The Greeting in Ephesians 1:1-2
January 6, 2007 at 11:50 am (Federal Vision, Heresy, NT-Ephesians)
This greeting is often used by FV advocates to say that all the members of the visible church are saints, since Paul addressed this letter to the entire church. See, for instance, Wilkins in Federal Vision, pg. 56, where his reading of 1:3-5 requires said reading of 1:1-2. But does this passage really say that the blessings of eternal election (”from before the foundation of the world”) and all the spiritual blessings in Christ (vs. 3) are all attributed to everyone who might read this document? I am going to argue that this is a misreading of Paul’s intention. Here is the passage in English (my translation):
“Paul, an apostle by the will of God, to the saints who are in Ephesus, who are faithful in Christ Jesus; grace be to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.”
The Greek:
1Παῦλος ἀπόστολος Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ διὰ θελήματος θεοῦ τοῖς ἁγίοις τοῖς οὖσιν [ἐν Ἐφέσῳ] καὶ πιστοῖς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ: 2χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη ἀπὸ θεοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν καὶ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ.
Syntax:
1. dia plus genitive is an instrumental genitive. It is by the instrumentality of God’s will that Paul is an apostle.
2. Given that there is no article before pistois, and also given the kai in the construction, the phrase “faithful in Christ Jesus” may be considered to be epexegetical (explanatory) of the previous phrase. “The saints in Ephesus, that is, the faithful in Christ Jesus.” I realize that this is somewhat disputed by scholars (though the majority hold this view). However, I do think that the Greek supports this interpretation very well. John Calvin notes on this passage that all saints are faithful, and all the faithful are saints. This is not to say that the two phrases must say exactly the same thing. Lange, in his commentary, notes that, though the two phrases do refer to the same group of people, head for head, the first phrase refers to the outward “setting apart” of Christians from the world, whereas the second phrase refers to their inner condition.
3. Although there be no verb for wishing in verse 2, it seems fairly reasonable to supply a verb of wishing there: “May grace and peace come to you.” However, I will not dispute if someone wishes to translate this verse in a more indicative manner: “Grace is to you and peace.”
4. “God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ” does not refer to the respective givers of grace and peace, as if one gave the one, and the other gave the other. Rather, both the Father and the Lord Jesus give both grace and peace.
Contextual Considerations:
1. The people to whom Paul is writing have every spiritual blessing right now in Christ Jesus (verse 3), including (one would presume) incipient perseverance. Perseverance cannot be isolated away from these statements, especially given the guarantee of the Holy Spirit in verses 13-14. The Holy Spirit is the guarantee of perseverance, since He is the ἀρραβὼν of the inheritance, the down payment.
2. The election spoken of in verses 4-5 is to “holiness and blamelessness” (vs. 4). It is to an adoption in Him (vs. 5). It results in the very real forgiveness of sins (vs. 7). This forgiveness is in accordance with the riches of His grace (vs. 7). In other words, this is not a half-hearted temporary forgiveness, but a full forgiveness, one that is in accord with the full riches of God’s grace. In fact, that phrase κατὰ τὸ πλοῦτος τῆς χάριτος αὐτοῦ ices it for me: this is not temporary salvation, but permanent salvation of which Paul speaks.
3. There do seem to be separate indications in chapter 2 that Paul hasn’t forgotten about the visible church, even those who will apostatize.
Therefore, it becomes necessary to formulate a precise and careful statement regarding the recipients of this letter. I would say that Paul’s primary audience is the elect, faithful saints in Ephesus. I reject Wilkins’s interpretation based on the exegetical and contextual considerations listed above. Paul is not saying that this is true for everyone at Ephesus connected with the church. The nature of the benefits described precludes that interpretation. That Paul addresses Ephesus means that the judgment of charity interpretation comes into play here as a logical solution. Nevertheless, the indications in chapter 2 require us to qualify our statement by saying that Paul, though not directly including the non-elect covenant members in chapter 1, does address them as part of the visible church in parts of the rest of the letter. Chapter 1 describes permanent ordo salutis benefits.
Todd said,
January 6, 2007 at 11:57 am
“Chapter 1 describes permanent ordo salutis benefits.”
In your view, are *any* of the benefits listed enjoyed by the whole visible church?
greenbaggins said,
January 6, 2007 at 12:07 pm
In 1:3-14, nothing is outside the ordo salutis, with the possible exception of the revelation of the mystery described in verse 9. Since the mystery is something that can be known by a mind, I suppose that it coud be known by a non-elect member of the visible church. I think the enlightening of the eyes of the heart, however, in vs. 18 describes the elect again, since that enlightening is explicitly connected with resurrection power in verses 19-20. Chapter 2, at the beginning, at least, does not address the visible church, except by judgment of charity, since it explicitly describes conversion in one of the clearest expositions of regeneration anywhere to be found in the entire Bible. It is the irrevocable transferrence from death to life.
Xon said,
January 6, 2007 at 2:08 pm
“The people to whom Paul is writing have every spiritual blessing right now in Christ Jesus (verse 3), including (one would presume) incipient perseverance. Perseverance cannot be isolated away from these statements, especially given the guarantee of the Holy Spirit in verses 13-14. The Holy Spirit is the guarantee of perseverance, since He is the ἀρραβὼν of the inheritance, the down payment.”
This doesn’t follow. People make down payments all the time, but if the other party violates the contract then you get the down payment back. God has given His Church the Holy Spirit as a guarantee of a future inheritance. If you show up at the pearly gates with the Holy Spirit, that’s your golden ticket that says “let this dude in!” (VERY crude way of speaking, forgive me!) But some people might be given the golden ticket, and then lose it later (by God’s own doing in accordance with His will). If they show up without it (or, switching the metaphor, if they show up at the wedding party without wedding clothes), then they’re in trouble. But of course it’s no their ultimate doing whether they have the Holy Spirit to the end or not; God has decreed who will keep Him and who will lose Him.
“The election spoken of in verses 4-5 is to “holiness and blamelessness” (vs. 4). It is to an adoption in Him (vs. 5). It results in the very real forgiveness of sins (vs. 7). This forgiveness is in accordance with the riches of His grace (vs. 7). In other words, this is not a half-hearted temporary forgiveness, but a full forgiveness, one that is in accord with the full riches of God’s grace. In fact, that phrase κατὰ τὸ πλοῦτος τῆς χάριτος αὐτοῦ ices it for me: this is not temporary salvation, but permanent salvation of which Paul speaks.”
Again, this doesn’t follow. The Scriptures speak of people as being holy and blameless who are not saved in the end. If you are in Christ, then God looks at you differently, as one who is set apart and blameless. You can only be in Christ through the gift of faith, which God gives to whomever He chooses. But, God might also choose to give people faith only for a time. While these people had faith, they would still be set apart and blameless in Christ. They would have a real forgiveness of sins, as real as anybody else’s present forgiveness of sins is. (I mean, right now I myself don’t “‘have” eternal forgiveness of sins, since I am not in “eternity” right now). And all of this is certainly in accordance with the riches of His grace; it is a gracious God who gives Himself for us so that we can be united to Him and wear His righteousness as our protection from sin and death. But nothing about this implies that these riches always have to go to people in a way that lasts forever, or that God cannot choose to give people these riches but take them away later.
My point is that this reading is at least as reasonable as yours. Nothing in the meaning of the words themselves precludes my interpretation.
(One final note: the stuff I said above all sounded “durational”, but I don’t mean to limit the differences to durational ones only. I do believe that reprobates who are given the riches in a less than permanent way experience a different “reality” than that experienced by the elect who are given these riches in a permanent way. I just don’t think this different reality is being spelled out in Ephesians 1.)
Todd said,
January 6, 2007 at 2:08 pm
How about Eph. 2:19?
greenbaggins said,
January 6, 2007 at 2:45 pm
BOQ But some people might be given the golden ticket, and then lose it later. EOQ This is Arminian, pure and simple, Xon.
BOQ The Scriptures speak of people as being holy and blameless who are not saved in the end. EOQ In the context of Ephesians 1, as I have argued, that is not what this text is talking about at all. “Every spiritual blessing.” Are you going to except perseverance from “every spiritual blessing?” Shame on you. Your reading isn’t remotely convincing here, Xon.
David Gadbois said,
January 6, 2007 at 7:06 pm
Xon misses the obvious - the “downpayment” is something GOD is giving to us. It is God’s downpayment. Are we really to believe that God won’t make good on the downpayment? The downpayment is not something that we pay up on down the line through our good works or covenant-keeping or whatever other FV garbage you think. Indeed, Lane, this is the most blatantly Arminian thing that has been said so far.
Todd said,
January 7, 2007 at 8:16 am
David misses the obvious - Xon has kept the parties straight in his comments. Read more carefully, and be slower to jump to the meannness.
Xon said: “People make down payments all the time, but if the *other party* violates the contract then you get the down payment back. *God* has given His Church the Holy Spirit as a guarantee of a future inheritance.”
Anne Ivy said,
January 7, 2007 at 12:23 pm
According to Paul in his second letter to the Corinthians, though, this pledge or deposit or down payment is provided as proof of his, as well as Timothy and Silvanus’s, Christian integrity :
“Now He who establishes us with you in Christ and anointed us is God, who also sealed us and gave us the Spirit in our hearts as a pledge.” (1:21-22)
You know, that only works if the pledge is individual, i.e. the Holy Spirit firmly and irrevocably fixed in the heart of the individual believer. If the pledge is merely made to “the Church” instead of to the individual believers of whom the Church is composed, that was no proof at all, since how would the Corinthians know Paul, Timothy and Silvanus were trustworthy overseers of the faith?
A little farther on in that same epistle Paul wrote:
“For we know that if the earthly tent which is our house is torn down, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For indeed in this house we groan, longing to be clothed with our dwelling from heaven, inasmuch as we, having put it on, will not be found naked.
For indeed while we are in this tent, we groan, being burdened, because we do not want to be unclothed but to be clothed, so that what is mortal will be swallowed up by life. Now He who prepared us for this very purpose is God, who gave to us the Spirit as a pledge. Therefore, being always of good courage, and knowing that while we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord– for we walk by faith, not by sight–we are of good courage, I say, and prefer rather to be absent from the body and to be at home with the Lord.” (5:1-
The plural used is clearly, from the context, referring to multiple individuals, not an indefinite, unidentifiable mass of people.
Again I’m baffled as to how this new interpretation is supposed to be an improvement over the traditional one. “Hey, just because I’m indwelt by the Holy Spirit now doesn’t guarantee He’ll be around next month. He might have dropped me like a rock by that time.”
Strange.
Todd said,
January 7, 2007 at 2:07 pm
“Hey, just because I’m indwelt by the Holy Spirit now doesn’t guarantee He’ll be around next month. He might have dropped me like a rock by that time.”
Anne, you’re not reading carefully, either. Did Xon say anything about the possiblity of God changing his mind?
We have to rmember that the Paul who wrote what you quoted above, also wrote the following from First Corinthians:
“But I discipline my body and keep it under control, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified.”
The sealing of the Spirit did not lead Paul to presumption, but carefulness and godly fear.
Anne Ivy said,
January 7, 2007 at 2:29 pm
It’s a constant astonishment how misinterpreted that passage tends to be:
25 Everyone who competes in the games exercises self-control in all things They then do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable.
26 Therefore I run in such a way, as not without aim; I box in such a way, as not beating the air;
27 but I discipline my body and make it my slave, so that, after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified.
Salvation is a competition? It’s something we win?
It’s something we earn through our efforts?
Paul isn’t likening eternal salvation to a prize won by an athlete at the Corinthian games, for pity’s sake. Salvation is a gift, not an earned, deserved prize.
Our efforts in sanctification do, however, earn us rewards in heaven…crowns we will cast at the feet of Christ.
We hope. Some of us, regrettably, will show up empty-handed and with a bare foundation:
10 According to the grace of God which was given to me, like a wise master builder I laid a foundation, and another is building on it. But each man must be careful how he builds on it.
11 For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
12 Now if any man builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw,
13 each man’s work will become evident; for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each man’s work.
14 If any man’s work which he has built on it remains, he will receive a reward.
15 If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire. (1 Cor. 3)
Equating prizes and such earned stuff with salvation is common to Arminians, but it’s perplexing when Calvinists do it.
Todd said,
January 7, 2007 at 3:05 pm
So, Paul is talking only of the possibility of being disqualified from extra rewards? Is the “imperishable wreath” something that some get in heaven and some don’t?
pduggie said,
January 7, 2007 at 3:31 pm
1 Cor 10: 1-13 seems more relevant to me than the one about the prize Paul seeks. There he says that BOTH the corinthians and israel had the same spiritual connection to Christ (is that an “external” connection? Paul says it’s Spiritual! Paul says its’ to CHRIST, Paul says its what the corinthians benefit from!)
But that spiritual power from Christ going INTO them didn’t do the israelites any final good, and they apostasised, and Paul warns the corinthians that they could too, if they give into the temptation to apostasize.
Anne said,
January 7, 2007 at 3:46 pm
Bingo.
Look at 1 Peter 5:
1 Therefore, I exhort the elders among you, as your fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed,
2 shepherd the flock of God among you, exercising oversight not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to the will of God; and not for sordid gain, but with eagerness;
3 nor yet as lording it over those allotted to your charge, but proving to be examples to the flock.
4 And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory.
What, is Peter telling the elders their ultimate salvation is dependent upon how well they perform their job as elders?
Surely you do not believe that.
No, what he’s doing is encouraging them with the promise of receiving “the unfaded crown of glory.” If they’re substandard elders, they’ll still be in glory, but no nice unfaded crown for glory for them, by jingo.
If every time you come across a word such as “prize”, “crown”, “reward” and so on you jump to the conclusion it means “eternal salvation”, that’s going to really make a hash of your soteriology, Todd.
Todd said,
January 7, 2007 at 6:16 pm
Anne, in your view, what is the difference (or connection) between the 1 Peter passage about rewards for elders, and the parable of the sheep and the goats?
34 Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’
Eternal salvation, right?
Anne Ivy said,
January 7, 2007 at 7:24 pm
I’m intrigued to see how you’re going to get those two tied together. ;^)
But, right.
Todd said,
January 7, 2007 at 7:29 pm
I asked you first.
You objected to an “eternal salvation” reading of 1 Peter 5’s “unfading crown of glory.” You said, “What, is Peter telling the elders their ultimate salvation is dependent upon how well they perform their job as elders? Surely you do not believe that.”
Well, why not ask a similar question about the sheep in Mathew 25? What, is Jesus telling his disciples that their ultimate salvation is dependent upon how well they perform their job as mercy ministers?
Anne said,
January 7, 2007 at 8:39 pm
If you want to get persnickety, I asked a question first: ““What, is Peter telling the elders their ultimate salvation is dependent upon how well they perform their job as elders?”
Apparently your response is “yes”?
To be fair, however, I see your point, and allow that it’s a valid question. It’s true the Matthew passage is a favorite of Arminians, appearing to support the contention that salvation is achieved through works. Calvinists, naturally, say while it certainly sounds like that, when read in light of other verses (such as the “You do not believe because you are not My sheep”), Christ is simply referring to the inevitable fruit of sanctification as being the outward evidence of an already-existing justification.
So presumably you’re drawing a parallel between this and the “elders” passage in Peter.
Trouble is, though, one can presumably be a fairly deficient elder yet still be a true Christian, particularly in light of 1 Corinthians 3:15, which is a clear illustration of a Christian whose “works” cannot stand up to the test of fire at judgment and so are burned up, leaving only the foundation of faith in Christ to save them.
Which, blessedly, is enough.
So what I’m thinking is that one doesn’t get the crowns until one is already INSIDE the gate of heaven, surely…I’ve certainly never read of crowns being described as tickets to enter. This would mean crowns are not descriptions of salvation, per se, but the rewards arising from the efforts of individual Christians.
Is it your belief there in fact exists a set threshold of works that must be achieved before one will be permitted into glory?
Truth be told, I hope not, for I’ve never visited a prisoner that I can recall, and most of the feeding and giving of water has been to family and friends, though there have been the occasional ride given to a stranger, money given to a homeless person, or glass of lemonade to the lawn guy, etc.
Nowhere near enough to earn eternal life, though. How much would that be, do you suppose? What’s a ticket into eternal life going for?
Once one ties actions to it, there must be some sort of standard.
Todd said,
January 7, 2007 at 8:53 pm
“Is it your belief there in fact exists a set threshold of works that must be achieved before one will be permitted into glory?”
No, of course not. I like the way you put it near the top: “Christ is simply referring to the inevitable fruit of sanctification as being the outward evidence of an already-existing justification.” And there’s no reason not to put both Matthew 25 and 1 Peter 5 in the same category, unless you come *to* the texts with an already-worked-out system in which a crown is an extra reward rather than one of the Bible’s many pictures of salvation itself.
Anne said,
January 7, 2007 at 9:00 pm
Then what do you do with “If any man’s work which he has built on it remains, he will receive a reward. If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire”?
The “reward” is clearly not salvation, since one can be saved without it.
Anne said,
January 7, 2007 at 9:04 pm
BTW, I don’t know if anyone else is enjoying our debate but let me assure you I’m enjoying it tremendously! ;^)
Todd said,
January 7, 2007 at 9:07 pm
Right. I’m with you on that one. I hestitate to read this paradigm into all the passages about crowns and wreaths.
David Gadbois said,
January 8, 2007 at 10:11 am
“Read more carefully, and be slower to jump to the meannness.
Xon said: “People make down payments all the time, but if the *other party* violates the contract then you get the down payment back. *God* has given His Church the Holy Spirit as a guarantee of a future inheritance.””
OK, so Xon does indeed have God giving the downpayment, but this formulation is no less horrendous. Here we have a “God does his part, we do our part” synergism. No such conditionality exists in this passage.
pduggie said,
January 8, 2007 at 10:28 am
I think he’s saying that God doing his part is something other than giving the Spirit as a Seal of the inheritance. Its his giving of persevering faith, not his giving of the Spirit. The gift of the Spirit in acts is a completely visible phenomenon, and is the foundation for the acceptance of the gentiles, and Samaritans, etc. Its what tells the church that God, who looks on the heart, has accepted gentiles as well as Jews.
But Peter would be wrong to tell Cornelius that now that he has the Spirit, he cannot possibly apostatize. That would be like telling him that since he was baptized, he cannot possibly apostatize. (both are ’seals’, after all).
But if Cornelius has been given the gift of perseverance (which is ALL God’s part), then when he gets to heaven, he can still say that the Spirit (as well as baptism) were the seals of the persevering gifts of God.
(see also Galatians 3, where the Seal of the spirit that Paul appeals to is something they have via common faith, but seems also to be something they are departing from. But he appeals to the fact that the public reception of the Spirit (NOT “internal evidence of the Spirit”
was by faith, and that they need to recall this because they are in danger of rejecting the Spirit’s seal by turning to their own torah-works.)
Now maybe this doesn’t square with some system of doctrine in the WCF, but it seems exegeticly sound. If anyone wants to tell me where I can find this theology summarized in the WCF I’m open.
David Gadbois said,
January 8, 2007 at 11:37 am
“I think he’s saying that God doing his part is something other than giving the Spirit as a Seal of the inheritance.”
But that’s not what is in view in Ephesians 1. Here, the Spirit is a seal that “guarantees” our inheritance. Again, no conditionality here.
“But Peter would be wrong to tell Cornelius that now that he has the Spirit, he cannot possibly apostatize. That would be like telling him that since he was baptized, he cannot possibly apostatize. (both are ’seals’, after all).”
This is equivocation coupled with conjecture. The Acts narrative assumes that Cornelius had true faith (”repentance unto life, 11:18), as evidenced by their speaking in tongues, and had been given the Spirit “just as we have.” But the same Spirit who gives true faith gives persevering faith - and never does He give one without the other.
And the Spirit, in Ephesians 1, is not a “seal” the way a sacrament is. As a matter of fact, WE are sealed by the Spirit, a guarantee of our inheritance. In Romans 4, circumcision/baptism is a “sign and seal” of the righteousness which we/Abraham have by faith (something already possessed).
Your exegesis of Galatians 3 is abysmal. The faith in view here is likened to that of Abraham, so the work of the Spirit here cannot simply be outward, “common operations” (as WCF terms it) of the Spirit. Indeed, in Galatians 4 it talks about Christians being “born according to the Spirit” in contrast to Esau (non-elect covenant member). Genuine faith is also in view in connection with the Spirit in 5:5 also: “For through the Spirit, by faith, we ourselves eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness.”
Notice that Paul views the Galatians church in contrast from the false teachers in Galatia: “I have confidence in the Lord that you will take no other view than mine, and the one who is troubling you will bear the penalty, whoever he is”
pduggie said,
January 8, 2007 at 11:43 am
So people who spoke in tongues in the 1st century had assurance that they had true faith?
David Gadbois said,
January 8, 2007 at 11:53 am
“So people who spoke in tongues in the 1st century had assurance that they had true faith?”
Not necessarily, at least not by itself. But, in this case, Peter’s whole experience with Cornelius led him to conclude “God gave the same gift to them as he gave to us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ.”
pduggie said,
January 8, 2007 at 12:06 pm
My point with Cornelius and the Spirit-filled gentiles is that the public manifestation of the Spirit is apparently all the church needs to go on to judge them as possessing eternal life.
But in galatians, since the faith they began with is likened to abraham’s, then how have they turned from it to works?
They “began in the Spirit” and have turned from it to the flesh.
In Galatians 4, he’s comparing two different covenant members. One is from a covenant that has no experience of the Spirit, and one covenant does.
The judiazers couldn’t have pointed to “common operations of the Spirit” at all, but the Galatians who “began” in that Spiritual covenant have apparently turned from it to the flesh.
He’s confident that they will repent, but it seems like they’ve already stopped following the truth.
David Gadbois said,
January 8, 2007 at 3:11 pm
“My point with Cornelius and the Spirit-filled gentiles is that the public manifestation of the Spirit is apparently all the church needs to go on to judge them as possessing eternal life.”
You are confusing the epistemological issue with the ontological. We can be more or less sure of who has eternal life based on the various operations of the Spirit (some common, some being given the New Birth), but that does not mean that the ontological distinction between the two can be flattened - one has been given true faith by the Spirit, the other has not.
“But in galatians, since the faith they began with is likened to abraham’s, then how have they turned from it to works?”
But they had not apostatized as the false teachers had, even though they were mired in error. Before you NPP/FV guys start making up all sorts of crazy interpretations of the Bible, please at least read Calvin first before you do:
” By using the present tense, (“ye are removed”) he appears to say that they were only in the act of failing. As if he had said, “I do not yet say that ye have been removed; for then it would be more difficult to return to the right path. But now, at the critical moment, do not advance a single step, but instantly retreat.”
“In Galatians 4, he’s comparing two different covenant members. One is from a covenant that has no experience of the Spirit, and one covenant does.”
By your view BOTH should have an experience of the Spirit, by definition, since they are in the covenant (and baptized/circumcised).
“The judiazers couldn’t have pointed to “common operations of the Spirit” at all”
That’s conjecture, and it is obviously false since they, too, had been baptized.
“but the Galatians who “began” in that Spiritual covenant have apparently turned from it to the flesh.”
There is a danger of it, but Paul never goes so far as to say they have succumbed.
pduggie said,
January 8, 2007 at 3:30 pm
“By your view BOTH should have an experience of the Spirit, by definition, since they are in the covenant (and baptized/circumcised).”
That’s not what the text says. I’m with the text, which says that the law-focussed had no experience of the Spirit to point to.
“The judiazers couldn’t have pointed to “common operations of the Spirit” at all”
That’s conjecture, and it is obviously false since they, too, had been baptized.
But Paul says that everyone in Galatia knows they began with the Spirit, and that this was from faith, not from the Torah. If the judaizers could point to spirit-filled living on their part, Paul wouldn’t have had a point to make.
And how could Paul make a point about the danger of apostasy if his assurance that they were members of the true Spiritual covenant meant they could never apostasize?
Xon said,
January 8, 2007 at 4:01 pm
“OK, so Xon does indeed have God giving the downpayment, but this formulation is no less horrendous. Here we have a “God does his part, we do our part” synergism. No such conditionality exists in this passage.”
This is just as ridiculous as saying that my view is “Arminian.” Sine God is sovereign over whether or not the person does “his part”, the whole thing is monergistic. All our rewards are just God crowning His own works in us.
As to the passage itself, there is a crude kind of “conditionality” that exists behind everything, unless God immediately transported the elect to Heaven upon regenerating them.
If a person dies not believing in Christ, we say he is lost. This is a “condition”–if you do not believe, you will not be saved. It also holds for a person who has been irrevocably regenerated on your own view, doesn’t it? If (hypothetically) that person were to turn his back completely and permanently on Christ, then he would be lost. He would not be “dragged into Heaven kicking and screaming” after becoming an atheist, or enthusiastically rejecting the Christian way of life.
The fact that you have to believe or you will be lost does not undo election. It does not make us “synergists” when we say that. Same thing here.
Of course, since God is sovereign, if He has elected you then He doesn’t let you turn away like that. But, if you did so, you would be out. But, since you’re irrevocably predestined, you can’t be out, and so therefore we know that you will never turn away permanently. But, again, if you did turn away, then you would be lost.
There’s nothing to “read into” the text when it speaks of the Spirit as a guarantee of an inheritance. It’s not a question of me reading “conditionality” into this while you don’t. It’s a question of what kind of conditionality is in view. Obviously there are things which a person could do which would demonstrate they did not have the Spirit as their inheritance, even on your view. Well, that’s still “conditionality.” Raw conditionality is just a fact of life, and doesn’t need to be read “into” anything.
The question is not whether some people are irrevocably predestined for glory by God. The question is whether that is the particular doctrine in mind when Ephesians 1 calls the Holy Spirit a downpayment. I don’t think so, you say “yes.” But I’m not guilty of eisegesis here, any more than you are. Case in point: where do you get the idea that the “guarantee” being talked about is something which could never, under any circumstance, be withdrawn (by God’s sovereign will)? This is not normally how we talk about covenantal arrangements, so why are you inserting this meaning here?
David Gadbois said,
January 8, 2007 at 6:14 pm
“That’s not what the text says. I’m with the text, which says that the law-focussed had no experience of the Spirit to point to….But Paul says that everyone in Galatia knows they began with the Spirit, and that this was from faith, not from the Torah.”
The text never makes that connection of the Judaizers. You fundamentally don’t understand that the Judaizers proclaimed faith in Christ, too, but they mingled the message with a message of works. Luther, Calvin, and every Reformed exegete since then has affirmed that this was the issue with the Judaizers. You are going to have to do alot better than this if you are going to overturn their exegesis.
“And how could Paul make a point about the danger of apostasy if his assurance that they were members of the true Spiritual covenant meant they could never apostasize?”
As I stated elsewhere, warning passages, strictly speaking, don’t give us anything besides counterfactuals. Saying “if you do X, Y happens” does not assume that all hearers/readers are equally capable of doing X.
Anne Ivy said,
January 8, 2007 at 6:51 pm
Doesn’t it have at its base the same tension that exists between God’s sovereignty over all His creation and our moral culpability for the choices and decisions we make?
Heaven knows Scripture is replete with demands from the LORD regarding choices and decisions to be made by us even as He declares nothing can happen apart from Him.
I generally think that the LORD’s sovereignty is best viewed through the lens of the past (realizing nothing could have occurred differently than it did) or the future (recognizing everything that is going to occur will be according to His divine plan), while right this very second I am capable of making decisions and will - rightfully - be held responsible by the LORD for those decisions.
Just because He is ultimately the cause of all that occurs in His creation doesn’t pull the teeth from His instructions for us to “mind our ways”. How this works is, admittedly, a trifle tricky but we can rest assured it does work.
The “apostasy” warnings are “here and now/right this minute” warnings.
Just because if one is regenerated one cannot become unregenerated doesn’t pull the teeth of those warnings, any more than any other warnings/demands/instructions issued by the LORD in His Word.
Todd said,
January 8, 2007 at 7:01 pm
Good words, Anne. Faith trembles at, rather than explains away, these warnings.
David Gadbois said,
January 8, 2007 at 10:01 pm
“Just because if one is regenerated one cannot become unregenerated doesn’t pull the teeth of those warnings, any more than any other warnings/demands/instructions issued by the LORD in His Word.
Good words, Anne. Faith trembles at, rather than explains away, these warnings”.
Nothing is explained away here. We tremble because we may not be sure we are elect. We don’t tremble because the elect can lose their elect status.
Todd said,
January 8, 2007 at 10:13 pm
“We tremble because we may not be sure we are elect.”
Is this the meaning of “trembling at the threatenings” in WCF 14.2?
“By this faith, a Christian believeth to be true whatsoever is revealed in the Word, for the authority of God himself speaking therein; and acteth differently upon that which each particular passage thereof containeth; 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.”
David Gadbois said,
January 8, 2007 at 10:38 pm
“Sine God is sovereign over whether or not the person does “his part”, the whole thing is monergistic. All our rewards are just God crowning His own works in us.”
That doesn’t make it monergistic. You can be a determinist/predestinarian consistently down the line and still be a moralist and synergist, just as the Pharisee was who did not go home justified (although he credited God with his righteousness). Therefore, sola fide goes further and says that, additionally, we don’t do any work in justification - we can only passively receive Christ’s work.
“As to the passage itself, there is a crude kind of “conditionality” that exists behind everything, unless God immediately transported the elect to Heaven upon regenerating them.”
But here, and in the rest of your post, you confuse descriptive conditionality (describing how God fulfills his promises) with prescriptive/contractual conditionality (what we do in order to ensure that God fulfills his promises).
“It’s not a question of me reading “conditionality” into this while you don’t. It’s a question of what kind of conditionality is in view. Obviously there are things which a person could do which would demonstrate they did not have the Spirit as their inheritance, even on your view”
Same as above - mine is a descriptive condition, you are confusing it with a prescriptive contractual condition. But this is the same age-old blunder of moralists of every stripe, including Romanists and Arminians.
“Case in point: where do you get the idea that the “guarantee” being talked about is something which could never, under any circumstance, be withdrawn (by God’s sovereign will)?”
Sometimes conditional “guarantees” are made in Scripture, but when they are made, it says what the conditions are. There are no prescriptive conditions here, either in the immediate or wider context.
Additionally, all through the book it is talking about Believers with genuine faith and eternal salvation. Just one example is what we find Ephesians 2 - where they used to be children of wrath and dead in trespasses and sins, but now “in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus” And it goes on to say that these people have “peace” with God. But peace/Shiloam is not just a temporary cease-fire with God, it is permanent reconciliation.
And again, “all” the spiritual blessings really must mean “all” here. It is arbitrary and artificial to cut out perseverence.
David Gadbois said,
January 8, 2007 at 10:40 pm
“Is this the meaning of “trembling at the threatenings” in WCF 14.2?”
WCF 14 doesn’t answer that question, but that must be the meaning if you take WCF 17 seriously.
Todd said,
January 9, 2007 at 5:26 am
David, is your position is that WCF 14 teaches that by saving faith, a Christian trembles at the threatenings of God’s word, because he may not be sure he is elect? That there is no trembling when there is full assurance? Trembling is an act of saving faith, but not assured faith?
David Gadbois said,
January 9, 2007 at 7:57 pm
There is trembling at the threatenings that apply directly to the elect (various curses we receive as a result of our sin that don’t effect eternal salvation).
Even for those with full assurance, there is still trembling at the thought of apostacy (as a counterfactual).
Todd said,
January 9, 2007 at 8:01 pm
In whihc category do you put 1 Corinthians 10?
10:1 For I want you to know, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, 2 and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, 3 and all ate the same spiritual food, 4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ. 5 Nevertheless, with most of them God was not pleased, for they were overthrown in the wilderness.
6 Now these things took place as examples for us, that we might not desire evil as they did. 7 Do not be idolaters as some of them were; as it is written, “The people sat down to eat and drink and rose up to play.” 8 We must not indulge in sexual immorality as some of them did, and twenty-three thousand fell in a single day. 9 We must not put Christ to the test, as some of them did and were destroyed by serpents, 10 nor grumble, as some of them did and were destroyed by the Destroyer. 11 Now these things happened to them as an example, but they were written down for our instruction, on whom the end of the ages has come. 12 Therefore let anyone who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall. 13 No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it.
David Gadbois said,
January 9, 2007 at 8:11 pm
Well, it is written to those being tempted in some capacity, obviously. So this would apply to those without full assurance of their election.
Todd said,
January 9, 2007 at 8:12 pm
How should the reader with full assurance apply this passage?
pduggie said,
January 9, 2007 at 8:47 pm
If you have faith that Jesus is your savior (which is the content of saving faith) how does anyone lack assurance?
Just asking.
Anne Ivy said,
January 9, 2007 at 9:29 pm
Well, golly, Paul, I can’t imagine, unless it’s stuff like “Saul seems to receive the same initial covenantal grace that David, Gideon, and other men who persevered in faith received, but he did not persevere in that grace. Though this was according to God’s eternal decree and though God could surely have preserved him in faith, Saul fell in unbelief” and “There are those, however, who are joined to Him as branches in the vine, but who because of unbelief are barren and fruitless and consequently are cut off from the vine and from salvation. Jesus says these “believe for a while” but do not bear fruit unto salvation.” (AAPC Position Paper/revised)
Apparently anyone might find themselves in the unhappy position of “believ[ing] for a while”, so why would present belief be a ground of assurance?
pduggie said,
January 10, 2007 at 1:25 am
Well, assume for the sake of argument that all the FV anwers are wrong. Then why would someone with faith in the gospel lack assurance?
I guess the question is what does one lack when one lacks assurance.
One might say “I trust Christ now, but I don’t know if I’ll trust him tomorrow”
The gospel message is “believe on the Lord Jesus and you will be saved”.
Someone who says, “I hear that, and I believe that, and so believe on the Lord Jesus, but I’m not sure I’ll be saved” is talking nonsense, since they evidence that they DON’T believe the gospel message, because they express doubt that believing it can save them.
Anne Ivy said,
January 10, 2007 at 6:42 am
I agree with you, but then I believe we cannot believe upon Christ Jesus unless it’s given to us to do so, and it’s not given to us to do so without the grace of perseverance thrown in.
Paul, you can try to wriggle out of this all you want, but if one can truly believe in Christ Jesus (only possible through the working of the Holy Spirit) then stop (because the Holy Spirit quit working to support one’s belief), there is no ground for assurance.
Many, many people “believe” in a faux Christ of their own devising, and sometimes they carry on in their belief in that faux Christ until the end and sometimes they don’t, but they are in no way real, honest-to-goodness believers in the Christ Who Saves.
This is why Wilkins’ theoretical construct of a “non-elect believer” is flapdoodle. If one believes in the Christ who saves, one WILL be saved; if one believes in a “Christ” who does not save, one will not be saved, because one was never a believer at all.
This ain’t rocket science, as that highly overpaid chef likes to say.
David Gadbois said,
January 11, 2007 at 3:53 am
“How should the reader with full assurance apply this passage?”
The passage would only “apply” to them during times that they don’t have full assurance. It “applies” to everyone, in a sense, but only conditionally.
“If you have faith that Jesus is your savior (which is the content of saving faith) how does anyone lack assurance?
Ask WCF 14.3: This faith is different in degrees, weak or strong; may be 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.
Todd said,
January 11, 2007 at 7:28 am
“The passage would only “apply” to them during times that they don’t have full assurance. It “applies” to everyone, in a sense, but only conditionally.”
So, “Therefore let anyone who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall, unless, of course, he’s infallibly sure that he stands stand. If that’s you, this doesn’t apply to you, of course. In fact, I guess I shouldn’t have written “anyone.” Sorry about that. My bad. Love, Paul.”
Calvin:
12. Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth. The Apostle concludes from what goes before, that we must not glory in our beginnings or progress, so as to resign ourselves to carelessness and inactivity. For the Corinthians gloried in their condition in such a way, that, forgetting their weakness, they fell into many crimes. This was a false confidence of such a kind as the Prophets frequently reprove in the Israelitish people. As, however, Papists wrest this passage for the purpose of maintaining their impious doctrine respecting faith, as having constantly doubt connected with it, let us observe that there are two kinds of assurance.
The one is that which rests on the promises of God, because a pious conscience feels assured that God will never be wanting to it; and, relying on this unconquerable persuasion, triumphs boldly and intrepidly over Satan and sin, and yet, nevertheless, keeping in mind its own infirmity, casts itself upon God, and with carefulness and anxiety commits itself to him. This kind of assurance is sacred, and is inseparable from faith, as appears from many passages of Scripture, and especially Romans 8:33.
The other arises from negligence, when men, puffed up with the gifts that they have, give themselves no concern, as if they were beyond the reach of danger, but rest satisfied with their condition. Hence it is that they are exposed to all the assaults of Satan. This is the kind of assurance which Paul would have the Corinthians to abandon, because he saw that they were satisfied with themselves under the influence of a silly conceit. He does not, however, exhort them to be always anxiously in doubt as to the will of God, or to tremble from uncertainty as to their salvation, as Papists dream. In short, let us bear in mind, that Paul is here addressing persons who were puffed up with a base confidence in the flesh, and represses that assurance which is grounded upon men — not upon God. For after commending the Colossians for the solidity or steadfastness of their faith, (Colossians 2:5,) he exhorts them to be rooted in Christ, to remain firm, and to be built up and confirmed in the faith. (Colossians 2:7.)
greenbaggins said,
January 11, 2007 at 9:44 am
Todd, you are failing to distinguish here between assurance and presumption. You think that what we mean by assurance includes some kind of presumption, when in fact, true assurance can also tremble at the warnings. True assurance, in other words, does not mean that we claim to have God’s perspective on whether or not we are saved. Assurance has much more to do with depending on God’s promises, and agreeing with the Holy Spirit’s testimony in our lives.
Todd said,
January 11, 2007 at 10:08 am
“true assurance can also tremble at the warnings.”
I don’t get the feeling David agrees with this. He says, “So this would apply to those without full assurance of their election.” And, “We tremble because we may not be sure we are elect.” And, “The passage would only “apply” to them during times that they don’t have full assurance. It “applies” to everyone, in a sense, but only conditionally.”
But he has also said, “There is trembling at the threatenings that apply directly to the elect (various curses we receive as a result of our sin that don’t effect eternal salvation).” I’m not sure whethre he puts 1 Corinthians 10 into this category or not.
I don’t think I undestand David’s full position on all this.
Lane writes, “Assurance has much more to do with depending on God’s promises, and agreeing with the Holy Spirit’s testimony in our lives.”
I think I read that in Lusk. Or Wilkins. Or Wilson. I can’t remember.
greenbaggins said,
January 11, 2007 at 10:15 am
I’m not sure I do either. Assurance of faith does not exclude “taking heed lest we fall.” Nor does that mean that we don’t have full assurance of our election. It is quite possible to be fully assured of decretal election in our own case, and yet tremble at the warnings. That is because part of the reason the warnings are there is to keep the elect within the fold. God does not timelessly keep his people. He uses means to do so. And one of those means is the warnings. This is something the FV never seem to acknowledge. In their quest for saying that the warnings are real, they don’t acknowledge that this is one of God’s means to keep the elect firmly in place.
Anne Ivy said,
January 11, 2007 at 10:23 am
When we speak of assurance, is what’s under discussion whether Edna “feels” assured of her salvation, or whether Edna’s salvation is assured due to her faith in Christ, apart from how she feels?
ISTM people use varying definitions of the term, which can make it difficult to discuss.
To my mind, assurance isn’t about whether or not someone feels saved, but whether or not, assuming one is saved (i.e. regenerated and united to Christ by grace through faith), one stays saved.
This is the most depressing facet of the FV, I think…the teaching that since one can be “temporarily” united to Christ and “believe for a while” prior to falling away, there is actually no ground for objective assurance at all.
greenbaggins said,
January 11, 2007 at 10:26 am
I think that there is an objective component. However, John writes (1 J 5:13) so that his readers may know that they have eternal life. There’s gotta be some kind of subjective element in that, even if there is objective truth there. The WCF also talks about subjective assurance in several places.
Todd said,
January 11, 2007 at 10:35 am
“In their quest for saying that the warnings are real, they don’t acknowledge that this is one of God’s means to keep the elect firmly in place.”
Nah. None of the FV guys would disagree with this.
“The WCF also talks about subjective assurance in several places.”
As do the FV guys.
Anne Ivy said,
January 11, 2007 at 10:46 am
Well, yes, Lane, but surely the subjective is grounded on the objective?
If, as the FV teaches, there is a class of “elect” who receive sufficient grace from the Holy Spirit to actually believe in Christ and have faith in Him but at some point that grace is withdrawn, on what basis would anyone have a subjective assurance?
greenbaggins said,
January 11, 2007 at 11:03 am
Absolutely: our subjective assurance must be based on the objective truth of what Jesus has accomplished for us. However, I don’t think that that makes up the entire basis for our assurance. If it is true that the Holy Spirit working in our lives can be part of our assurance, then there is an extra piece there that is not dependent on the objective.
Todd said,
January 11, 2007 at 11:34 am
Again, the FV guys wouldn’t disagree with 56.
Anne Ivy said,
January 11, 2007 at 1:03 pm
I don’t think it’s the entire basis for our assurance, either, since the subjective is grounded in the objective. The knowledge of the existence of objective assurance - i.e. that what the Holy Spirit starts, the Holy Spirit finishes - is what supports one’s subjective feeling of assurance, especially when one isn’t feeling particularly assured.
It permits one to rely on the promises without fretting about the possibility that one’s lack of assurance is due to the Holy Spirit’s leaving.
Todd said,
January 11, 2007 at 9:31 pm
Anne, these are great thoughts. What’s the relationship between this view of assurance and the warnings of 1 Cor 10 and Rom 11? Are you comfortable with the way David has been writing here, that these warnings “don’t apply” to those with full assurance? Not trying to “divide and conquer” at all; I’m just trying to get a sense of where everyone is on this one.
Anne Ivy said,
January 11, 2007 at 10:11 pm
Truth be told, ISTM they “don’t apply” from the LORD’s POV, and from a true believer’s POV they’re akin to an admonitory rap on the knuckles, so to speak.
You know, I’m trying to imagine a situation in life when it’s prudent to disregard serious warnings, and am having a hard time. Shrugging off warnings, even if they really don’t appear to be applicable in one’s own case, often winds up being a dumb thing to do. If nothing else, it demonstrates an arrogant spirit, does it not?
It isn’t so much that Christians actually need to fear falling away, than if they are insouciant and off-hand about their salvation, that surely signals spiritual arrogance, which is the opposite of humility, which is a fruit of the Spirit.
I’m thinking the warning verses are, in effect, companions to Paul’s emphatic warnings against Christians taking for granted having been saved by grace: “What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase? May it never be!”; “What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? May it never be!”; “And why not say (as we are slanderously reported and as some claim that we say), “Let us do evil that good may come”? Their condemnation is just.”
This was a problem back then, as it always is when the full-orbed gospel is preached. If no-one protests “But…but…that’s not fair!” or else has eyes lighting up with a “You mean ALL my sins are forgiven? And I can’t lose my salvation? COOL!” expression, we haven’t preached it properly.
Possibly itty-bitty baby newbie believers might, for a short time after conversion, get caught in the “sin more that grace may abound” trap, but the Holy Spirit is certain to take ‘em by the scruff of their necks and haul ‘em right out of it. Continuing to think like that, and acting upon it, is almost certainly a sign of a false, deceptive “faith.”
Those warnings act as “Mind your ways!” reminders to us not to take the LORD’s generosity for granted.
Maybe it’s paradoxical of me, but while I am confidant of my salvation, and believe it cannot be lost, I don’t shrug off those “Work out your salvation with fear and trembling” warnings.
They’re right potent encouragement to stay away from sin and actively work on my sanctification, has been my experience. ;^)
Todd said,
January 11, 2007 at 10:15 pm
Again, great words, Anne.
Anne Ivy said,
January 11, 2007 at 10:24 pm
Let me ask you something, if I may. It’s the tail end of a post I made to the Warfield list (I shan’t weary you with the whole thing):
According to TE Wilkins, the number of those “elect to final salvation” and the temporarily elect are set…it is the LORD who decided the extent of their election, and someone elect to final salvation can do nothing to hinder their ultimate salvation, and the temporarily elect can go no farther than decreed by Him.
Yet there is a cry of “Apostasy’s back!” and that the warnings against falling away really mean something now.
How so? What am I missing? If those elect to final salvation are incapable of falling away because they are kept safe through the working of the Holy Spirit, and the temporarily elect are incapable of keeping the faith because the Holy Spirit withdraws from them, how are the warnings any more “real” now than they are in traditional Reformed theology?
Todd said,
January 11, 2007 at 10:44 pm
Great questions, Anne. the best FV source for this stuff is Lusk’s final chapter in the FV book. I’m not finished thinking through just where I agree and disagree with that one, but that’s where these things are addressed most directly from that camp, I think.
There is also his third lecture from a Moscow conference a couple years ago. Here are the written “notes”:
http://www.trinity-pres.net/audio/christchurchjustification.pdf
The third lecture starts on page 30. Here’s one sample paragraph:
“Second, there was the issue of justification related to perseverance. How does my assurance of present justification relate to the demand of perseverance? While the Reformers argued that simple believers could find a solid basis for assurance in the means of grace, they did not open the door to an antinomian salvation. Justification could not be severed from other aspects of God’s saving work. While the verdict of justification was grounded solely in Christ’s death and resurrection, we only share in Christ’s status if we are in him. Thus, at least some Reformed theologians insisted that our ongoing share in justification is dependent on persevering in Christ. God brings the verdict of the future into the present in part on the supposition that we will persevere. Thus, Jonathan Edwards: “Even after conversion, the sentence of justification remains still to be passed, and the man remains in a state of probation for heaven [until his faith produces fruits of obedience.]” He wrote that when God justifies us, he “has respect to perseverance, as being virtually contained in that first act of faith.” Edwards insisted that faith was the sole instrument of justification, but did not hesitate to speak of multiple “conditions” of justification, including obedience, good works, love, holiness, and lifelong perseverance. Edwards viewed justification as forensic, but also continual.”
Todd said,
January 11, 2007 at 11:04 pm
“how are the warnings any more “real” now than they are in traditional Reformed theology?”
I also think that the FV guys would claim that their view has more in common with traditional Reformed theology than more recent forms of Reformed expression has. “Taking the warnings seriously” is a return to a neglected part of the Reformed tradition rather than breaking new and creative ground. According to them!
We’ve seen an example here on this blog, with David’s difficulty with the way the WCF talks about the relationship between faith and trembling at the warnings. The standards seem happy to throw that line in without embarrassment, and without the kind of qualifications that David feels are needed.
Anne Ivy said,
January 11, 2007 at 11:06 pm
“Demand of perseverance”? What an unusual way to phrase it.
As for “How does my assurance of present justification relate to the demand of perseverance?”….I’d say “My present justification ensures my continued perseverance.”
Did Jonathan Edwards mean “conditions” in the sense that justification is conditional upon the attributes listed, or that the conditions are contingent upon one being justified?
I’ve not read a whole lot of Edwards, but enough that it’d surprise me to think it’s the former instead of the latter.
Thanks for the link, Todd! I’ll check it out for sure.
Todd said,
January 11, 2007 at 11:24 pm
““Demand of perseverance”? What an unusual way to phrase it.”
But isn’t that the way perveserance is treated in the Bible–some of the time? In the FV debates, it’s mostly spoken of as one of the spiritual blessings. But in the Bible, it is also a demand, isn’t it? Both-and, not either-or.
Jude: 20 But you, beloved, building yourselves up in your most holy faith and praying in the Holy Spirit, 21 keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ that leads to eternal life.
There’s not much controversial here, I think. It’s just a fact that sometimes God *tells us to persevere,” rather than promises that he will cause us to do so. Sometimes. Both-and. We should emphasize both, and not one at the expense of the other.
Anne Ivy said,
January 11, 2007 at 11:34 pm
Well, I’ll willingly grant we ought not to take our perseverance for granted, in a “You just go right ahead and sanctify me, LORD….I’ll be over here reading trashy novels and eating Ben&Jerry’s” way.
Just as we are not saved by election…we are saved by putting our faith in Christ and His finished work on the cross. Point is, we DO have to actually put our faith in Christ. We aren’t to just sit placidly around, happily assuming we’re elect, overlooking the fact we’ve never done that which is the basis for believing one is elect.
And we’re not to piddle around, pushing the envelope when it comes to sin, complacent in our assumption we needn’t lift a finger…the LORD will force us to persevere no matter what we do, or don’t do.
Christianity is a faith of action, not inertia.
Todd said,
January 11, 2007 at 11:41 pm
But when’s the last time a Calvinist preached a sermon with this title from Jude?
“Keep Yourselves in the Love of God!”
Todd said,
January 11, 2007 at 11:45 pm
Anne, you’ve got a message over on the upper right of Jonathan Barlow’s blog, under tidbits:
http://www.barlowfarms.com/
Anne said,
January 12, 2007 at 12:20 am
How kind of him!
Even though he did misspell my last name. >;^>
However, being the gracious Texas lady I am…or at least try to be…I’ll let it go.
This time. :^p
j/k!
Anne said,
January 12, 2007 at 12:21 am
I’ve only been Calvinist for maybe seven years, so it’s just barely possible when it was preached, I missed it. ;^)
David Gadbois said,
January 12, 2007 at 1:09 am
“We’ve seen an example here on this blog, with David’s difficulty with the way the WCF talks about the relationship between faith and trembling at the warnings.”
Wrong. You are just importing assumptions about what WCF must mean if the elect should tremble at warnings. Gee, that must mean FV is right and the elect can lose their elect status. Otherwise, why tremble, right?
Hogwash.
“Thus, at least some Reformed theologians insisted that our ongoing share in justification is dependent on persevering in Christ. God brings the verdict of the future into the present in part on the supposition that we will persevere.”
This is horrifically awful. You can either have justification by Christ’s work alone or not. You cannot mingle in the “supposition that we will persevere”
David Gadbois said,
January 12, 2007 at 1:11 am
“Edwards insisted that faith was the sole instrument of justification, but did not hesitate to speak of multiple “conditions” of justification, including obedience, good works, love, holiness, and lifelong perseverance.”
This is, once again, confusing descriptive conditions and prescriptive conditions. The latter are instrumental in justification (and the orthodox confess that this instrument is faith alone), the former are necessary results of justification.
David Gadbois said,
January 12, 2007 at 1:13 am
“keep yourselves in the love of God”
This does not mean God’s love is conditional on our obedience.
Anne Ivy said,
January 12, 2007 at 5:46 am
Since Lunesta doesn’t keep me asleep as promised, I’ll go ahead and respond to this bit now: “They fall away because they spurn God’s grace.”
Um, has the FV officially given up on Irresistible Grace, then? Is our “spurning” stronger than God’s grace?
This puts me in mind of a debate I had with a couple of Lutherans years ago, except they were willing to acknowledge that grace can be resisted, i.e. spurned. At heart was largely the same predicament, i.e. someone who had been a recipient of grace and had believed and obeyed due to that grace had stopped, and fallen away.
So the person’s will was the trump card, making the difference in the outcome.
Except the Lutherans were horrified at this, vigorously rejecting it. “Oh, no, no, no! Man’s will is not stronger than God’s!” they protested, blanching.
Well, yeah, it must be. If God keeps the grace coming but the grace that was sufficient and efficient on Tuesday is insufficient and inefficient on Thursday, something has changed. If the grace hasn’t changed, then it’s the man that’s the determining factor, resisting God’s grace.
Man stronger than God! A favorite of Arminians, but generally frowned upon and held in disfavor by Calvinists.
To be honest, I had thought this was a common charge frequently laid at the door of the FV that wasn’t accurate, but if God’s grace can be “spurned”, the charge is accurate. I’d concluded from TE Wilkins’ writings that the reason the apostate fell away was because the grace to persevere had been denied him. That’s not the same as saying persevering grace has been spurned or rejected.
If those who persevere in the faith do so because they do NOT spurn or reject God’s grace, then not only do they have hope of heaven, they have grounds for boasting.
I’ve noticed before a strong similarity to Lutheranism in the FV, and this highlights it.
Todd said,
January 12, 2007 at 6:30 am
“Gee, that must mean FV is right and the elect can lose their elect status. Otherwise, why tremble, right?”
David! You’re not even close to understanding me!
Todd said,
January 12, 2007 at 6:32 am
The FV can be wrong on four dozen things and you still be wrong in your approach to faith and trembling.
Todd said,
January 12, 2007 at 6:34 am
Edwards as horrifically awful — I want to commend David for his honesty. Seriously.
Todd said,
January 12, 2007 at 6:42 am
Any Reformed writer on the five points makes a comment like, “Of course, in one sense, people resist God’s grace all the time.” Sproul says this.
You believe this, too, I think. The unbelievers you know have, so far, resisted God’s grace. And this fact does not at all change the fact of irresistible grace in the case of the eternall elect.
Anne Ivy said,
January 12, 2007 at 10:32 am
Unbelievers have rejected and resisted God’s outward call, this is true.
However, unbelievers have not rejected and resisted God’s inward call, which is a work of the Holy Spirit, because they don’t receive the inward call.
In any case, the group of people under discussion is not a bunch of unbelievers, but rather those whom TE Wilkins referred to in his examination paper as “non-elect believers.”
A term I am convinced is oxymoronic.
Point being, never mind rank unbelievers, Todd. We’re not talking about them. We’re talking about that strange hybrid critter that looks sort of like a sheep and sort of like a goat, IOW “non-elect believers.”
One of the key doctrines of Reformed theology is that NO ONE is a believer unless the irresistible grace of God has removed their heart of stone, replaced it with a heart of flesh, and then extended the inward call. People dead in their sins not only will not but literally cannot believe. Period.
So here comes the FV with its “non-elect believers.” According to TE Wilkins they are truly united to Christ “in some sense”, but still, united to Christ they are. And it’s from that union, with the involvement of the Holy Spirit, that this hybrid group receives the grace (though the FV’ers seem unclear themselves on what sort of grace it is) to believe for a while.
What the hybrid group never receive, however, is grace to persevere, and the Holy Spirit withdraws. In the Position Paper (revised) TE Wilkins uses OT Saul as an illustration, though I don’t think that’s a valid example, personally.
Here’s a part of the Position Paper to which I’m referring:
9. Salvation depends upon being united to Christ. Clearly, those who are eternally saved are those who continue to abide in Him by the grace of God. There are those, however, who are joined to Him as branches in the vine, but who because of unbelief are barren and fruitless and consequently are cut off from the vine and from salvation. Jesus says these “believe for a while” but do not bear fruit unto salvation. Why God would do this is a mystery, but the teaching of Scripture is clear: some whom He adopts into covenant relation, He later hardens (Rom. 9:4, 18, 11:1ff). In such instances God has not changed His decree regarding such people; to the contrary, He carries out His sovereign purposes in and through their unbelief and rebellion. Those elect unto eternal salvation are always distinguished by their perseverance in faith and obedience by the grace of God.
Alright. “Those who are eternally saved are those who continue to abide in Him by the grace of God.”
If they WILL continue to abide in Christ BECAUSE of the grace of God, just how applicable are those apostasy warnings?
Be fair….they’re exactly as applicable as they are in the traditional Reformed view, aren’t they?
Okay, now for the “non-elect believers”: “…some whom He adopts into covenant relation, He later hardens (Rom. 9:4, 18, 11:1ff). In such instances God has not changed His decree regarding such people; to the contrary, He carries out His sovereign purposes in and through their unbelief and rebellion.”
Since God’s sovereign purposes cannot be thwarted, again, how useful are the apostasy warnings for this bunch? What actual, practical difference do they make?
Todd said,
January 12, 2007 at 10:44 am
“One of the key doctrines of Reformed theology is that NO ONE is a believer unless the irresistible grace of God has removed their heart of stone, replaced it with a heart of flesh, and then extended the inward call.”
Well, Reformed theology has always affirmed the category of temporary faith, with plenty of careful definitions. We have to beware of pretending things are tidier than they really are in our tradition.
“If they WILL continue to abide in Christ BECAUSE of the grace of God, just how applicable are those apostasy warnings?”
That’s a question for Jesus and Paul, since they’re the ones who issued the warnings we’re talking about.
“Be fair….they’re exactly as applicable as they are in the traditional Reformed view, aren’t they?”
Applicable is probably the slippery word here. Can you define it? Not a challenge, just a point of clarification.
Anne Ivy said,
January 12, 2007 at 11:13 am
Having practical application.
Making a practical difference.
Having a function to perform.
Acting as a catalyst.
Any of those work for you? ;^)
Here’s something I thought of just now:
What practical function do the apostasy warnings perform as regards someone continuing in the faith and not falling away unto perdition from the LORD’s vantage point?
Obviously, none. He decided before He ever said “Let there be light” who would be in glory with Him and who would not.
What practical function do the apostasy warnings perform as regards someone continuing in the faith and not falling away unto perdition from the cheap seats, i.e. our vantage point?
Mostly they seem to function as after-the-fact explanations as to why someone we would have sworn was a believer, eventually either gets sucked into Mormonism, or lapses into effective atheism, etc. Thing that interests me, though, is how it looks exactly the same from either the FV section of the cheap seats or the traditional Reformed section. There’s no discernible difference at all. Someone looked to be of us, but then proved not to be.
Yet there’s that letter making the rounds from an FV adherent saying “Apostasy’s back!”
It’s really extraordinarily puzzling.
Todd said,
January 12, 2007 at 11:32 am
Lane didn’t have nice things to say about these words from Lusk when I offered them up way back when, but they seem applicable again here:
“The problem is not so much with the application of logic or the theological formulations. The problem is with the way Scripture is being read and applied. The Bible is not a revealed “system” of truth from which conclusions are to be deduced. Rather, it is a pastoral/liturgical/covenantal book.”
“The promises about perseverance are not mainly theological axioms from which conclusions are to be deduced; rather, they are promises to be believed and claimed by faith. Scripture is not given first and foremost to provide logical exercises. It is given to feed and nourish our faith. We don’t deduce perseverance from a set of premises; we trust God in Christ to provide it.”
“The Scriptural warnings concerning apostasy are not there primarily to be theologically analyzed and worked into a dogmatic system; they are there to be heeded and observed, lest we perish.”
“The passage’s native habitat is the worshiping community; we must allow it to do its work there, rather than polishing off its rough edges in order to fit it into a dogmatic edifice we are busily constructing.”
“Is Scripture a Father’s love letter (warnings included: “Do not run away from home!”) to his children? Or is it a professor’s lecture notes to his students? Those are really the questions at the heart of this whole controversy.”
Thomas Twitchell said,
January 12, 2007 at 3:47 pm
“Is Scripture a Father’s love letter (warnings included: “Do not run away from home!”) to his children? Or is it a professor’s lecture notes to his students? Those are really the questions at the heart of this whole controversy.”
It’s both Todd!
I am beginning to see where you’re coming from. You, I take it agree with Lusk that, ““The promises about perseverance are not mainly theological axioms from which conclusions are to be deduced; rather, they are promises to be believed and claimed by faith. Scripture is not given first and foremost to provide logical exercises. It is given to feed and nourish our faith. We don’t deduce perseverance from a set of premises; we trust God in Christ to provide it.”
Let us see. Theological axioms = a propositional truth claim about the sytematic understanding of God. Correct? I wonder then how Lusk deduced his proposition that the promises are not? Are they promises to be believed without logical connection with the thing that they are, “Faith is the substance of things hoped for.” Or, are they just something, who knows what, that are to be believed as mere opinion? Faith, pistis, true knowledge is the thing that is under, hupostasis, the thing (elpizo) which is the hope, right. Or to say it differently, it is the evidentiary proof of the actuality of the truth that it claims to be. In other words, it is its own testimony because it is the thing that it testifys about. Right? Faith is knowing the promises as a possession not something to be claimed as external to the claimant by believing. We place our faith in Christ because he has placed it in us and it does that which he sent it to do. It does nothing of it own accord, “you can do nothing of yourself,” but his word does not return to him void because it is “he who works it in us to will and to do, of his good pleasure.” Therefore the promises cannot be apprended by mere believism, but only as they operate by the Spirit through the new mind, being understood as propositional truth, first. They are then not “claimed,” but are “declared” by that one and self-same Spirit who gives testimony in time to the actuality that is all ready in existence through the life of the believer. The Word of God is given first and foremost as logical exercises (we believe it be cause we know it and think it) and is known as Faith, it is then, and only when it is fully understood as having already been, that it is comprehended in the words of Scripture. We trust in Christ precisely because he is the Word which he has provided which is our assurance and therefore our perserverance. The Scripture is not given to feed and nourish our faith as the primary source of Truth. The Spirit is the primary Source of truth to the believer, and He reminds us of what was already said. In other words, The Spirit of Truth is the one who feeds us the True Bread that comes down out of Heaven, not out of the written text. Reading the text is the declaration of the will of the Father that is the meat that you have no knowledge of.
What Lusk presents, or at least from the quotes that you have given, is at best emi-pelagian, at worst it is a complete rejection of the Faith once and for all delivered to the saints, and to them alone. If you believe that you must “heed and observe, lest you perish,” I would invite you to join with Chuck Smith of the Calvary Chapel movement where it is true, they can loose their salvation by not perservering. But, we belong to those who do not shrink back, and that is because he has overcome the world, because he has perservered we have already recieved the promise of perserverance. And we know that because it is logically deducible, not first from Scripture, but first by the Spirit who while we were yet dead in our sin and trespasses, unabled to see, hear or understand, has quickened our understanding so that we believe. No peson wills to believe on their own, but believing proceeds fom that true knowledge which is faith and that comes before we can read or hear, or see. We do not believe that Jesus will provide perserverance in a future sense, but here and now, forever. For, he who has believed, though he will perish, has eternal life, for he has already passed from death into life.
Lusk’s formula is a word/faith formula. He’s welcome to it, but Christ said, “you search the Scripture because in them you think you know me.” The Psalmist said, to the righteous the word of God is a strong tower, and they flee to it. But, to the wicked it is a snare and a trap. We believe, in Faith, the words of Truth and of Life, not in words that nurture faith. We believe that we are given Faith, which is the Word and that Scripture is given to us as an exercise for the discering of good and evil. For it bears testimony of the Word that is in us and does not depart from us. So, it is primarily that the Scripture is given for study, (showing that we are approved, accepted in the beloved) not to induce faith and the comfort of mere words, but to deduce what Faith is already truely there and the comfort of a peace we now know and possess, which has no end.
As I tell my children, “The Word of God is so complicated, even a child can understand it.” So yes, it is a love letter, but if a Child does not already know that his Father’s house is his Father’s, he will not be able to understand the letter, or trust it. But, if he knows that it is His Father’s house, then he will be able to deduce that the Father does truly love him in that letter and that it is no different a love than is outside the letter in the heart of a Son for his Father and the Father for the son (so the prodigal knew his Father’s heart was his own). He will also take comfort that knowing the Father as he does the words of admonition are the same as if the Father was speaking personally to him. He is able to do that be cause of the evidence of first hand knowledge and deducing from that and the evidence on the page, he can fully trust that these are the very Word of God.
So I suspect that the real “heart of this whole controversy,” is that there are those who are saying they are in covenant, and they are not, though they sound and look very much like they should. The test that is given in Scripture is to test yourselve to see if you are truly in the Faith. But you’ll have to use deduction to do that and the comprehensive examination will be base on the “Professor’s” lectture notes, i.e the Word of God.
Lusk resorts to the only corner that the experientialist can hide in, “feelings.” It is not what we feel, however, it is what we know. If we allow that the text must be viewed from afar as native to the “woshiping community,” and not have it working upon us, individually, then we can make that “worshiping community,” anything we want it to be. Feelings, nothing more than feelings….
As far as the warning of “apostasy” who can know it except that it is analyzed.
And, if there is no need to analyze it, then why do the cults? Why would they fear if they knew that the Church was not given the warnings for analysis? Wouldn’t they be free of scrutiny and not have to spend some much of their apologetic efforts to systematize their own warnings so that they might proclaim true believers aspostate? Seems to me, that Lusk simply would rather not be scrutinized.
Keep on juggling those words Todd, they might just fall out in order for you someday.
Anne Ivy said,
January 12, 2007 at 3:53 pm
Thinking about it, though, ISTM there is a rather striking similarity between the foundational argument by the FV concerning the “apostasy” verses, and the foundational argument by Arminians concerning the verses providing the free offer of the gospel to all, as well as the responsibility everyone has to repent and believe on the Lord Jesus.
In both of them it is argued that unless the “target audience” has the innate ability to respond to the warnings/promises/demands, the warnings/promises/demands are not sincere.
I wish I had a five spot for every time over the past several years one free-willer or another indignantly protested that if God is requiring from a bunch of spiritually dead people that which they cannot possibly do, He’s not dealing in good faith with them, and the requirements and promises are meaningless.
The Calvinist response to this, naturally, is that He has every right to require whatever He pleases, whether or not we are capable of complying, and the promises are real promises, sincerely made, whether or not we are capable of responding to them.
Yet here is the FV effectively arguing the mirror image of this scenario by insisting that unless the presence of the apostasy verses mean the listeners actually possess the capability of falling away, those verses are equally insincere and meaningless.
Definitely puzzling.
Todd said,
January 12, 2007 at 4:16 pm
Anne, it might be time for me to ask you for your account of how the apostasy warnings work, and who you believe they’re addressed to. Can you address specific passages?
Todd said,
January 13, 2007 at 7:48 pm
I said this to Anne: “Well, Reformed theology has always affirmed the category of temporary faith, with plenty of careful definitions. We have to beware of pretending things are tidier than they really are in our tradition.”
Then I was reminded of this post from Joel Garver, on just this topic:
http://www.lasalle.edu/~garver/web2printer4.php?img=0&lnk=0&page=http://sacradoctrina.blogspot.com/2006/08/apostasy-perseverance-and-theological.html
Todd said,
January 13, 2007 at 8:00 pm
I’d also like to continue the conversation with Anne on the apostasy warnings, if she’s willing.
Anne, you said this: “Be fair….they’re exactly as applicable as they are in the traditional Reformed view, aren’t they?”
I wonder if you would outline your understanding of the traditional Reformed view of the apostasy warnings.
I suspect, again, that this is an area where the FV guys would claim that it’s their view, rather than that of the critics, that has the most in common with the “traditional Reformed view.” So this is an ad fontes issue–just what is the traditional Reformed view?
David Gadbois said,
January 13, 2007 at 10:33 pm
“David! You’re not even close to understanding me!
The FV can be wrong on four dozen things and you still be wrong in your approach to faith and trembling.”
Fine, then stop playing coy, Todd. You tell me I’m wrong, but if you are not going to back the FV view here, you’re going to have to give an alternate account or else I we both won’t have the ability to constructively argue.
“Edwards as horrifically awful — I want to commend David for his honesty. Seriously.”
Go back and re-read what I was refering to - Lusk’s comment. Now whether he interpreted Edwards correctly, I’d have to see the original Edwards citation.
Todd said,
January 13, 2007 at 10:46 pm
Nah. I don’t have to offer a alternative view to see that your view can’t accommodate the trembling line in the WCF or some of the specific warnings of Scripture.
David Gadbois said,
January 13, 2007 at 11:03 pm
“Nah. I don’t have to offer a alternative view to see that your vie