–13, so is sonship in vs 14–17. This brief paragraph, in addition to making its own contribution to the theme of the chapter by recounting the wonderful and comforting truth that Christians have been adopted into God’s own family, provides a transition between vs 1–13 and 18–30. Being a child of God explains both why God’s Spirit confers life on us (13–14) and why it can be said that we are heirs with a glorious prospect for the future (17–18).
"To be led by the Spirit of God (14) means not to be guided by the Spirit in decision-making, but to be under the dominating influence of the Spirit (Gal. 5:18). The clause sums up the various descriptions of life in the Spirit in vs 5–9. Paul can claim that those so led by the Spirit are sons of God and so destined for life (13) because sons of God is a biblical title for the people of God (see, e.g. Dt. 14:1; Is. 43:6; cf. Rom. 9:26). But we must also recognize in the title an allusion to the sonship of Jesus himself (see vs 3 and 29); as v 15 confirms, ‘Abba’ was Jesus’ own address to God (see Mk. 14:36), one that showed especial intimacy. This same address is now one that Christians spontaneously ‘cry out’ in their own approach to God. It is the Spirit, again, who implants in us that sense of intimacy (16) and abolishes, thereby, all bondage (to ‘the law of sin and death’, v 2) and all reason to fear (15a). The Spirit, thus, is the Spirit of sonship. Paul takes the word ‘sonship’ (which could also be translated ‘adoption’—hyiothesia) from the Greco-Roman world, where it denoted the legal institution whereby one could adopt a child and confer on that child all the rights and privileges that would accrue to a natural child. But the conception is rooted in the biblical picture of God as one who graciously chooses a people to be his very own (see 8:23; 9:4; Gal. 4:5; Eph. 1:5)."
2. Here's Gal 4:6: "And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, 'Abba! Father!'"
a. Here's Craig Keener on Gal 4:6 from The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament: "Roman adoptions required a witness of the transaction: the Holy Spirit performs this function here. That the Spirit should testify is natural, because Judaism understood the Spirit especially as the one who inspired the prophets; the Spirit here inspires believers, speaking to them as he did to the prophets, to remind them of their calling as God’s children. 'Abba' is the Aramaic word for 'Papa,' a term of special intimacy rarely if ever used in Judaism to address God directly (see comment on Mk 14:36; Rom 8:15)."
b. Here's Moises Silva on Gal 4:6 from The New Bible Commentary: "At this point the apostle reintroduces the theme of the Spirit, with which he had initially appealed to the Galatians (3:3; cf. also 3:14 and possibly the reference to baptism in 3:27). Only now the significance of the Spirit is tied directly to the doctrine of sonship. Since we have received the Spirit of God’s Son, our hearts are conscious that God is our Father and that we are full heirs. Note carefully the expansion of these ideas in Rom. 8:14–17, 26–27."
Steve,
ReplyDeleteYou keep swinging, but missing the target. The issue is that the Calvinist approach points us to ourselves so we can have subjective assurance. You quoted "For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, 'Abba! Father!' The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God." Well, since the non-elect received did not receive the Spirit, and he can deceive himself, this is not much help. It is not even much help for the elect, as they only may receive subjective assurance. So, if one does not experience subjective assurance one has to wonder whether or not one is elect. So, if one is not sure one is elect--a possibility readily recognized by the various Reformed confessions--one cannot be sure of one's adoption. And to be sure one has to...well, you know.
i) To begin with, you're mixing your metaphors. "Swinging" is a baseball metaphor whereas "targeting" is an archery metaphor (can also be used for guns and darts).
ReplyDeleteii) Second, for someone who keeps accusing me of missing the target, it's ironic that this is the third time you've misattributed a post to me. Methinks you need to practice your own aim.
iii) The fact that the reprobate lack the witness of the Spirit is a red herring, as I've argued repeatedly. But, of course, you're ever incapable of presenting a counterargument. You're just a tape-recorder on replay.
Since the reprobate are hellbound, why should the witness of the Spirit be of any help to them? Even if you deny reprobation, why do you think the hellbound should enjoy the witness of Spirit? If the hellbound every had the witness of the Spirit, then that would be a false witness.
iv) And, par for the course, you illogically lump those who lack assurance with those who have it as though these are interchangeable experiences.
v) I could also draw attention to other deficiencies in your analysis, but I've already done that elsewhere. All you ever do is to push the replay button on your tape-recorder.
You've done a good job of illustrating how Lutheranism and irrationalism go together. Congratulations!
Edward Reiss said:
ReplyDeleteYou keep swinging, but missing the target. The issue is that the Calvinist approach points us to ourselves so we can have subjective assurance. You quoted "For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, 'Abba! Father!' The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God." Well, since the non-elect received did not receive the Spirit, and he can deceive himself, this is not much help. It is not even much help for the elect, as they only may receive subjective assurance. So, if one does not experience subjective assurance one has to wonder whether or not one is elect. So, if one is not sure one is elect--a possibility readily recognized by the various Reformed confessions--one cannot be sure of one's adoption. And to be sure one has to...well, you know.
1. Hi there, Mr. Reiss. I made this post, not Steve. You mistook me for Steve in the "Grounds of assurance" post, the "Luther's assurances" post, and now this post. Again, I'm flattered you think so highly of my posts that you attribute them to Steve. But, alas, they're simply by a nobody like me. In any case, you'll have to blame me for the posts if you disagree with them.
2. However, the fact that you have misattributed them not once, not twice, but thrice does cause one to seriously wonder about other things. Most importantly: whether you try and understand the substance of our posts in order to fairly represent the other side and respond accordingly, or if you're just quickly reading through them so can move onto what you've already predetermined you'll say.
3. You keep caricaturing the Calvinist as only concerned with looking within himself, which you claim is derived from the various Reformed confessions.
a. Which Reformed confessions are you referring to? The WCF? The LBCF? The Belgic Confession? Etc.
b. Also, in the "Grounds of assurance" post, John Frame cites the WCF and points out three grounds for assurance: "the divine truth of the promises of salvation"; "the inward evidence of those graces unto which these promises are made"; and "the testimony of the Spirit to our adoption witnessing with our spirits that we are children of God." At best, you're only concerned with one of these grounds. You've ignored the other two. And in doing so, you've misrepresented the position.
c. But as I've said elsewhere, it's not as if we're beholden to the confessions merely because they're Reformed confessions. There's an exegetical foundation for the confessions, for why we subscribe to them.
4. As such, I was attempting to move the debate onto exegetical grounds i.e. how do Lutherans handle verses like Rom 8:15-16, Gal 4:6, and others?
Edward, it was Patrick Chan who posted the blog, not Steve.
ReplyDeleteyou said...
Well, since the non-elect received did not receive the Spirit, and he can deceive himself, this is not much help.
I'm not sure what you mean here. I think there might be a grammatical typo. Nevertheless, what do you mean by "this is not much help"? What specifically is your concern here? Of course it's not going to help the non-elect. Is it that your real complaint is the doctrine of election? Yes, it is true that both the non-elect and the elect (before their actual regeneration) can deceive themselves into believing they are regenerate.
you said...
So, if one does not experience subjective assurance one has to wonder whether or not one is elect.
And what's wrong with that? 2 Peter 1:10 says, "Therefore, brethren, be all the more diligent to make certain about His calling and choosing you; for as long as you practice these things, you will never stumble;"
Here's a link to an online version of Thomas Brooks work Heaven On Earth
heh, here's the link
ReplyDeletehttp://www.gracegems.org/Brooks/heaven_on_earth.htm