from Steve:
This article reinforces my own reading of the apostasy passages in Hebrews. It's a fundamentally hermeneutical question. The author's terminology should not be filtered through the categories of systematic theology or even Pauline theology. Rather, his terminology alludes to OT usage and the experience of the Exodus-generation.
Tuesday, December 04, 2007
Buyer's remorse
We’ve all heard the hackneyed adage that the grass is always greener on the other side. The little known is frequently more appealing than the well-known. The better we know something or someone, the better we know what’s wrong with it. So there’s a natural tendency to be more critical of what you grew up with.
Any alternative may seem to be an improvement. This is especially the case since there’s often a discrepancy between the public image which the alternative promotes, and the day-to-day operations.
This is why dating has more charm than marriage. In dating, we’re on our best behavior. We’re trying to attract a mate. It’s only after marriage that we wake up to the horrid realization that our spouse squeezes the toothpaste from the middle of the tube, or washes white clothes with colorful clothes, or leaves a pair of dirty socks on the bedroom floor. Instead of the beggar turning out to be a storybook prince or princess under the rags, the prince or princess turns out to be a beggar under the silk and satin.
So you have some folks who never settle down. They lurch from one boyfriend or girlfriend to another, from one husband or wife to another. At first, what’s new is wonderful, because it’s such an unknown quantity. But once the pretty wrappings are off the box and they peer inside, the personal quirks and tics and foibles and blind spots can become grating. Then it’s off to the next prospect.
As a result, many star-struck converts from one theological tradition to another come to experience a pang of buyer’s regret. And yet, having trumpeted their deliverance from all that’s awful in their former tradition to all that’s swell in their adopted tradition, they would lose face if they retraced their steps.
I’m not going to discuss all the criteria for choosing a church or leaving a church. John Frame has written some sage guidelines on the general subject:
http://www.frame-poythress.org/frame_books/Evangelical_Reunion/Chapter15.html
http://www.frame-poythress.org/frame_books/Evangelical_Reunion/Chapter17.html
I merely wish to make just one additional point. There are two extremes we need to avoid.
On the one hand, you have what a pastor I knew used to call steeplechasers. They hopscotch from one church to another and another, in search of the heavenly Jerusalem on earth. At first, every new church they attend is wonderful. And they are zealous to trumpet their newfound discovery too all their benighted friends. But after they settle in, they begin to notice all the deficiencies that escaped their preliminary inspection.
So, like a womanizer or socialite, they dump one church for a new church, ad infinitum—in search of their ecclesiastical soul-mate. They are romantic and idealistic to a fault.
On the other hand, you have the company man. His church is the only true church. His bishop may be a serial ax-killer, but that’s the bishop which God has personally ordained, so there’s nothing to be done except to hire a custodian to discreetly dispose of the dismembered body parts and get that stubborn red stain out of the carpet.
The company man will be the first to admit that there’s no such thing as a perfect church. Indeed, he uses that as an all-purpose excuse to be indifferent and apathetic no better how bad things get. They are cynical and fanatical to a fault.
So where do we draw the line? What’s the mean between the extremes of cynicism and utopianism? Beyond what Frame has said, I’d draw a simple distinction:
Are the failings that you observe in your church or denomination the generic result of human sin? Or are they systemic to the particular belief-system?
Some deficiencies are due to the fact that every church or denomination is comprised of sinners. And their sins are portable. They would bring their sins along with them to whatever church they happen to join. Typhoid Mary.
On the other hand, some deficiencies are either caused or magnified by the doctrinal distinctives of given theological tradition. To take a couple of examples:
In fundamentalism, salvation is reducible to a one-time decision for Christ. This is a recipe for packing the pews with nominal believers.
Or take the Catholic sex-abuse scandal. There’s nothing unique about sodomy. But, in this case, the sin is magnified by the system. By mandatory clerical celibacy. By an authoritarian polity, in which the clergy are not accountable to the laity. And by the general belief that this is the one true church on earth, so there’s nowhere else to go.
Hence, we need to clarify and classify our dissatisfactions. If the failings we observe are the logical outgrowth of faulty doctrine, then we should feel free to leave that church or denomination. The problem is incurable because the problem is symptomatic of a chronic pathology.
You might ask why I merely say we should feel “free” to leave. Aren’t we *obliged* to leave?
And, indeed, there are situations in which we have an obligation to leave. But people come in packages. Families. Friends. Sometimes we stick around for their benefit.
When you’re single and unattached, you have more freedom of mobility. But over time, social commitments may nail your feet to the ground.
Even so, there are occasions when a Christian must reprise the role of Abraham to his family and friends. He must leave Ur of the Chaldees regardless of who will follow his lead.
If, on the other hand, the failings we observe are a generic trait of our fallen condition, then there’s no reason to leave—for we will bump into the same sort of foibles and failings around every corner. Better to tough it out and muddle through the challenges as best we can—like a marriage that’s passing through a dry season.
Any alternative may seem to be an improvement. This is especially the case since there’s often a discrepancy between the public image which the alternative promotes, and the day-to-day operations.
This is why dating has more charm than marriage. In dating, we’re on our best behavior. We’re trying to attract a mate. It’s only after marriage that we wake up to the horrid realization that our spouse squeezes the toothpaste from the middle of the tube, or washes white clothes with colorful clothes, or leaves a pair of dirty socks on the bedroom floor. Instead of the beggar turning out to be a storybook prince or princess under the rags, the prince or princess turns out to be a beggar under the silk and satin.
So you have some folks who never settle down. They lurch from one boyfriend or girlfriend to another, from one husband or wife to another. At first, what’s new is wonderful, because it’s such an unknown quantity. But once the pretty wrappings are off the box and they peer inside, the personal quirks and tics and foibles and blind spots can become grating. Then it’s off to the next prospect.
As a result, many star-struck converts from one theological tradition to another come to experience a pang of buyer’s regret. And yet, having trumpeted their deliverance from all that’s awful in their former tradition to all that’s swell in their adopted tradition, they would lose face if they retraced their steps.
I’m not going to discuss all the criteria for choosing a church or leaving a church. John Frame has written some sage guidelines on the general subject:
http://www.frame-poythress.org/frame_books/Evangelical_Reunion/Chapter15.html
http://www.frame-poythress.org/frame_books/Evangelical_Reunion/Chapter17.html
I merely wish to make just one additional point. There are two extremes we need to avoid.
On the one hand, you have what a pastor I knew used to call steeplechasers. They hopscotch from one church to another and another, in search of the heavenly Jerusalem on earth. At first, every new church they attend is wonderful. And they are zealous to trumpet their newfound discovery too all their benighted friends. But after they settle in, they begin to notice all the deficiencies that escaped their preliminary inspection.
So, like a womanizer or socialite, they dump one church for a new church, ad infinitum—in search of their ecclesiastical soul-mate. They are romantic and idealistic to a fault.
On the other hand, you have the company man. His church is the only true church. His bishop may be a serial ax-killer, but that’s the bishop which God has personally ordained, so there’s nothing to be done except to hire a custodian to discreetly dispose of the dismembered body parts and get that stubborn red stain out of the carpet.
The company man will be the first to admit that there’s no such thing as a perfect church. Indeed, he uses that as an all-purpose excuse to be indifferent and apathetic no better how bad things get. They are cynical and fanatical to a fault.
So where do we draw the line? What’s the mean between the extremes of cynicism and utopianism? Beyond what Frame has said, I’d draw a simple distinction:
Are the failings that you observe in your church or denomination the generic result of human sin? Or are they systemic to the particular belief-system?
Some deficiencies are due to the fact that every church or denomination is comprised of sinners. And their sins are portable. They would bring their sins along with them to whatever church they happen to join. Typhoid Mary.
On the other hand, some deficiencies are either caused or magnified by the doctrinal distinctives of given theological tradition. To take a couple of examples:
In fundamentalism, salvation is reducible to a one-time decision for Christ. This is a recipe for packing the pews with nominal believers.
Or take the Catholic sex-abuse scandal. There’s nothing unique about sodomy. But, in this case, the sin is magnified by the system. By mandatory clerical celibacy. By an authoritarian polity, in which the clergy are not accountable to the laity. And by the general belief that this is the one true church on earth, so there’s nowhere else to go.
Hence, we need to clarify and classify our dissatisfactions. If the failings we observe are the logical outgrowth of faulty doctrine, then we should feel free to leave that church or denomination. The problem is incurable because the problem is symptomatic of a chronic pathology.
You might ask why I merely say we should feel “free” to leave. Aren’t we *obliged* to leave?
And, indeed, there are situations in which we have an obligation to leave. But people come in packages. Families. Friends. Sometimes we stick around for their benefit.
When you’re single and unattached, you have more freedom of mobility. But over time, social commitments may nail your feet to the ground.
Even so, there are occasions when a Christian must reprise the role of Abraham to his family and friends. He must leave Ur of the Chaldees regardless of who will follow his lead.
If, on the other hand, the failings we observe are a generic trait of our fallen condition, then there’s no reason to leave—for we will bump into the same sort of foibles and failings around every corner. Better to tough it out and muddle through the challenges as best we can—like a marriage that’s passing through a dry season.
Monday, December 03, 2007
Reveling in the periscope of Mt 18:1-6
"The most harden and reveling position Jesus takes in this context is over his love and protection of the exclusive truth of the faith of Israel and its God...Although Jesus warns against adults harming any Jewish child’s faith (Matt. 18:1-6), he has (as expressed in the above periscope)..."
http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2007/11/was-jesus-jewish-religious-bigot.html
I don't spend much time browsing DC these days. It's a rehash of a rehash of a rehash. I reviewed Loftus' book a long time ago, and I've also commented on the best arguments of his most capable team-members—before they exited DC.
For a blog that lays claim to the rational superiority of infidelity, it's striking to see the downright illiteracy of its team-members. Harry McCall's post reads like something torn from the pages of Li'l Abner. And that was a spoof. Unfortunately, this is for real. "The most harden and reveling position"..."the above periscope..."
Where, exactly, does Loftus recruit these intellectual giants of infidelity?
http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2007/11/was-jesus-jewish-religious-bigot.html
I don't spend much time browsing DC these days. It's a rehash of a rehash of a rehash. I reviewed Loftus' book a long time ago, and I've also commented on the best arguments of his most capable team-members—before they exited DC.
For a blog that lays claim to the rational superiority of infidelity, it's striking to see the downright illiteracy of its team-members. Harry McCall's post reads like something torn from the pages of Li'l Abner. And that was a spoof. Unfortunately, this is for real. "The most harden and reveling position"..."the above periscope..."
Where, exactly, does Loftus recruit these intellectual giants of infidelity?
Is there sex in heaven?
Christian theologians and Bible scholars generally answer this question in the negative. And they do so because of Mt 22:23-33 and its synoptic parallels (Mk 12:18-27; Lk 20:27-40). Here’s a representative statement:
But it seems to me that the standard interpretation doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. The cultural mandate (Gen 1:28) supplies the original rationale for marriage. This is a prelapsarian ordinance. It doesn’t presuppose human mortality.
Marriage, per se, is not a stopgap for human morality. It’s not as if Adam and Eve would have remained childless had they never sinned. It would be pointless for God to create a male and female pair in the first place if, in an unfallen world, there were to be no children. In that event, it would make more sense for God to create an immoral, sexless species.
Human mortality no doubt makes procreation necessary for the perpetuation of the human race. But in the Biblical theology of marriage, mortality is not a prerequisite of the matrimony. Rather, Adam and Eve, along with their posterity, were to procreate because that was a means of exercising dominion over the earth.
What this interpretation loses sight of is the fact that Jesus and the Sadducees aren’t discussing marriage in general, but levirate marriage in particular. Now levirate marriage, in distinction to marriage in general, does assume a postlapsarian state of affairs. If a husband dies without leaving a male heir to provide for his widow and maintain the lines of inheritance, levirate marriage takes up the slack.
Remember, too, that this was a tribal culture in which the land was held in common by one’s respective clan. To pass out of the clan was to pass out of one’s hereditary livelihood.
So when Jesus speaks of the abolition of marriage in the final state, this presumably refers back to levirate marriage, or the functional equivalent thereof. That’s how the question was framed. So, absent some indication to the contrary, that’s how the answer is framed. He is answering the Sadducees on their own terms.
Another problem with France’s statement is that it fails to distinguish between the intermediate state and the final state. If we equate “heaven” with the intermediate state, then that is a discarnate state. In that situation, procreation is physically impossible since there is no body. (In principle, a disembodied soul could still entertain the equivalent of an erotic dream.)
But the final state of man is a reembodied state, due to the general resurrection. And Jesus himself, at the time he spoke, would soon be the archetype and prototype of glorification.
We don’t have much experience with the glorified body, but we have a paradigm-case in Jesus. In reference to his humanity, he was anatomically a male human being (e.g. Lk 2:21-23). He was put to death as a man, and he was raised to life as a man. His digestive system was intact (Lk 24:41-43). And he bore the scars of his Passion (Jn 20:27).
This indicates a high degree of physical continuity between his mortal body and his immortal body. The presumption is that he retained his primary and secondary sexual characteristics. And I assume he had the hormones to go with the plumbing. So what is true for him presumably holds true for glorified men and women.
Because we have so little revelation about the details of the afterlife, there are many more questions than answers. However, we need to give the right answers to those questions we can answer. And that queues us up to ask the right follow-up questions, whether or not we can answer them here and now.
“Procreation belongs to earthly not to heavenly life where there is no birth, growth, or death. Marriage, as the institution within which earthly procreation is set, is therefore out of place…People in heaven will be like the angels, who do not marry or procreate because they are eternal” (R. T. France).
But it seems to me that the standard interpretation doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. The cultural mandate (Gen 1:28) supplies the original rationale for marriage. This is a prelapsarian ordinance. It doesn’t presuppose human mortality.
Marriage, per se, is not a stopgap for human morality. It’s not as if Adam and Eve would have remained childless had they never sinned. It would be pointless for God to create a male and female pair in the first place if, in an unfallen world, there were to be no children. In that event, it would make more sense for God to create an immoral, sexless species.
Human mortality no doubt makes procreation necessary for the perpetuation of the human race. But in the Biblical theology of marriage, mortality is not a prerequisite of the matrimony. Rather, Adam and Eve, along with their posterity, were to procreate because that was a means of exercising dominion over the earth.
What this interpretation loses sight of is the fact that Jesus and the Sadducees aren’t discussing marriage in general, but levirate marriage in particular. Now levirate marriage, in distinction to marriage in general, does assume a postlapsarian state of affairs. If a husband dies without leaving a male heir to provide for his widow and maintain the lines of inheritance, levirate marriage takes up the slack.
Remember, too, that this was a tribal culture in which the land was held in common by one’s respective clan. To pass out of the clan was to pass out of one’s hereditary livelihood.
So when Jesus speaks of the abolition of marriage in the final state, this presumably refers back to levirate marriage, or the functional equivalent thereof. That’s how the question was framed. So, absent some indication to the contrary, that’s how the answer is framed. He is answering the Sadducees on their own terms.
Another problem with France’s statement is that it fails to distinguish between the intermediate state and the final state. If we equate “heaven” with the intermediate state, then that is a discarnate state. In that situation, procreation is physically impossible since there is no body. (In principle, a disembodied soul could still entertain the equivalent of an erotic dream.)
But the final state of man is a reembodied state, due to the general resurrection. And Jesus himself, at the time he spoke, would soon be the archetype and prototype of glorification.
We don’t have much experience with the glorified body, but we have a paradigm-case in Jesus. In reference to his humanity, he was anatomically a male human being (e.g. Lk 2:21-23). He was put to death as a man, and he was raised to life as a man. His digestive system was intact (Lk 24:41-43). And he bore the scars of his Passion (Jn 20:27).
This indicates a high degree of physical continuity between his mortal body and his immortal body. The presumption is that he retained his primary and secondary sexual characteristics. And I assume he had the hormones to go with the plumbing. So what is true for him presumably holds true for glorified men and women.
Because we have so little revelation about the details of the afterlife, there are many more questions than answers. However, we need to give the right answers to those questions we can answer. And that queues us up to ask the right follow-up questions, whether or not we can answer them here and now.
Sunday, December 02, 2007
Building Bridges
Aside from participating in the occasional combox here and there for the next month, I'm taking the holidays off. That said, before I go I'd like to offer a few parting words on the Building Bridges Conference.
1. First, I love the name, but then I'm kinda biased.
2. From all reports, this was a profitable time. the Founders blog, Timmy Brister's blog, Tim Rogers, Les Puryear's, and others are discussing it. A list can be found @ Founders.
3. I was unable to attend due to some prior commitments. I was asked to sit with my 88 year old Grandma, and, honestly, I don't see her enough and, well, let's be honest, we all know there is less time ahead than what is behind, so I chose family over theology. That and, frankly, I've spend thousands of dollars this year on some unforeseen necessities (like a car motor), so I'm a wee bit strapped for cash. Every little bit helps. I really hated not being able to attend. I'd love to see Brother Tom again, meet Greg Welty, John Mark, and many others.
4. Just a word about the presentations.
Sam Waldron has said:
I've registered my critique of Dr. Keathley's presentation @ Tim Rogers blog and registered my dismay at the adversarial sound of Dr. Yarnell's over at Timmy Brister's blog. I'll not reproduce either one here for sake of brevity. Perhaps Steve or (as I've contacted him too) Turretinfan in particular would like to critique Dr. Keathley on Molinism, particularly since there is simply very little about it (one way or the other) on the web, so it can't hurt to register one more critique. For those who want to find those critiques from me look at the two blogs where I registered them. The topics are easy to find.
I'd like to point out this statement from Dr. Yarnell's presentation which appears not once, but four times on pages 11, 12, 14, and 16:
By way of reply to Dr. Yarnell. Brother, if what you said is just true, then I hope your words are just as strong when it comes to Dr. Keathley's presentation. You see, if what you just said is true, then you have thereby undermined Dr. Keathley's article which will appear alongside your own. The audience must have felt, and indeed I hope feel, mighty conflicted. In fact, as I understand this from Tom Ascol and Nathan Finn, your papers will be included in part of a book. I suppose this is the sort of thing that goes with the territory in a group work, but if what is in your paper makes it to press, then the readers will be mighty confused. This is why, I might add, that I'm an advocate of good editors. I truly want you all to put your best feet forward, and, well, it's just a bad idea to contradict each other in the same volume.
You see, Dr. Yarnell, here's what Dr. William Lane Craig, who is, I'm sure you know, the leading advocate of this position among us Protestants, has stated:
1. Molinism is not explicitly taught in any biblical text (Divine Foreknowledge, 4 Views, p. 143).
2. "Since Scripture does not reflect upon this question, no amount of proof-texting can prove that God’s counterfactual knowledge is possessed logically prior to his creative decree. This is a matter for theological-philosophical reflection, not biblical exegesis. Thus, while it is clearly unbiblical to deny that God has simple foreknowledge and even counterfactual knowledge, those who deny middle knowledge cannot be accused of being unbiblical. " (Ibid., p. 125).
3. So, can we conclude, Dr. Yarnell, that this theory, one put forth by another representative of the non-Calvinist position in the SBC is "speculative?" Surely it must be, if it is a matter for theological-philosophical reflection" and not biblical exegesis. If so, then what you stated about Calvinist ideas here must equally stand against those of Dr. Keathley on this issue.
4. I'm also curious about libertarian action theory's basis in Scripture. Isn't this also permanently speculative? I mean, Walls and Dongell wrote:
(1) “The essence of this view is that a free action is one that does not have a sufficient condition or cause prior to its occurrence…the common experience of deliberation assumes that our choices are undetermined.”
(2) “…It seems intuitively and immediately evident that many of our actions are up to us in the sense that when faced with a decision, both (or more) options are within our power to choose…Libertarians argue that our immediate sense of power to choose between alternative courses of action is more certain and trustworthy than any theory that denies we have power.
(3) “Libertarians take very seriously the widespread judgment that we are morally responsible for our actions and that moral responsibility requires freedom” That is, a person cannot be held morally responsible for an act unless he or she was free to perform that act and free to refrain from it. This is basic moral intuition.”
(4) "“…Arminians rely on contested philosophical judgments at this point.”
All of this is in their book, Why I'm Not A Calvinist. Surely, Brother, you know that LFW is a philosophical argument, not an exegetical one. Surely you know it is employed as part of ethical objections to Augustinianism/Calvinism. Is it or is it not "permanently speculative," and if that's the case, shouldn't you abandon it? That is to ask, shouldn't you do so if you are to follow your own yardstick?
I fear we are back to the statements made earlier this year from, I believe, Dr. Morris Chapman that discussion of these doctrines should stay out of the churches. I hear echoes in that sentiment of Erasmus who told Luther the discussions over the issues arising from justification by grace alone through faith alone were "not for common ears." According to Mike Horton (Putting Amazing Back Into Grace, p. 59), Luther replied, "If it is irrelevant,if it is inquisitive, if it is unnecessary, as you say...what then, I ask you, is there that is reverent or serious, or useful to know?" (Luther, Bondage of the Will, 113).
_____________
I'd also like to wish everyone, including our opponents here, a Merry Christmas.
1. First, I love the name, but then I'm kinda biased.
2. From all reports, this was a profitable time. the Founders blog, Timmy Brister's blog, Tim Rogers, Les Puryear's, and others are discussing it. A list can be found @ Founders.
3. I was unable to attend due to some prior commitments. I was asked to sit with my 88 year old Grandma, and, honestly, I don't see her enough and, well, let's be honest, we all know there is less time ahead than what is behind, so I chose family over theology. That and, frankly, I've spend thousands of dollars this year on some unforeseen necessities (like a car motor), so I'm a wee bit strapped for cash. Every little bit helps. I really hated not being able to attend. I'd love to see Brother Tom again, meet Greg Welty, John Mark, and many others.
4. Just a word about the presentations.
Sam Waldron has said:
One of the interesting things that was exposed at this conference was the misconception that the non-Calvinists had that Calvinists were not “exegetical.” We were forced to listen several times to warnings based on the old line that Calvinists deduce everything from election and God’s decrees. Any objective listener, however, would have been forced to recognize, I think, that in their actual presentations it was the Calvinists who were exegetical and the non-Calvinists that were theoretical.
This was most clear from the contrast between the four presentations on particular redemption and unconditional election. This was obvious if one contrasted Dr. Keathley’s presentation of Molinism with Dr. Welty’s defense of unconditional election. Dr. Keathley mentioned, but did not turn to, only two passages of Scripture. In contrast Dr. Welty gave an extended examination of several passages of Scriptures.
I have to agree. I'd like to single out two for the readers here. The one by Dr. Yarnell and the other by Dr. Keathley.
I've registered my critique of Dr. Keathley's presentation @ Tim Rogers blog and registered my dismay at the adversarial sound of Dr. Yarnell's over at Timmy Brister's blog. I'll not reproduce either one here for sake of brevity. Perhaps Steve or (as I've contacted him too) Turretinfan in particular would like to critique Dr. Keathley on Molinism, particularly since there is simply very little about it (one way or the other) on the web, so it can't hurt to register one more critique. For those who want to find those critiques from me look at the two blogs where I registered them. The topics are easy to find.
I'd like to point out this statement from Dr. Yarnell's presentation which appears not once, but four times on pages 11, 12, 14, and 16:
Non-Calvinist Baptists would call our Baptist Calvinist brethren to reject clearly and permanently speculative doctrines, extra-biblical distinctions and theological methodologies insofar as they detract from the revelation of the Word of God illumined by the Holy Spirit to the gathered churches.
By way of reply to Dr. Yarnell. Brother, if what you said is just true, then I hope your words are just as strong when it comes to Dr. Keathley's presentation. You see, if what you just said is true, then you have thereby undermined Dr. Keathley's article which will appear alongside your own. The audience must have felt, and indeed I hope feel, mighty conflicted. In fact, as I understand this from Tom Ascol and Nathan Finn, your papers will be included in part of a book. I suppose this is the sort of thing that goes with the territory in a group work, but if what is in your paper makes it to press, then the readers will be mighty confused. This is why, I might add, that I'm an advocate of good editors. I truly want you all to put your best feet forward, and, well, it's just a bad idea to contradict each other in the same volume.
You see, Dr. Yarnell, here's what Dr. William Lane Craig, who is, I'm sure you know, the leading advocate of this position among us Protestants, has stated:
1. Molinism is not explicitly taught in any biblical text (Divine Foreknowledge, 4 Views, p. 143).
2. "Since Scripture does not reflect upon this question, no amount of proof-texting can prove that God’s counterfactual knowledge is possessed logically prior to his creative decree. This is a matter for theological-philosophical reflection, not biblical exegesis. Thus, while it is clearly unbiblical to deny that God has simple foreknowledge and even counterfactual knowledge, those who deny middle knowledge cannot be accused of being unbiblical. " (Ibid., p. 125).
3. So, can we conclude, Dr. Yarnell, that this theory, one put forth by another representative of the non-Calvinist position in the SBC is "speculative?" Surely it must be, if it is a matter for theological-philosophical reflection" and not biblical exegesis. If so, then what you stated about Calvinist ideas here must equally stand against those of Dr. Keathley on this issue.
4. I'm also curious about libertarian action theory's basis in Scripture. Isn't this also permanently speculative? I mean, Walls and Dongell wrote:
(1) “The essence of this view is that a free action is one that does not have a sufficient condition or cause prior to its occurrence…the common experience of deliberation assumes that our choices are undetermined.”
(2) “…It seems intuitively and immediately evident that many of our actions are up to us in the sense that when faced with a decision, both (or more) options are within our power to choose…Libertarians argue that our immediate sense of power to choose between alternative courses of action is more certain and trustworthy than any theory that denies we have power.
(3) “Libertarians take very seriously the widespread judgment that we are morally responsible for our actions and that moral responsibility requires freedom” That is, a person cannot be held morally responsible for an act unless he or she was free to perform that act and free to refrain from it. This is basic moral intuition.”
(4) "“…Arminians rely on contested philosophical judgments at this point.”
All of this is in their book, Why I'm Not A Calvinist. Surely, Brother, you know that LFW is a philosophical argument, not an exegetical one. Surely you know it is employed as part of ethical objections to Augustinianism/Calvinism. Is it or is it not "permanently speculative," and if that's the case, shouldn't you abandon it? That is to ask, shouldn't you do so if you are to follow your own yardstick?
I fear we are back to the statements made earlier this year from, I believe, Dr. Morris Chapman that discussion of these doctrines should stay out of the churches. I hear echoes in that sentiment of Erasmus who told Luther the discussions over the issues arising from justification by grace alone through faith alone were "not for common ears." According to Mike Horton (Putting Amazing Back Into Grace, p. 59), Luther replied, "If it is irrelevant,if it is inquisitive, if it is unnecessary, as you say...what then, I ask you, is there that is reverent or serious, or useful to know?" (Luther, Bondage of the Will, 113).
_____________
I'd also like to wish everyone, including our opponents here, a Merry Christmas.
The blasphemous teddy bear
By now the whole world has heard about the blasphemous teddy bear. Because some Mohammadan schoolchildren wanted to name their mascot after Muhammad, the schoolmarm is facing punishment for defaming “the Prophet.”
Mohammedans suffer from a chronic PR problem. A few years ago, the cause celèbre was a beauty pageant. When a participant suggested that Muhammad would approve, since he had an eye for women, murder and mayhem ensued. And this is despite the fact that, according to Islamic history, Muhammad was, indeed, a womanizer.
What’s ironic about all this is that Mohammedans accuse Christians of idolatry because we worship Jesus. Of course, we have a good reason to worship Jesus—he is God Incarnate.
But, in the meantime, Mohammedans idolize Muhammad. Indeed, they resent being called Mohammedans, but that’s exactly how they act.
The reason for this is that Allah is so remote that they can’t relate to him. Technically, Allah is a personal agent. But because he’s so inscrutable and unapproachable, he’s indistinguishable from fate or a force of nature. Allah is like a natural disaster: indifferent, deadly, and unpredictable. Where will he strike next?
So, as a practical matter, Allah fades into an ultimately impersonal absolute. And no one can relate to an impersonal absolute. So, by default, Mohammedans identify with Muhammad. He becomes their personal absolute.
Indeed, Muhammad is a surrogate Christ. They deny the Incarnation, and yet they act as if Muhammad is Allah Incarnate. His person is sacrosanct. His every deed is worthy of emulation. In a sense, Mohammedans are crypto-Christians without the benefit of saving faith.
Even apart from the Incarnation, Yahweh is far more approachable than Allah. The Incarnation doesn’t make an otherwise unapproachable God approachable. Yahweh is predictable. He’s a covenant-keeping God. A God who makes promises, and keeps his promises. A God who foreordains and then foretells his own actions. This is before we even arrive at the manger.
Mohammedans suffer from a chronic PR problem. A few years ago, the cause celèbre was a beauty pageant. When a participant suggested that Muhammad would approve, since he had an eye for women, murder and mayhem ensued. And this is despite the fact that, according to Islamic history, Muhammad was, indeed, a womanizer.
What’s ironic about all this is that Mohammedans accuse Christians of idolatry because we worship Jesus. Of course, we have a good reason to worship Jesus—he is God Incarnate.
But, in the meantime, Mohammedans idolize Muhammad. Indeed, they resent being called Mohammedans, but that’s exactly how they act.
The reason for this is that Allah is so remote that they can’t relate to him. Technically, Allah is a personal agent. But because he’s so inscrutable and unapproachable, he’s indistinguishable from fate or a force of nature. Allah is like a natural disaster: indifferent, deadly, and unpredictable. Where will he strike next?
So, as a practical matter, Allah fades into an ultimately impersonal absolute. And no one can relate to an impersonal absolute. So, by default, Mohammedans identify with Muhammad. He becomes their personal absolute.
Indeed, Muhammad is a surrogate Christ. They deny the Incarnation, and yet they act as if Muhammad is Allah Incarnate. His person is sacrosanct. His every deed is worthy of emulation. In a sense, Mohammedans are crypto-Christians without the benefit of saving faith.
Even apart from the Incarnation, Yahweh is far more approachable than Allah. The Incarnation doesn’t make an otherwise unapproachable God approachable. Yahweh is predictable. He’s a covenant-keeping God. A God who makes promises, and keeps his promises. A God who foreordains and then foretells his own actions. This is before we even arrive at the manger.
How To Get Ambushed
Thibodaux replied to my post which answered his challenge, I'll get around to responding, but it's only a mopping up job now. Anyway, I had made another post critiquing one of Thibodaux's claims. He wrote:
Thibodaux: "Though our viewpoints do often overlap, I prefer not to associate my doctrinal beliefs with the name of a mortal man." (Emphasis mine)
I replied,
Apostle Paul: "For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures," (Emphasis mine)
So much the worse for any of Thibodaux's "doctrines."
In his latest response he makes mention of this post of mine and responds,
Now let's recall why he made the initial claim. He was responding to someone asking if he was an Arminian. He said that he doesn't want to associate his beliefs with those of mortal men. I then pointed out that Jesus died, receiving mortal wounds. His comeback is to point out that the resurrected Jesus is "alive for evermore." Well, assuming that Thibodaux doesn't believe Arminianism is damnable heresy, then he probably believes that Jacob Arminius is in heaven right now. he will "live for evermore." He has everlasting life and will never die. If that's the case, then what's the problem with "associating" your beliefs with Arminius? Thibodaux used the "mortal man" comment as a reason he won't do so. But that was negated with Jesus' death. To escape my response by saying that Jesus is "alive for evermore" just lets Arminius right back into the equation and shows Thibodaux didn't think through the moves far enough in advance. We'll see a more potent display of his failure to catch set ups when I respond to his latest response to me.
Thibodaux: "Though our viewpoints do often overlap, I prefer not to associate my doctrinal beliefs with the name of a mortal man." (Emphasis mine)
I replied,
Apostle Paul: "For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures," (Emphasis mine)
So much the worse for any of Thibodaux's "doctrines."
In his latest response he makes mention of this post of mine and responds,
"Mr. Manata further reveals the fact that he is just a bit bitter and not apt to debate fairly by posting what ranks as one of the lamest cheap-shots in blogging history about how my theology is not 'associated with the teachings of Jesus', because, "I prefer not to associate my doctrinal beliefs with the name of a mortal man." He cites that, Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures; but apparently has not been very diligent in his Bible study, else he would have gotten as far as the part where Christ Himself says, I am He that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death. (Revelation 1:18)"
Now let's recall why he made the initial claim. He was responding to someone asking if he was an Arminian. He said that he doesn't want to associate his beliefs with those of mortal men. I then pointed out that Jesus died, receiving mortal wounds. His comeback is to point out that the resurrected Jesus is "alive for evermore." Well, assuming that Thibodaux doesn't believe Arminianism is damnable heresy, then he probably believes that Jacob Arminius is in heaven right now. he will "live for evermore." He has everlasting life and will never die. If that's the case, then what's the problem with "associating" your beliefs with Arminius? Thibodaux used the "mortal man" comment as a reason he won't do so. But that was negated with Jesus' death. To escape my response by saying that Jesus is "alive for evermore" just lets Arminius right back into the equation and shows Thibodaux didn't think through the moves far enough in advance. We'll see a more potent display of his failure to catch set ups when I respond to his latest response to me.
Friday, November 30, 2007
New Age atheism
New Agers tend to go by deep intuitive convictions, and if I sound like I'm being overly left-brained or something, many will stop listening immediately. I can't steer anyone away from mystical and paranormal beliefs, but I still have the vain hope that I can discourage them from abusing physics when making their case.
I had a particularly bad encounter of this sort last week...At some point in the conversation, I had to remark that reality perhaps didn't give a damn about how we felt about things, and that an anthropomorphic imagination was more of a hindrance in understanding how physics works. The response I received was something like "oh, wow!" As if it was such a strange and novel notion that the universe didn't care about our feelings. I hope the grinding of my teeth wasn't too audible.
http://secularoutpost.blogspot.com/2007/11/quantum-magic.html
The ironic thing about this statement is that Edis is unwittingly describing the very same attitude we find among militant atheists like Hitchens, Dawkins, and Harris. They have intuitive moral convictions about what the world is supposed to be like. They inveigh against the God of the Bible because he doesn't defer to their preconception of reality. It never occurs to them that how they feel about things is irrelevant to the way things are. The reality of God doesn't submit to their anthropomorphic projections.
The only point at which I'd part company with Edis is that reality does, indeed, give a damn. Reality quite literally gives a damn about what folks like Hitchens and Dawkins think and say and do—as Bertrand Russell discovered the moment he passed into the great beyond. The "grinding of teeth" is a very apt metaphor (Mt 25:30).
I had a particularly bad encounter of this sort last week...At some point in the conversation, I had to remark that reality perhaps didn't give a damn about how we felt about things, and that an anthropomorphic imagination was more of a hindrance in understanding how physics works. The response I received was something like "oh, wow!" As if it was such a strange and novel notion that the universe didn't care about our feelings. I hope the grinding of my teeth wasn't too audible.
http://secularoutpost.blogspot.com/2007/11/quantum-magic.html
The ironic thing about this statement is that Edis is unwittingly describing the very same attitude we find among militant atheists like Hitchens, Dawkins, and Harris. They have intuitive moral convictions about what the world is supposed to be like. They inveigh against the God of the Bible because he doesn't defer to their preconception of reality. It never occurs to them that how they feel about things is irrelevant to the way things are. The reality of God doesn't submit to their anthropomorphic projections.
The only point at which I'd part company with Edis is that reality does, indeed, give a damn. Reality quite literally gives a damn about what folks like Hitchens and Dawkins think and say and do—as Bertrand Russell discovered the moment he passed into the great beyond. The "grinding of teeth" is a very apt metaphor (Mt 25:30).
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:
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
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
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Cultic holiness
2 Samuel 6:6-7
6 When they came to the threshing floor of Nacon, Uzzah reached out and took hold of the ark of God, because the oxen stumbled. 7 The Lord’s anger burned against Uzzah because of his irreverent act; therefore God struck him down and he died there beside the ark of God.
1 Chronicles 13:9-10
9 When they came to the threshing floor of Kidon, Uzzah reached out his hand to steady the ark, because the oxen stumbled. 10 The Lord’s anger burned against Uzzah, and he struck him down because he had put his hand on the ark. So he died there before God.
******************
This is a passage that commentators tend to stumble over. On the face of it, the punishment seems excessive. If anything, Uzzah meant well. How do we explain it?
In this passage we’re dealing with the ceremonial law. And, to a great extent, the ceremonial law is concerned with sacred time and sacred space, ritual purity and impurity.
There was an elaborate ritual for transporting the ark. The ark was a ritually holy object, and only a ritually holy person could touch a ritually holy object (Num 4:1-15).
An infraction of the moral law often involves degrees of guilt. There can be aggravating, attenuating, or even exculpatory circumstances.
By contrast, cultic holiness or ritual purity merely signifies actual holiness or actual purity, just as cultic desecration or ritual impurity merely signifies actual unholiness or actual impurity.
You can see this in the very notion of holiness as a property of inanimate objects. For inanimate objects have no innate moral properties. Only personal agents have innate moral properties.
So the ceremonial law is a means to an end (a sign of the moral law) rather than an end in itself—unlike the moral law, which is an end in itself.
The somewhat ironic result is that penalties for infractions of the ceremonial law are, in principle, quite inflexible—whereas penalties for infractions of the moral law are potentially flexible—up to a certain point. That’s why many OT crimes could be commuted.
There’s no gray area in the ceremonial law, for the symbolism is conventional and, in that sense, arbitrary from start to finish. Either something is assigned cultic holiness or it isn’t.
In that event, nothing can mitigate a ritual infraction, since that forensic category, unlike the moral law, isn’t concerned with motives or circumstances. The legal symbolism is everything.
In that respect, Uzzah didn’t necessarily do anything wrong—morally speaking. Of course, to knowingly violate the ceremonial law would be sinful.
But it really doesn’t matter, because that’s not the point of the ceremonial law. The ark was an emblem of divine holiness, so Uzzah’s action was emblematic of sacrilege. And it was punished accordingly.
In practice, God didn’t have to punish a ritual offender. Since, by the same token, we’re dealing with a ritual offense rather than a moral offense, justice doesn’t demand punitive action. David taking the Showbread is a case in point. But to routinely remit or commute ritual infractions would destroy the value of the symbolism.
So was the punishment fair? Two things to keep in mind:
i) Capital punishment isn’t synonymous with damnation.
ii) The simple fact that we’re sinners leaves us liable to divine punishment. Our life is forfeit. We live under sentence of death. We’re living on borrowed time. It’s only the atonement of Christ that stays our execution, transfers us from death row, and issues a plenary pardon. Otherwise, capital punishment would, indeed, be synonymous with damnation.
6 When they came to the threshing floor of Nacon, Uzzah reached out and took hold of the ark of God, because the oxen stumbled. 7 The Lord’s anger burned against Uzzah because of his irreverent act; therefore God struck him down and he died there beside the ark of God.
1 Chronicles 13:9-10
9 When they came to the threshing floor of Kidon, Uzzah reached out his hand to steady the ark, because the oxen stumbled. 10 The Lord’s anger burned against Uzzah, and he struck him down because he had put his hand on the ark. So he died there before God.
******************
This is a passage that commentators tend to stumble over. On the face of it, the punishment seems excessive. If anything, Uzzah meant well. How do we explain it?
In this passage we’re dealing with the ceremonial law. And, to a great extent, the ceremonial law is concerned with sacred time and sacred space, ritual purity and impurity.
There was an elaborate ritual for transporting the ark. The ark was a ritually holy object, and only a ritually holy person could touch a ritually holy object (Num 4:1-15).
An infraction of the moral law often involves degrees of guilt. There can be aggravating, attenuating, or even exculpatory circumstances.
By contrast, cultic holiness or ritual purity merely signifies actual holiness or actual purity, just as cultic desecration or ritual impurity merely signifies actual unholiness or actual impurity.
You can see this in the very notion of holiness as a property of inanimate objects. For inanimate objects have no innate moral properties. Only personal agents have innate moral properties.
So the ceremonial law is a means to an end (a sign of the moral law) rather than an end in itself—unlike the moral law, which is an end in itself.
The somewhat ironic result is that penalties for infractions of the ceremonial law are, in principle, quite inflexible—whereas penalties for infractions of the moral law are potentially flexible—up to a certain point. That’s why many OT crimes could be commuted.
There’s no gray area in the ceremonial law, for the symbolism is conventional and, in that sense, arbitrary from start to finish. Either something is assigned cultic holiness or it isn’t.
In that event, nothing can mitigate a ritual infraction, since that forensic category, unlike the moral law, isn’t concerned with motives or circumstances. The legal symbolism is everything.
In that respect, Uzzah didn’t necessarily do anything wrong—morally speaking. Of course, to knowingly violate the ceremonial law would be sinful.
But it really doesn’t matter, because that’s not the point of the ceremonial law. The ark was an emblem of divine holiness, so Uzzah’s action was emblematic of sacrilege. And it was punished accordingly.
In practice, God didn’t have to punish a ritual offender. Since, by the same token, we’re dealing with a ritual offense rather than a moral offense, justice doesn’t demand punitive action. David taking the Showbread is a case in point. But to routinely remit or commute ritual infractions would destroy the value of the symbolism.
So was the punishment fair? Two things to keep in mind:
i) Capital punishment isn’t synonymous with damnation.
ii) The simple fact that we’re sinners leaves us liable to divine punishment. Our life is forfeit. We live under sentence of death. We’re living on borrowed time. It’s only the atonement of Christ that stays our execution, transfers us from death row, and issues a plenary pardon. Otherwise, capital punishment would, indeed, be synonymous with damnation.
Extra! Extra! Read All About It: J.C. Thibodaux Admits His Doctrines Aren't Associated With The Teachings of Jesus
Thibodaux: "Though our viewpoints do often overlap, I prefer not to associate my doctrinal beliefs with the name of a mortal man." (Emphasis mine)
Apostle Paul: "For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures," (Emphasis mine)
So much the worse for any of Thibodaux's "doctrines."
Apostle Paul: "For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures," (Emphasis mine)
So much the worse for any of Thibodaux's "doctrines."
A new heart
In answer to an email question:
“How do you understand Ezekiel 18:31, in relation to monergism and synergism. I thought that the ‘God gives the new heart’ aspect of biblical teaching clearly entailed monergism, but I have no idea what to do with this verse.”
Commands serve different purposes in Scripture. One is to reveal our duties, another is to expose our needs. Indeed, the two can be interrelated.
One way of exposing my spiritual need is to confront me with a moral obligation which I, as a sinner, am unable to discharge. That makes me aware of my iniquity and need of grace. A parallel to Ezekiel is Deut 10:16 & 30:6.
As Daniel Block, in the standard commentary on Ezekiel, explains,
"This text [18:31] is unique in that it calls on the wicked to take the initiative in making their own hearts and spirits new. What is promised elsewhere as a divine act and as a gift (36:26-27) is now recast as a command. The use of the imperative mood does not mean that Ezekiel believes his audience capable of moral and spiritual self-transformation. The command 'create a new heart and a new spirit for yourselves' is a rhetorical device, highlighting the responsibility of the nation for their present crisis and pointing the way to the future. The prerequisites for positive divine intervention are a wholesale reorientation of life and an internal change in disposition. The former will not happen without the latter," The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 1-24, 588.
“How do you understand Ezekiel 18:31, in relation to monergism and synergism. I thought that the ‘God gives the new heart’ aspect of biblical teaching clearly entailed monergism, but I have no idea what to do with this verse.”
Commands serve different purposes in Scripture. One is to reveal our duties, another is to expose our needs. Indeed, the two can be interrelated.
One way of exposing my spiritual need is to confront me with a moral obligation which I, as a sinner, am unable to discharge. That makes me aware of my iniquity and need of grace. A parallel to Ezekiel is Deut 10:16 & 30:6.
As Daniel Block, in the standard commentary on Ezekiel, explains,
"This text [18:31] is unique in that it calls on the wicked to take the initiative in making their own hearts and spirits new. What is promised elsewhere as a divine act and as a gift (36:26-27) is now recast as a command. The use of the imperative mood does not mean that Ezekiel believes his audience capable of moral and spiritual self-transformation. The command 'create a new heart and a new spirit for yourselves' is a rhetorical device, highlighting the responsibility of the nation for their present crisis and pointing the way to the future. The prerequisites for positive divine intervention are a wholesale reorientation of life and an internal change in disposition. The former will not happen without the latter," The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 1-24, 588.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
The Pillsbury Thibodaux Boy - Hee Hee
{A note for ease of reading. I frequently quote J.C.'s use of my claims. These will appear in the indented "quote" format in unitalicized type. I will also make all of his comments in red.}
J.C. Thibodaux issued a "challenge to T-bloggers." He did so with all the gusto of Ravishing Rick Rude's midsection, yet upon inspection, his muscular challenge feels more like the Pillsbury Doughboy's midsection. His response to my answer to his challenge was even at the caliber of the response one gets from touching the Doughboy's tummy: "Hee-hee."
I'll just quote him and respond. If anyone wants the larger context, I'll provide the links:
* Thibodaux's challenge
* My answer
* His response
My rebuttal:
"And here I thought I was just some guy in front of a computer who liked to discuss theology. By the title conferred upon me by Triabloguer Paul Manata, I can only conjecture that he deems me some crazed Cajun Kung Fu master who can propagate such preponderous proportions of punishing polemical pwnage, that I'm now pushing the Triabloggers around despite being outnumbered 8 to 1. I think he's just trying to wage some kind of bizarre psychological warfare on me. But despite my 1-man ganging up on them, Paul to his credit still somehow managed to summon the courage to answer my challenge. So here we go,"
I would have thought with a name like Thibodaux he'd be familiar with the story of Cajun Joe, the man who would fight anyone, anywhere, in Bayou waters or on dry land. He ends up getting his teeth knocked out. Anyway, I'll try to not be so subtle.
Also, note that Thibodaux tries to appeal to the pity of his audience. He can't be a bully because he's outnumbered 8 to 1. Well, let's note that (a) I used to be a bully and I would frequently pick on large groups of people. None were strong enough to stand up to me. (b) This was Thibodaux's challenge! He's the one who challenged all of us. Now he tries to play that role of a martyr? I wouldn't feel sorry for someone who tried to mess with a bunch of bayou gators, I'd call him stupid.
Continuing....
Clearing things up
"Mr. Manata puts out not a few misconceptions, which I shall briefly clarify before I get to the meat of the matter.
'Before we begin, we can at least pause and point out the dubious nature of this claim. Apparently Thibodaux hasn't read much on the philosophy of science. Many times "the facts" are accepted and given their status by virtue of the dogmatic hypothesis ruling the day. There are paradigm shifts which allow certain "facts" to be accepted as facts. Or, the idea that there are no theory-independent observations. Perhaps this isn't the case, but it is hotly debated and Thibodaux just asserts one side of the story, without apologetic.'
Which is why I was careful to qualify them as "established and indisputable facts," (e.g. the earth is round, things fall down rather than up), not what some merely suppose to be facts, such as Darwinism."
I know what you said, I quoted you numerous times. I never mentioned Darwinism. I'm talking about things that were just as "established and indisputable" as a spherical earth. I'd read something like Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (or even Moreland's Christianity and the Nature of Science), for examples of what I'm talking about. Anyway, we'll see how this notion of "established and indisputable facts" serves to undermine your very argument. I was just correcting your ignorance on a subject with my opening comment.
Continuing...
"It's not hard to understand from the wording I employ, "believers falling away from God and into condemnation;" it would be somewhat hard for one who believes to fall away from God if he never were with God, or fall into condemnation were he already under such consigned."
One could "be with God" from the standpoint of man, from the standpoint of his profession of faith. Indeed, Hebrews says that the believers "stand" by their "profession" and so to "fall away" may very well be to "deny your profession." Phenomenological language may also be employed (cf. Schreiner, etc). So, it is not at all clear how you meant your phrase. It's clear to you, because your entire argument is, actually, one giant lesson on how to beg the question; as will be demonstrated more fully below.
Continuing....
"He also cites the fact that I don't present the other side completely,
'Three evidences (allegedly) against it are produced, none of the evidence for it is allowed to speak. Does this feel like an honest evaluation of a "hypothesis?" Like a fair trial? Or more like a Kangaroo court. A travesty of justice? We're obviously reading a biased report masquerading as honest and open inquiry.'
Which I don't recall being under any obligation to do. This was quite by design: I present my side (and preempt a few arguments from the other) then present it to the other side so they can show theirs. It's not like I'm not giving them a chance to defend their views; indeed, I invited them to, so I'm not sure what his beef here is."
And of course the missing context is that Thibodaux framed his argument as a "scientific investigation." I pointed out that a one-sided critique, with an already assumed conclusion, wasn't very "scientific." Thibodaux is picking and choosing the style of his debate. He opens with the idea that we're going to have something like a scientific inquiry, but he argues in the rest of the paper as one trying to persuade people already online with his conclusion. People in a science lab wouldn't go about "proving" conclusion like Thibodaux does. They wouldn't present a paper suppressing the evidence contrary to their position. (I'm assuming the stated approach claimed by scientists, obviously.)Thus my point, which was rather missed, and missed badly, is that Thibodaux can't even stay consistent with his own opening analogy.
Continuing....
'Putting us on is a question begging epithet.'
"Here he employs a decontextualization, as no insult was intended or implied, as it was merely an expression. The original quote was, 'All inherent problems aside, even if this were the case and God were simply 'putting us on,' so to speak, for the sake of our living righteously....'"
I didn't say that insult was intended or implied. But when characterizing another's position, one should try to use neutral terms. Thibodaux tells us that he thinks it is pointless to give warnings to people who cannot fall away given God's decree that they won't. To say that God is "putting us on" is to bias the jury towards a premise you rest on in your argument. Why is Thibodaux trying to escape fallacies he's made? Man up to it when caught.
Continuing...
I implied nothing of the sort. The wording of the challenge was such that it addressed both the cheap grace and lordship salvation views of eternal security, as both have the common denominator that it is not possible for one who was once saved to perish, but in no place do I equate the two.
Sure you did, and saying-so don't make it so, Thibodaux. For you had stated, "If God's purpose in giving such warnings was to make us live holy unto Him by indicating that if we walk away from Him, He will cast us away, yet you teach a doctrine that states He would never under any circumstance actually do such a thing, then have you not undone the holy fear which God's word was meant to instill in the hearts of His people and again made it of no effect?" To act in such a way, as you say our doctrine would require us to act, is to say that we should be presumptuous regarding our salvation. That we already have it "in the bag." But we are to "tremble at the threatenings." Indeed, Reformed theology has always taught that if you don't "tremble at the threatenings" then you don't have saving faith: "By this faith, a Christian believes to be true whatsoever is revealed in the Word, for the authority of God Himself speaking therein; and acts differently upon that which each particular passage thereof contains; yielding obedience to the commands, trembling at the threatenings, and embracing the promises of God for this life, and that which is to come" (WCF XIV:II). Therefore, not taking the threatenings seriously, but presumptuously thinking that we are set, that we have already taken hold of the prize, is an evidence-indicator (a fruit --> root inference) that we never had saving faith in the first place. The threatenings cause us to grab hold of Christ. Holding on to Jesus is the only way to heaven. Thus the threatenings are means of salvation (or, of reaching glorification).
Continuing....
Thibodaux lists my arguments under 6 headings. I'll follow his lead:
Argument from diversity of opinion
"Apparently, the fact that some scholars have different views on the interpretation of certain passages is supposed to be substantial evidence against my case.
[snip my quotes]
The third fact I listed was, "The scriptures provide multiple warnings against believers falling away from God and into condemnation." I welcome him to cite any solid scholarly evidence against this or the other points. Any debates from scholar or layman are welcome in reply, I simply ask that you cite the specifics of your evidence, not simply the fact that some scholars debate the subject. Good arguments require specifics, as opposed to what Mr. Manata has done in merely pointing out that there are differing opinions and insisting that reformed theology is indisputable."
Thibodaux can't follow his own strictures. His argument is that we need to "test the hypothesis of the reformed doctrine of the perseverance of the saints against the 'established and indisputable facts' found in Holy Scripture." What it means for a fact to be "established and indisputable" is for them to be at the level of "e.g. the earth is round, things fall down rather than up." Just here he cuts his argument's throat. No New Orleans Cajun Voodoo will bring it back to life. Now, it is no debate that there are warnings in Scripture. What is up for debate, and what is hotly disputed, is Thibodaux's interpretation of the warning passages.
I referenced him the book Four Views on The Warning Passages so that he could get a glimpse of how this issue is debated. I see no books on Four Views on the Shape of The Earth. I've read no book called Four Views on Whether Christians Believe in the Existence of God. Another book he might like to get is Four Views on Eternal Security.
I didn't merely "point out differences" and conclude that "I've won." I took Thibodaux's way of framing the debate and showed that he's not taking "undisputed Bible passages" and seeing if our "hypothesis" squares with these "undisputed facts." Thibodaux's argument is, actually, better stated this way: A Challenge to Reformed Theology's Inability to Cope With Thibodaux's Interpretation of the Warning Passages. But then you wouldn't need to issue something like that, because we all agree with you!
This will be brought out more below.
Continuing....
The Law and Sanctification
'If Jesus is giving the full (or correcting the abuse of) meaning of the law of God, then that law holds for believer and unbeliever alike. Thus Jesus would be giving an objective basis in terms of which God's judgment on the law-violator is carried out.'
"Yes, but he also speaks of doing so in terms of escaping hell fire or suffering it, hence this passage's relevance to the discussion."
The context here was that Thibodaux said that Jesus wasn't speaking to unbelievers. He now says that "Yes," my response was correct.
This passage simply tells us how we are to battle sin. We wage violent war against it. If you don't cut off an eye, then you're not willing battle your sin in any serious way. If you're not willing to do that, then you are not a believer. "How can we who have died to sin continue to live in it," asks Paul. So, if one didn't do these things, then this is an evidence-indicator (fruit --> root inference), that one was never saved in the first place. That's the Reformed interpretation. You're not going to convince anyone with an argument that uses dubious premises that assume an Arminian understanding.
Continuing....
'A "believer" escaping corruption by battling sin is called "sanctification." The Bible implies that those being sanctified will be sanctified. That if they're battling sin, truly, then they will end in heaven, with Christ:'
"True, those battling sin will end in heaven with Christ -- provided they remain in Christ and thus continue battling sin. My point is that if they cease to do so, then they will not inherit eternal life, which none of the passages he cites speak against."
The Calvinist says that too. But the Calvinist adds that if someone who made a profession of faith ceases to profess faith, he was never saved in the first place. So, (a) it is true (since the conditional has a true truth value) that if a true believer does not remain in Christ he will go to hell, and (b) we affirm that if someone appears to have been a believer, and they go to hell, they were never salvifically joined with Christ in the first place, and (c) though it is true that IF a true believer apostatized he would be severed from Christ in a salvific way, but we maintain that this will not happen because "he who began a good work in you will be faithful to bring it to completion."
Salvation is 100% of God. We maintain that the denial of the perseverance of the saints is due to holding to a synergistic model of salvation. We maintain that those who have once been united with Christ, will always remain united. Your argument must assume an Arminian theory of the atonement, which we reject. You thus have disputed and hotly debated hidden premises upon which your argument rests. We hold that if Jesus died for a person, then he took their punishment. He was punished in their stead. For them. They received his righteousness and have been declared innocent by the Father. On a daily basis they have a high priest who intercedes for them, this intercessionary work of Christ cannot fail. We don't have a failure Jesus. We hold that the Spirit's regenerating work cannot be reversed, just as I cannot revert to an infant, and then a conceptus. Salvation is of grace, and we cannot out-sin grace.
Continuing....
His response to my citing Ephesians 2"1-7 is mind numbing. Thibodaux says,
"Which says nothing about the possibility or impossibility of ceasing to continue in the process of sanctification."
Ephesians actually brings up the reverse of Thibodaux's problem. Read what the Spirit, through Paul, says to those who have been saved: "But God, who is rich in mercy because of His great love with which His loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up together, and made us sit in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus (Eph. 2:1-7)." He "made us sit in the heavenly places" and that "in the ages to come" he would show us all the riches of His grace. But how could God say this if it was possible that each and every single person saved could (contrary to the decree) all deny him? This text appears to teach that those "made alive" will all "be with Jesus in the ages to come." Furthermore, if you were made alive, then do you die, and become alive again, and then die, and then become alive again, and then die, and then alive again, and then die, and then be made alive again, and then die, and then be made alive again, ad nauseum. This seems absurd.
Continuing...
'Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool, because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.' (Heb. 10:13-14).
"This text is often misinterpreted as saying that once sanctification is done, it cannot be undone because we've been made 'perfect forever.' This was not what the author was saying, he was indicating that Christ's sacrifice only needed to be performed once as opposed to the yearly sacrifices made under the old covenant (see the preceding context, note verses 3 and 11)."
This is extremely simplistic. It is true that the author is referring to the one-time sacrifice of Christ as opposed to the yearly sacrifices by the OT high priests, but what do we draw from this? The OT sacrifices could never save, "because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins" (v.4). This is contrasted with Christ's. For, "Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God. Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool, because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy" (vv. 12-14). Thus we see that the death of Christ took away the sin of those it was made for. He therefore continues, "The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First he says:
"This is the covenant I will make with them
after that time, says the Lord.
I will put my laws in their hearts,
and I will write them on their minds." Then he adds:
"Their sins and lawless acts
I will remember no more."
And where these have been forgiven, there is no longer any sacrifice for sin."
What, does God write his law on their minds, and then erase it, and then write it, and then erase it, and then write it, and then erase it, ad nauseum. This is where Thibodaux's position leads.
Those who "have been made perfect" is in the perfect tense, the present passive participle is used. Thus the status of God's people (this is the covenant I will make with THEM) is expressed in timeless terms (see France, 247). The "emphasis is being laid on the fact that by the same sacrifice those who have been cleansed and 'perfected' are now eternally constituted God's holy people" (ibid). What we have here is the fulfilling of Jeremiah's prophecy. The bringing about of the Covenant of Redemption. God's plan to save his people, who He foreknew and loved from the foundation of the world. Those who the lamb was slain for from the foundation of the world. The OT law and sacrifice was a "reminder of sin," this sacrifice is the "removal of sin." He remembers their lawless acts "NO MORE." This is why there is now no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus.
Continuing....
'being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus.' (Phi. 1:6)
"I agree, I actually cited this in my challenge. God is faithful to His covenant to continue His work in us until we are as Christ by writing His law on our hearts, but this does not imply that such working is unconditional or that it's impossible to turn away from God, especially considering the warnings given against doing so. Scripture cannot be interpreted by the cancellation method. God is faithful, yet remaining in His covenant is conditional; so if we remain in grace, God continues to sanctify us. If one has broken covenant with God, then the promises of the thereof no longer apply to him or her."
Perhaps if you're a synergist. But it is God who brings this to completion. He (not us) began the work and He (not us) will bring the work to completion. The Calvinist can have assurance, not the libertarian.
The warning passages don't say "the falling away of one of God's elect can be actualized." This is an assumption you're adding to the Bible. You were supposed to show how the doctrine of perseverance contradicts the warning passages. The only way you can do so is by the unbiblical premise: if one gives a warning to someone, the warned must be capable of instantiating what was warned against. Where is this philosophical assumption to be found in the Bible? II Opinions 3:15? Your crucial premise is nothing but an extra-biblical stricture. But you wanted to hold our doctrine up to the "undisputed facts of Scripture." Well, I dispute your assumption and ask for its meat to be derived from the cow, Holy Scripture.
Remaining in the covenant is conditioned on the extra nos faith we have in the object of our faith, Jesus Christ. This faith is not of ourselves, it too is given. God makes sure that we continue to express faith, and this is how He is able to "bring what He started to completion." Thus the confession:
Chapter XIV
Of Saving Faith
I. The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls, is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts, and is ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the Word, by which also, and by the administration of the sacraments, and prayer, it is increased and strengthened.
II. By this faith, a Christian believes to be true whatsoever is revealed in the Word, for the authority of God Himself speaking therein; and acts differently upon that which each particular passage thereof contains; yielding obedience to the commands, trembling at the threatenings, and embracing the promises of God for this life, and that which is to come. But the principal acts of saving faith are accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace.
III. This faith is different in degrees, weak or strong; may often and many ways assailed, and weakened, but gets the victory: growing up in many to the attainment of a full assurance, through Christ, who is both the author and finisher of our faith.
And so we see that, again, you simply assume non-reformed categories. You must deny our conception of covenant, atonement, regeneration, faith, justification, God's sovereignty, etc., for your argument to work. But if those assumed premises are the case, you don't need your critique! If what you need to assume where the case, were undisputed biblical facts, there'd be no Reformed theology. Thus your argument only works if we assume a whole host of premises we're not willing to grant. This is like the evolutionist asking us to just grant him that life got started from non-life just once, and then he'll show us how the entire package follows. Your critique is nothing but one giant petitio principii.
Continuing...
'What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it? Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection, knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin.' (Romans 6)
"Um, again I agree. How this is supposed to guarantee that sanctification is irrevocable is never explained."
Um, by putting your little thinking cap on. Try it again with the bolded portion. I just reverse your problem. It would be absurd to tell people that they will CERTAINLY be resurrected unto glory if they can just denounce their new life!
Continuing...
The Hypothetical Argument
"Mr. Manata also tries to establish the possibility that Jesus was merely speaking His warning in Matthew 5 hypothetically.
'As a hypothetical, this can be said to believers and be a true statement, yet nevertheless fail to undercut perseverance of the saints. Thibodaux tries to say Jesus' claims would be pointless if this could not actually happen to an elect Christian. I take it as undisputed that: if you tell someone the truth, you've been sincere or genuine with them.'
After giving a brief discourse on if-then statements, he argues,
'Therefore, going back to the issue at hand, it is true that IF the true believer does such and such, he will go to hell. This can be a true statement qua conditional statement, and this can be true even though no elect person would ever do such and such.
1) If you tell someone the truth, you have been sincere with them.
2) When Jesus says what will happen to someone IF they do such and such, he is telling the truth.
3) Therefore, When Jesus says what will happen to someone IF they do such and such, he has been sincere with them.
4) If you've been sincere with someone what you've said isn't pointless.
5) Jesus was sincere.
6) Therefore what Jesus said wasn't pointless.'
There's a problem with premise 4, if one impossibility based upon another is sincerely stated, it's still pointless. One could sincerely (albeit absurdly) and truly warn another that if he were to hit the ground hard enough with a hammer, the very globe could be split asunder. While such a statement is technically logically sound, it is devoid of any worthwhile signification as such a condition is impossible for a human being to fulfill. For Christ to be sincere, accurate, and meaningful, the warnings He gives must be possible to violate."
Let's note that his first sentence isn't a verse in the Bible, so it's unclear how he's using "the clear and undisputed facts of Scripture." Also, what is the problem with 4? Is it a false premise? That seems odd. Perhaps it is only false when the antecedent and the condition are both impossible. But that is not clear, at all. Part of his counter-analogy gains its force from the fact that we know the earth will not split asunder. Thus we can go ahead hit it with a hammer. But if we do so, and the consequent doesn't happen, then it is FALSE. It will not have a true truth value if the antecedent is true while the consequent is false. But we cannot truly denounce Jesus Christ and make it to heaven. Thus his counter argument was an argument from analogy, minus the analogy. He thus hasn't responded to my argument. Not only that, his assumption isn't based on the Bible. Lastly, the purpose of the warnings for believers is that they are means to keep them in the faith. Keep them trusting in Jesus. Take them in a nonchalant way, provide and evidence-indicator that you're not saved. Saved people trust in Christ. Saved people believe that if we do X, then Y will happen. So we don't do X, thanks be to God.
Continuing...
"He also goes off into some familiar territory,
'God uses verses like this as a means to bring believers to their end, life everlasting.'
and,
'One could make the case that Jesus is providing instruction that will keep the believer out of hell. Keep him from continuing in a life of sin.'
and,
'The warnings are means God uses to bring his elect into his eschatological kingdom.'
Which was already addressed in the challenge, in that if the purpose of God is to give us a warning with the practical effect of 'making us fear' (or similar effect) so that we endure to the end, then a doctrine that teaches that such a warning is impossible to violate and its consequences impossible to suffer negates any such fear or caution which God's word was meant to instill, making it of no practical effect either."
And I answered this "already addressing" of his. Also, note again his appeal to a proposition that is not found in Scripture. Thibodaux is supposed to judge us by the "facts of Scripture," not the "facts in Thibodaux's head." Lastly, the doctrine is that the saints will persevere until the end. It is possible that we, individually, could be fooling ourselves. It is possible that we may not be saints. Thus we do not "mess around." We do not "take things lightly." We "cling to Jesus Christ." We pray that he will keep us in the faith. That we would not deny him. That our profession would be genuine.
Continuing...
"I never said that it "makes no sense to say that IF someone S does an action A then X will result, if S cannot [perform] A." Logically it would mean that result X would never be achieved. The logic does indeed parse out, but in terms of inherent net meaning it's useless."
He never said it in that way, but that is his position nevertheless. Furthermore, he still misunderstands the nature of conditionals (and I don't care if he's a 'computer programmer'). It's "meaning" is wrapped up in the conditional expression of the proposition. For example, God can tell us: "If you are perfect, I will grant you everlasting life." This is perfectly intelligible, yet it is impossible for humans to achieve! Also, if Thibodaux denies perfectionism, then what does he make of the commands: Do not ever sin once. Be perfect. ? We cannot do this in this lifetime. Only when we are glorified. But on Thibodaux's assumptions, it is pointless to command these things since it is impossible for us to obey them! Might as well talk to a rock.
Continuing...
'This is absurd since no Calvinist has denied that believers cannot be warned. Being warned doesn't imply that you won't persevere.'
"Of course not. We're all warned, which by that logic would imply that no one would persevere. Rather, a sincere warning addressed to the saints does indicate that it is possible to not persevere."
'Since we've never denied the warning of the saints" then there's no doctrine we have to bring in line with Scripture.'
"Indeed, he's not denied the warnings, simply any real possibility of their consequences occurring to whom they were delivered, hence making them void."
The first quote is his regurgitating his opening assumption. Remember, it's an extra-biblical one. Thus he cannot prove that we are at odds with Scripture.
His second claim commits the fallacy of ignoratio elenchi and the fallacy of false dichotomy. I've already answered his "no purpose" argument by bring up means. Also, to assume that the warnings have only the purpose of showing that it is possible for an elect to fall, or nothing, he leaves out a third possibility - that of a means to bring us to salvation.
Continuing...
Appeal to Lack of Example
"I never claimed to show such an example here, all I have demonstrated, and all I need demonstrate, is the possibility. One does not need an example to demonstrate possibility if said possibility has already been established."
He "demonstrates" the "possibility" by appeal to an extra-biblical assumption, recall.
He cannot demonstrate the possibility of an elect, regenerate Christian falling away since the Bible says this won't happen:
John 6:38-40, 44 For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.
Jesus says everyone who comes to him, who believes on him, will have eternal life. if you come to Jesus, you are his. You belong to him, like a coin. He won't lose any of his. No loose change in the cushions. No loose change under the car seats.
John 10:27-29 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand.
Jesus gives his sheep eternal life, and they will never perish. But Thibodaux thinks it is possible that they could perish. Thibodaux has the reverse problem: It seems meaningless to tell sheep that they will never perish if they very well may. Since "they shall never perish" is a Greek Construction (ou me plus aorist subjunctive) is may be translated more explicitly "and they shall certainly not perish forever" (Grudem, ST, 789).
Believers have the Holy Spirit. Therefore:
Ephesians 1:13-14 In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory.
We thus have a guarantee of eternal life. How could God guarantee us eternal life if it rested upon such a shaky ground as our libertarian will?
Even though I'm reversing Thibodaux's extra-biblical arguments from incredulity, I have provided an answer as to the purpose of the warnings for believers. To that answer all Thibodaux did was to repeat himself - "then it would be pointless!". I then negated his assumption. How can he consistently answer me is the real question? Given his argument from "that just wouldn't make sense" he must remove the rug he's standing on. For, "it just doesn't make sense" that someone would guarantee someone something he couldn't guarantee. Of, that he would say that they will certainly never perish, if indeed they may!
Continuing....
Thoughts on Hebrews
'Where is the idea in Hebrews that those who "fall away" are ever of the same kind as those who "truly" believe? Heb. 6 draws the contrast: "7Land that drinks in the rain often falling on it and that produces a crop useful to those for whom it is farmed receives the blessing of God. 8But land that produces thorns and thistles is worthless and is in danger of being cursed. In the end it will be burned." We therefore see that there are two kinds of soil, not one kind. The latter never produced crops. It's of a different nature.'
"I wasn't expressing such an idea, simply the fact that those who are sincerely following Christ are warned against failing to enter into His rest. The implication he draws from Hebrews 6 is interesting, but the differing land illustration may also represent men who choose differing paths once they receive the word; though whether chapter 6 specifically is talking about the formerly saved or the almost saved is irrelevant to the current discussion."
He apparently can't follow arguments too well. I, as well as other reformed thinkers, argue that those who do in fact leave were never true believers in the first place. I gave an argument showing that the two types of people, those who would fall away vs. those who stay, are different kinds of people, not just a single lump of "believers." His assumption that they are "sincerely following Christ" is vague. People can be sincerely wrong. But, if he means that they have genuine saving faith, let him show it, not assert it. And, we believe people can "receive the word" but it is only those who BEAR FRUIT that have truly received it in a saving way:
Matthew 13:3-10, 18-23 Then he told them many things in parables, saying: "A farmer went out to sow his seed. As he was scattering the seed, some fell along the path, and the birds came and ate it up. Some fell on rocky places, where it did not have much soil. It sprang up quickly, because the soil was shallow. But when the sun came up, the plants were scorched, and they withered because they had no root. Other seed fell among thorns, which grew up and choked the plants. Still other seed fell on good soil, where it produced a crop—a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown. He who has ears, let him hear."
"Listen then to what the parable of the sower means: When anyone hears the message about the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what was sown in his heart. This is the seed sown along the path. The one who received the seed that fell on rocky places is the man who hears the word and at once receives it with joy. But since he has no root, he lasts only a short time. When trouble or persecution comes because of the word, he quickly falls away. The one who received the seed that fell among the thorns is the man who hears the word, but the worries of this life and the deceitfulness of wealth choke it, making it unfruitful. But the one who received the seed that fell on good soil is the man who hears the word and understands it. He produces a crop, yielding a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown."
The reformed argument is that the soil that produces fruit perseveres. Call our doctrine, The Perseverance of The Fertile Ground.
Continuing...
'Who enters that rest? "We who have (past tense) believed" (v.3). How do you enter the rest? "For anyone who enters God's rest also rests from his own work, just as God did from his" (v.10). How does one "rest from his work?" He trusts in Christ's work. The work of another person. So, those who have truly put their faith in Christ are not trusting in works, they have believed and thus entered his rest.'
"Here his exegesis breaks down, for we who have believed 'do enter' (present tense), not 'have entered' that rest. The rest it speaks of is not temporal, nor enjoyed in this present life, but speaks of the eternal rest when we pass from this world to be with Christ. Hence it warns us to be diligent to enter it, for what purpose would it serve to tell we who believe ('we who have believed') to strive to enter into His rest if we who have believed have already arrived? Additionally, entering God's rest is not presently achieved, but left to us as a promise that we are warned against falling short of (Hebrews 4:1)."
To be sure, there is an already/not yet aspect to "the rest." But if we have believed, then we have trusted in the work of Christ, and no longer rely on our work, hence we are resting in Him. It is interesting to note that those who worked on the OT days of atonement were put to death. Only those who "drew near" to the priest and "rested" from their work were saved. The parallel is unmistakable. Those who believe WILL take hold of that final rest. The only ones who failed to enter were people who heard the good news. There is no argument that a true believer could fail to enter forthcoming.
Continuing...
Other Arguments
'Paul said,
28And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. 29For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified. 31What, then, shall we say in response to this? If God is for us, who can be against us? 32He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things? 33Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies. 34Who is he that condemns? Christ Jesus, who died more than that, who was raised to life is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us. 35Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword? 36As it is written: "For your sake we face death all day long; we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered." 37No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. 38For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, 39neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Thibodaux needs to square his doctrine with Scripture. After all, I'm just squaring his hypothesis with the indisputable and clearly established facts of Scripture.'
"Of course no created thing can separate us from Christ.
Thibodaux can't follow out his syllogism:
[1] No created thing can keep us from attaining everlasting life as found in being united to Christ.
[2] True believers are created things.
[3] Therefore, true believers cannot keep us (themselves) from everlasting life as found in being united to Christ.
QED
"Thanks Paul for your reply, and bestowing upon me such an awesome nickname! Now about that lunch money..."
You're welcome. And, I'll pass the hat around at our next T-blogger meeting seeing as you're going to need it for the dental bill considering all those teeth I kicked in. :-)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)