This entry was posted on October 25, 2007 at 11:02 am and is filed under Apostasy, Assurance, BT, Baptism, John W Robbins, Union With X with tags Apostasy, Federal Vision, Grace, Hebrews, John W Robbins, Sacraments, WCF. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
November 11, 2007 at 6:37 pm
Okay, so you’re an Arminian. And?
November 11, 2007 at 9:24 pm
Tsk.
November 11, 2007 at 9:36 pm
But what I can’t figure out is how you can think that you’re not saying anything that differs from the Westminster Confession of Faith.
November 12, 2007 at 12:04 am
Please indulge me.
November 12, 2007 at 1:08 am
What do you mean?
November 12, 2007 at 1:25 pm
How is what I am saying not Reformed?
November 12, 2007 at 2:44 pm
You are defending Arminianism.
November 13, 2007 at 1:15 pm
Again, please, indulge my curiosity. Dialogue with me @ your misunderstanding my position. What exactly is Arminian about it?
November 13, 2007 at 6:20 pm
You believe it is possible for a justified person to lose his or her salvation.
November 14, 2007 at 10:07 pm
So I guess that settles it then.
November 15, 2007 at 1:41 pm
No. Listen to the post again. I clearly do not assert that “according to the eternal decree” anyone can be lost. And really, can you not argue any better?
November 16, 2007 at 10:56 am
Travis,
I think you’re the one who needs to go back and listen carefully to what you said. No matter what you say with respect to the eternal decree, you still end up with a situation in In you own tent revival illustration of two men who come forward, one who perseveres (and thus is one of the elect) and one who does not (and thus is not), you said:
“Now there are two inferiors in our scenario, so he says the same to both: ‘Love me and do as I command.’ However, he says to both as well, that you have been justified, you have been sanctified, you have been called. You were once darkened in your mind, hostile toward God in the attitude of your heart and the darkness of your mind.”
Therefore you called a non-elect person “justified.” Not only that, but you attributed to this person aspects of regeneration. For all practical purposes, you use the language of salvation with respect to him, and thus, in your scenario, what the man ultimately loses is tantamount to salvation that he possessed in some real sense (real, that is, in your theology, though not in Scripture).
You, sir, are an Arminian.
November 18, 2007 at 11:57 pm
ok.
November 19, 2007 at 1:46 pm
Ron,
Are you saved? Is Jesus your King?
Is there any minute possibility you could go AWOL?
What then does this do to your justification, et al?
Not to acknowledge the realities of true apostasy from a true covenant relationship with Jesus does not reflect a healthy use of the scripture’s own treatment of such persons. The warnings are there for you, too, brother. If you keep on keeping on, praise the Lord. If you refuse to soften your heart, there is a fiery worm awaiting you.
November 20, 2007 at 9:36 pm
So, then, you deny the Reformed teaching of the perseverance of the saints.
November 22, 2007 at 5:31 pm
No, I do not. If you make it to the end, you only have one thing to say….”Salvation is of the Lord.”
Listen. This is really no less than the parable of the seed sown by the sower. Four types of seeds (representative of perseverance) on ofur types of soil. The last one is the only one who perseveres. But that does not negate the “common operations of the Spirit” in the other three.
November 22, 2007 at 11:20 pm
According to the Westminster Standards, perseverance is one of the benefits that inevitably flows from justification, adoption, and sanctification. This is explicitly stated in the answer to Question 36 of the Westminster Shorter Catechism:
Q. 36. What are the benefits which in this life do accompany or flow from justification, adoption, and sanctification?
A. The benefits which in this life do accompany or flow from justification, adoption, and sanctification, are, assurance of God’s love, peace of conscience, joy in the Holy Ghost, increase of grace, and perseverance therein to the end.
You, on the other hand, have already stated that perseverance does *not* inevitably flow from these things when you said:
“Now there are two inferiors in our scenario, so he says the same to both [i.e., to both the one who perseveres and the one who does not]: ‘Love me and do as I command.’ However, he says to both as well, that you have been justified, you have been sanctified, you have been called. You were once darkened in your mind, hostile toward God in the attitude of your heart and the darkness of your mind.”
Therefore, since according to your statements it is possible for justified and sanctified person to fail to persevere (because you have identified one who fails to persevere as both “justified” and “sanctified”), then your stated position cannot be that perseverance is a benefit that flows from justification, adoption, and sanctification, since you have effectively stated the very opposite. Thus you deny WSC Q36, and with it the Reformed teaching of the perseverance of the saints.
November 23, 2007 at 12:39 pm
So what do you make of Colossians 1.21-23?
21 And you, who once were alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, 22 he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before him, 23 if indeed you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel that you heard, which has been proclaimed in all creation
Let us see what Paul says here. The Colossians were “formerly”
A) alienated from God
B) hostile in mind
C) evil in deeds
but NOW are
are
1) reconciled in X’s body by his death (this is imputation)
2) will be presented blameless and above reproach (presumably b/c of juatification)
Consider the term for “reconcile” is in the aorist indicative. Johnny MacArthur will tell you, “This means it’s a done deal. The aorist is an action that is looked upon as finished now even though it’s fruition is future. And the indicative, well, it indicates something: you’re in!!”
And yet…and yet Paul says, “If….”
Me thinks Paul might not have subscribed to the WCF. Unless of course you can somersault your way out of this text.
November 23, 2007 at 2:19 pm
At least you are finally coming clean and admitting that you reject the Westminster Standards. The fact that ἀποκατήλλαξεν in Colossians 1:22 is aorist indicative simply strengthens the Standards’ doctrine perseverance, since the ἀπο prefix makes a word that normally means “reconciled” now mean “fully reconciled.”
Even Mr. New Perspective himself, N.T. Wright, realizes that Paul’s follow-up statement in 1:23 does not cast doubt on whether any of the Colossian Christians will ultimately persevere. Quite to the contrary, he writes in his Tyndale Commentary on this epistle, “From God’s point of view, genuine faith is assured of continuing to the end. From the human point of view, Christians discover whether their faith is of the genuine sort only by patient perseverance, encouraged (cf. Rom. 5:1-5) by the Christian hope. There is here almost certainly a deliberate echo of 1:4-5″ (pp. 83-84). And I would assert that a truly straightforward reading of Colossians 1:4-5 makes it clear that Paul entertained no doubt whatsoever about the genuineness of the Colossians’ faith.
Although I disagree with the way he separated the Colossians’ reconciliation from their presentation before God (which he assumes to be a future event), Murray Harris amply demonstrated the grammatical basis for the traditional Reformed exegesis of this passage when he wrote: “Eἴ γε (‘if indeed,’ ‘provided that,’ ‘if only’; encl. γέ emphasizes εἰ, BDF § 439; R 1148; T 331) expresses an actual condition: the future divine “presentation” (but not the reconciliation) is in fact conditional on future human perseverance. Yet, since εἰ is followed by the pres. indic. *and* Paul is confident about the Colossian Christians’ present spiritual condition (2:5b), this condition is neither a hypothesis nor simply a hope but a condition that Paul is confident or assumes will be fulfilled: ‘if you continue—and I am confident/I am assuming that you will’ (sim. Thrall 87-88)” (Colossians & Philemon, Eerdmans, 1991, p. 60).
So the text is clear: you *have* been reconciled *if* you persevere. Perseverance is the evidence of having been reconciled. Paul is not indicating that it is possible for the elect to fall away, but rather indicating that you will know the elect by the fact that they will not fall away.
But, look: you can multiply texts until bananas grow in Canada—something which Arminians are quite good at, by the way—but it only serves to divert attention from the main point: you are not Reformed; you are an Arminian.
November 24, 2007 at 10:58 am
Bananas in Canada would be a good trick. Perhaps you could help me with Paul’s words to Timothy when he says,
The saying is trustworthy, for:
If we have died with him, we will also live with him;
if we endure, we will also reign with him;
if we deny him, he also will deny us;
if we are faithless, he remains faithful—
for he cannot deny himself.
To what does this denial refer?
November 24, 2007 at 5:14 pm
Despite the fact that Christ taught that “whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven” (Matthew 10:33), Peter denied Christ in most explicit terms before men, and yet Christ did not deny him. Therefore neither our Lord’s words in Matthew nor 2 Timothy 2:12 was intended to cover each and every instance in which professing believers may be said to deny Him. As George W. Knight III put it in his volume of the New International Greek Testament Commentaries on the Pastoral Epistles, regarding this verse, “The finality of his [Christ's] denial of those who have denied him will be as permanent and decisive as theirs has been of him” (p. 406).
What kind of professing believer permanently denies Christ? Not one who has ever been truly justified, adopted, and sanctified. In other words, not one who is truly one of the elect!
Your line of questioning is truly disturbing. You are a TE in the PCA and know not these things? Did you have these views when you went through your ordination process, and were you honest about them when you were examined? If so, how did you ever get ordained? How can you possibly provide an affirmative answer to the question, “Do you sincerely receive and adopt the Confession of Faith and the Catechisms of this Church as containing the system of doctrine taught in Scripture?” (BCO 19-3.2)? No one in the PCA who is faithful to its BCO should have agreed to ordain someone with views such as yours, and if you are honest you go to your presbytery, seek divestiture from office without censure (BCO 38-2) while it is still possible, and join a church that has views more agreeable with yours.
November 27, 2007 at 12:35 pm
Thank you for your concern. No, I was not dishonest when I was ordained. Nor am I fully on the band wagon of the FV although I have a sincere appreciation for the objectivity of the cov’t. I am actually fleshing out my own wrestlings with the issue. My challenges here on the site are those little splinters in the back of my hermeneutical mind that cause me reason for query.
Truly, our presuppositions drive out hermenseutics. Ron, lay aside your WCF hang-up and answer this question:
“Is there any possibility of my denying Christ finally {stop. Don’t go to the WCF}?”
If there is (and I have to admit that there is for me), then Paul’s words are very pertinent…indeed, ominous.
Again, answer this question in your own words as much as you can (paraphrasing the WCF as you will).
Are you in covenant with God? Of what does that covenant consist?
Grace,
TmF
November 27, 2007 at 12:58 pm
Again,
If we have died with him, we will also live with him;
wonderful
if we endure, we will also reign with him;
perseverance of the saints
if we deny him, he also will deny us;
true apostasy. There are no qualifying remarks, no “well then, they weren’t truly saved”s. That’s not the issue. The issue is a real warning and a real falling away. Peter repented, true. So there you go. His denial was rescinded. Great. But for those who do not rescind, the “we” is not mere “editorial”.
if we are faithless, he remains faithful—
Here is a wholly other “denial”. Here is a true assurancing for our hearts. Here is a remedy for weak faiths. Faithlessness does not necessarily entail “denial”. It can, but not ipso facto. God makes up for our infirmities. Praise be to his name!!
for he cannot deny himself.
Again, God will be faithful to his covenant. Punishing the wicked (denyers) and acquitting the faithless.
November 27, 2007 at 6:57 pm
Travis,
You wrote:
“Truly, our presuppositions drive out hermenseutics.”
(I assume you meant “drive our hermeneutics” instead of “drive out hermenseutics.”) This may be true, but it begs the question of what drives our presuppositions, Scripture or something else? The more we conform our presuppositions to the clear statements of Scripture (and interpret the obscure ones in light of the clear ones), the less of a hindrance our presuppositions become.
You wrote:
“Ron, lay aside your WCF hang-up and answer this question:”
Wait a minute! You really don’t see how you’re changing the subject, do you? The subject is whether or not you’re an Arminian–*not* whether or not Arminianism is biblically justifiable. The reason I have been resisting your efforts to fight a house-to-house battle over the interpretations of various Scriptures that Arminians have historically used to defend their posisitons is *not* because I can’t handle them. Do you honestly beleive you’re the first Arminian to throw them in my face? These battles have been going on for centuries!
What has been happening here is that I began by accusing you of being an Arminian, a charge which you denied. Then, when I proved that you actually are an Arminian, and you could no longer defend your position that you are actually Reformed, you changed to the tactic of defending Arminianism.
But I’m not interested in fighting a battle with you over Arminianism. I have a well-stocked library on the subject, which includes such titles as “Why I Am Not an Arminian,” and its companion volume, “Why I Am Not a Calvinist,” to name just a couple. I have gone over the issues and texts many times in the past 30 years. I know where these kinds of discussions tend to go, and frankly I don’t have time for one of them right now.
To give you a clue about this, I’ll indulge you just a bit. You wrote:
“Is there any possibility of my denying Christ finally {stop. Don’t go to the WCF}?”
Okay, you have improperly framed the question. The question is not whether Travis will deny Christ finally, but whether a person who is truly justified before God will ever deny Christ finally. The answer is “No,” and I believe I have plenty of biblical support for that contention. Meanwhile, however, I do not know whether you, Travis, are a truly justified person, so I cannot speak to the issue of whether you yourself will ever deny Christ finally.
A typical next step in this kind of discussion is for the Arminian to either (a) cite various Scriptures he believes contradicts my view, or (b) ask me to supply various Scriptures to support my view (so he can try to shoot them down), or (c) tell me that my position leaves me in the same place it leaves an Arminian, since, he will assert, I cannot offer another person any more assurance of salvation than he can.
I could tell you where each of these (a), (b), and (c) options will then take the discussion, but I really don’t have time for that right now. What I do have time for is to tell you that since you clearly reject a major portion of the system of doctrine represented in the Westminster Standards, you are obligated to advise your presbytery of this fact, since you should not be a TE in the PCA. In the meantime, you’ll need to find someone else to argue the merits of your interpretation of various disputable texts.
November 27, 2007 at 10:07 pm
Okay, you have improperly framed the question. The question is not whether Travis will deny Christ finally, but whether a person who is truly justified before God will ever deny Christ finally. The answer is “No,” and I believe I have plenty of biblical support for that contention. Meanwhile, however, I do not know whether you, Travis, are a truly justified person, so I cannot speak to the issue of whether you yourself will ever deny Christ finally.
This is what I meant when I said leave all that WCF stuff out of this. Listen, what inhibits you from admiting that YOU could apostatise? I’ll say it for you: Ron Henzel may one day reject Jesus as King!! Now, brother, I do not wish that to happen but it COULD.
You: Yes, but then I was never really (insert fast forward sound)doiworhgwrhwrhwuvfbvv…..”
Me: Riiiiiiiiight. Yes. Very Good WCF Boy. You might just as well say that you do not know if you (or I) will persevere since you do not know if you (or I ) are elect (is this what you meant by (c)?). Pah!! Loosen up. Let the scriptures warn you against apostasy and live a life of faith.
I hope you do not go away mad. I have appreciated your passion here.
November 28, 2007 at 12:06 am
Blessed is the church that never calls you to be its pastor.
November 28, 2007 at 8:19 am
Tsk. Tsk.
December 12, 2007 at 10:04 pm
I learned a new label today – “Arminianism”. I guess I am an Arminian.
I believe that only the ‘elect’ were preordained. They were preordained to be God’s people, preordained to minister to the world, to be a light unto the Gentiles. However I don’t believe Salvation is restricted to merely the elect since as Jesus first came to the elect [Matt 10:6][Matt 15:25], his purpose was to give them the great commission to take his message to the world.
I recognize that the blood of Jesus has the power to safe the world, though because of human nature the entire world will not be saved. I believe that God has created us in his image and given us agency to choose him or not (just has he himself has free agency). I believe that God sovereignty in all things is not lessened by us having free agency to choose him or not, or by us having a hand in whether we are saved or not.
Further, I do agree that the elect could “apostatise”. I do agree that sanctification makes it increasingly less likely, but not impossible. So I guess I am “Arminian” – though I hate labels.
I enjoyed this exchange above because of all of the arguments about predestination (I like pre-ordination better b/c it fits better with the Greek word) this one was nearest to a well argued debate.
It is a pity that many un-moderated debates deteriorate b/c of the underpinning emotion of disagreement that results in ad-hominem attacks. It is a pity that emotion is conquering reason here.
I’ll leave my mark here, and carry on investing this debate elsewhere, with the help of scholarship, the Bible, and a constant appeal to God in prayer. I know Calvanists err in their understanding. I will continue to pray that their pride or mine is replaced by humility and truth, for this question is important to have answered!
December 13, 2007 at 12:00 pm
CV,
Thank you so much for contributing to my site. I hope to see you again.
Actually, the words are better left as is. Pre-ordained has more to do with historical events and daily life while pre-destination is more precisely in regards to one’s final destination. RC Sproul has a good series on this.
Your use of the word elect is confusing. Can you be more precise?
One’s liberty to choose God is based upon one’s ability. All men are born into sin and death and are thereby nature children of wrath. They are not able to do anything but their natural inclination: rebel. Their ability (only to sin) constrains their liberty. They are free to do what they will but what they will do is reject God. Hence you are right, “b/c of human nature not all will be saved.” But then the question becomes, “Why are any saved?” And this is where grace comes in. Here is the Westminster Confession on this.
X.1
All those whom God has predestinated unto life, and those only, He is pleased, in His appointed time, effectually to call, by His Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death, in which they are by nature to grace and salvation, by Jesus Christ; enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God, taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them an heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and, by His almighty power, determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ: yet so, as they come most freely, being made willing by His grace.
Further, I do agree that the elect could “apostatise”. I do agree that sanctification makes it increasingly less likely, but not impossible. So I guess I am “Arminian” – though I hate labels.
This is what our dabate above was about. I am not Arminian. That’s a loaded term. There’s more to it than mere apostasy. Our debate is on whether or not the terms elect, saved, chosen, etc can be attributed to those who do actually apostatise. The Bible teaches that God has chosen a certain remnant of people who will most assuredly be saved and will not be lost by Christ; that is, they will never apostatise. However, there are those who are in the church by profession and are baptised but who do leave the fatih. Do the terms above belong to them, too, or do we merely say, “Well, they were never really of us?
Could you elaborate on your critique of the debate? I would find it most helpful. And thanks again for your comments.
December 13, 2007 at 4:26 pm
Pre-ordination is not about individual’s it is about corporate bodies. It has everything to do with being a Royal Priesthood. We have an example of pre-ordination in [Jer 1:5] as Jeremiah was appointed to be a Prophet. Pre-ordination fits better because it speaks directly to the assignment of a corporate responsibilities by God. It explains more clearly that God has set his orchard here rather than there. But this setting the bounds of an orchard doesn’t speak to the trees or branches within the orchard.
In the old testament, predestination was only ever applied corporately and applied to the appointment of God’s people, the elect. Even in the case of Jeremiah, it was corporate (and not personal) in that God appointed Jeremiah to join a corporate body (become a prophet) to prophesy to the nations. But look at what Jeremiah was chosen to prophesy about; He was chosen to prophesy about the great mystery, the divorce of a bride, or the apparent abandonment of an orchard. He was chosen to prophecy to a corporate body about their abandonment of God’s covenant, and subsequent punishment despite their apparent predestination. This is where most Christians leave it however, in that God made promises to the House of Israel while they endured the time of the Gentiles which have been fulfilled, yet remain not understood.
When the NT verses of predestination pop up, I defy anyone to cite an example where Paul does not clarify or amply the house of Israel’s role to the world, or the house of Israel’s relationship to God or to the house of Judah. This was the great mystery being revealed; Paul understood predestination was about the elect as a corporate body. Jeremiah said [Jer 31”31-37] that the day would come that a new covenant with the House of Israel and with the house of Judah would be cut (repeated in [Heb 8:8b]). But if you believe that this is true you have to see the House of Israel and the House of Judah as the elect, to whom pre-ordination applied and still does. There is a problem of course if one wrongfully assumes that [Joel 2:25-27] has not yet happened as most Christian’s do.
See how [Matt 18:11] fulfills the promises God made through [Ezekiel 34:16]. We read [Hos 1:6b] and [Hos 1:9b] incorrectly and in isolation not reading as far as [Hos 1:10] to see that the sons of the living God are in fact his elect, but are not considered (by the world) to be his elect. Jesus speaks of [Hosea 1:11] when he speaks of his other fold in [John 10:16]. But this is the great mystery of isn’t it? That God preordained a people to be his elect? [Amos 9:9] that they would be called by a new name (i.e. No longer Israel) IAW [Isa 62:2]. BTW that doesn’t mean God will remove their name, rather it means they will rename them. [2 Chron 7:14-15] and [Acts 11:26c]
So what does that mean for individuals with respect to predestination; for both sides of the argument above are really on the same side, in that they are both trying to make the round peg of individualism fit into the square hole of corporatism when they speak of predestination? Look again at [Matt 15:24]. It means that that orchard which has been replanted is not being abandoned. Rather it is having the weeds removed from among it [Rev 2:9][Rev 3:9].
If God preordains that this orchard will be the one he tends .. to the exclusion of all others, that predestination applies to the orchard and not the trees or branches within. If you examine tree’s and branches on a case by case basis, the simple answer is, as long as a tree or the branch produces good fruit it will remain in the orchard [Rom 11:17] that has been predestined. However being a wild branch or being a tame branch by origin doesn’t in any way change the fact that God preordained the orchard. Who are we to ask then, ‘was this branch that was grafted it predestined?’ No it was the orchard that was. Likewise can we honestly answer the question as Christian’s ‘was this branch that was broken off predestined? The appointment of predestination applies to the orchard only. Simply, when we ask questions like that about the branches that are broken off or grafted in we are ignoring the orchard.
You could say we are not seeing the forest for the trees.
December 13, 2007 at 7:57 pm
Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.
December 13, 2007 at 7:58 pm
Give me some time to digest your post.
December 13, 2007 at 8:20 pm
I am merely clay in the potters hands, as are you I’m sure.
A glory to God the father, his only begotten Son who lives and reigns and to the Holy Spirit!
December 14, 2007 at 3:54 pm
To help you digest my post, I’ll be more clear. Here are additional thoughts:
Salvation does not belong to particular individuals as Calvinism teaches. It belongs to Christ, and Christ alone. Jesus was the only individual ever elected from the beginning of time. Jesus is the only individual to whom predestination applies as an individual. Jesus is the orchard then.
The fixidity of salvation does not lie in a hidden decree by God then, rather it lies in the corporate unity with the body of Christ. For predestination to apply to us as individuals, we must be ‘in Christ’ as [Eph 1:3-4] and many other verses tell us [Eph 2:10] etc. The ‘in Christ’ shows you that predestination is a corporate ordination. That corporate ordination in the OT occurred when the prophets took communion (i.e. ate the word of God which was sweet to taste but bitter to their bellies).
Jesus alone was the chosen of God, the predestined one. To argue otherwise is to elevate ourselves to God, and wrong. Only by incorporating ourselves to Christ through faith can we share in that predestination, or preordination.
December 16, 2007 at 12:03 am
Nope. Still too dizzy. Hmmmmmm. Listen, Reformed Theology has a great approach to being in Christ as the elct one w/o your confusing and arrogant criticisms. The Westminster Confession and other Reformed confessions do what you are wanting but without the “fundamentalist” attitude you are communicating.
December 16, 2007 at 2:19 am
My original post was about how arguments and dialogue unfortunately degenerated into ad hominem attacks. I did enjoy the debate you presented to Ron Henzel, who I believe is wrong in his understanding. It was your responses that drew my attention and I think you were compelling, that is, until the debte started attacking his person.
Your points stood on their own merit, and your argument valid, however your frustration and your desire to strike out verbally at those with whom you dialogue undermines your credibility.
At your request, I commented on your debate, against my better judgement. Yet instead of dealing with what was written you are making this personal against me by accusing me of arrogance (another ad hominem attack perhaps)?
How can you accuse my post of being ‘fundamentalist’ if you don’t understand it by your own admission? How can you accuse it of being arrogant when it was only offered because you requested?
Perhaps you should worry less about those with whom you dialogue, and more about what they say, or what you do.
Peace to you, in Christ.
December 16, 2007 at 8:33 pm
My comments above were not meant to be ad hominem. The format for your presentation came across to me like those I have encountered before where there was little coherence to it and that led to its being very confusing. I termed this “fundamentalist” b/c it’s very much like that as they argue say, against alchohol. Usually there is this heavy listing of supposed texts with no support and strong assertion. This approach gives an aire of arrogance in my opinion. That is how I felt your approach was. I am sorry I attacked you as a person. It was not my intent.
If you are still around, mebbe you could he’p me in this area.
Thanks.
December 16, 2007 at 8:36 pm
I looked back over the posts. I did not sense when I was attacking his person. Would you mind pointing it out?