Wilkins’s exam, part 8
January 8, 2007 at 12:21 pm (Federal Vision, Heresy)
On page 14, we get to some extremely important sections of the exam. This gets to some of the key issues about exactly what Wilkins is saying regarding the non-elect members of the visible church.
Under question 2, he is asked, “Do you believe that those who ultimately fall away ever truly possessed forgiveness of sins?” He answers in an equivocating way. I like what he says at first “If you mean by ‘truly possessed’ that they had forgiveness in the same sense that those who are elect unto salvation have, then the answer is, ‘no.’” But then, he immediately qualifies this statement with the completely unproven assertion that “The Bible speaks of members of the visible church, as those who are counted among the redeemed, washed, and sanctified and promises forgiveness for all who abide in Christ and persever in faith.” Let’s examine this closely. it must be acknowledged here that he uses the word “counted,” not simply “are among.” There is a difference between those two ways of saying something. If all he means is the judgment of charity, then I could go along with this. However, this is not what I think he means. He goes on to say “Thus, though we know that the elect are forgiven and shall surely be acquitted at the last day, the promise of forgiveness given to us is always conditional upon our continuing in the faith (which of course, is only possible by the grace of God and not the result of our own native strength, will power, or discipline).” I wonder, does he really mean “possible,” as in “we have to synergistically work with God on this,” or does he mean “completely dependent on,” in the sense of “God gets all the glory for our sanctification, as well? What he seems to be saying here is that we are not really forgiven unless we are persevering by God’s grace. But is this not backwards? Our persevering depends on the grace received when we come to faith (which includes forgiveness of sins), not the other way around. Our justification is in no way dependent on our sanctification. It doesn’t really matter here whether we talking synergistically or not: justification, and the complete forgiveness of all our sins past, present, and future is *not* dependent on our perseverance. Rather, our perseverance is dependent on our justification.
He goes on to eisegete Matthew 6:14-15 and Matthew 18:21-35. Those passages simply do not say what Wilkins says they say. Matthew 6: 14-15 is addressed to the disciples. Therefore, it is talking to people who are already forgiven. But as the Puritans say, there are two kinds of forgiveness: ultimate once-for-all forgiveness of sins, and the Fatherly forgiveness of daily sins. These two are distinct. Matthew 6:14-15 is not talking about ultimate forgiveness, as if our ultimate forgiveness depended on our forgiving others. That would make justification dependent on our works. This is obviously not what Jesus is saying. Jesus is saying that God’s fatherly displeasure is directed to us if we do not forgive others. This is so because of the group to whom Jesus is speaking. The purpose of the parable of the unforgiving servant is that he has proven that his sins are not ultimately forgiven. It is a misreading of that parable to say that an apostate is ultimately forgiven of his sins, but then becomes not ultimately forgiven of his sins. Surely, the 10,000 talents represents all our sins in an ultimate sense. If Wilkins is right, then the Bible is Arminian, because it is possible for someone’s sins to be ultimately forgiven, and then have that ultimate forgiveness taken away. The terms of the passage have to be interpreted in the light of Scripture as a whole. What Wilkins is leaving out of that parable is that the servant proved that he wasn’t really forgiven after all. As a matter of fact, he was never truly forgiven. Because if he was, then he would have forgiven his fellow servant. The parable takes the form of a modus tollens argument: if forgiven, then forgiving; not forgiving, therefore, not forgiven. The hypothetical here is shown not to be real because of the modus tollens argument. Wilkins is way off here.
pduggie said,
January 8, 2007 at 12:50 pm
Right. He was never ultimately forgiven. He was only forgiven synchonically, but diachronically, his forgiveness was revoked.
God forgives people all the time and revokes that forgiveness later. Jesus asked that the people who put him to death be forgiven. We shoul not assume that therefore they were all saved to eternity.
greenbaggins said,
January 8, 2007 at 1:06 pm
Do you acknowledge that the forgiveness was only hypothetical, in accordance with the modus tollens argument that the passage is using?
pduggie said,
January 8, 2007 at 1:31 pm
That would be too pat, and ignore the complexity of the text.
Like when God offers to make a new nation of Moses. He really means it, or the text doesn’t work.
Todd said,
January 8, 2007 at 1:36 pm
“Matthew 6:14-15 is not talking about ultimate forgiveness, as if our ultimate forgiveness depended on our forgiving others. That would make justification dependent on our works. This is obviously not what Jesus is saying.”
Calvin has missed the obvious, then:
“Here Christ only explains the reason why that condition was added, Forgive us, as we forgive The reason is, that God will not be ready to hear us, unless we also show ourselves ready to grant forgiveness to those who have offended us. If we are not harder than iron, this exhortation ought to soften us, and render us disposed to forgive offenses. Unless God pardon us every day many sins, we know that we are ruined in innumerable ways: and on no other condition does he admit us to pardon, but that we pardon our brethren whatever offenses they have committed against us. Those who refuse to forget the injuries which have been done to them, devote themselves willingly and deliberately to destruction, and knowingly prevent God from forgiving them.”
Has he made justification dependent on works?
pduggie said,
January 8, 2007 at 1:38 pm
Or perhaps I shoudl agree that “ultimate forgiveness” is offered only hypothetically, but that actual temporary forgiveness is offered really.
Todd said,
January 8, 2007 at 1:41 pm
“What Wilkins is leaving out of that parable is that the servant proved that he wasn’t really forgiven after all. As a matter of fact, he was never truly forgiven.”
Jesus left it out too, Lane. “And out of pity for him, the master of that servant released him and forgave him the debt.”
Is Jesus saying this parable to those who are already forgiven? The punchline is this: “So also my heavenly Father will do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother from your heart.”
Chapter 18 is addressed to the disciples no less than chapter 6 is.
I can’t stop grinning about you saying that it is Wilkins who eisegetes here.
David Gadbois said,
January 8, 2007 at 3:30 pm
Actually, Calvin tackled the parable of the unmerciful servant well:
“It would be an idle exercise of ingenuity to examine here every minute clause. For God does not always display severity at first, till, constrained to pray, we implore pardon, but rather meets us with undeserved goodness.”
Notice - we aren’t to press this parable on the details, but the point is that God gives us undeserved goodness, and we should therefore implore pardon ourselves.
Continuing:
“As to the clause which immediately follows, it is foolish to inquire how it is possible for God to punish sins which he has already forgiven; for the simple meaning is this: though he offers mercy to all, yet severe creditors, from whom no forgiveness can be obtained, are unworthy of enjoying it.”
pduggie said,
January 8, 2007 at 3:33 pm
Yep, calvin was a master of argument.
David Gadbois said,
January 8, 2007 at 3:35 pm
“Calvin has missed the obvious, then”
No, again Calvin is following the distinction Lane mentioned - ultimate forgiveness of sins (justification) vs. fatherly displeasure that requires daily/repeatable forgiveness (lest we fall under God’s discipline as sons). He is not using the language of justification here. I guess I’m not surprised at this point that I have to walk you through the same things I have to walk Roman Catholic and Arminian folks through.
Todd said,
January 8, 2007 at 3:41 pm
“Calvin is following the distinction Lane mentioned - ultimate forgiveness of sins (justification) vs. fatherly displeasure that requires daily/repeatable forgiveness (lest we fall under God’s discipline as sons).”
Destruction for sons?
“Those who refuse to forget the injuries which have been done to them, devote themselves willingly and deliberately to destruction, and knowingly prevent God from forgiving them.”
“He is not using the language of justification here.”
Is destruction something less than condemnation here, David?
Todd said,
January 8, 2007 at 3:43 pm
“Notice - we aren’t to press this parable on the details, but the point is that God gives us undeserved goodness, and we should therefore implore pardon ourselves.”
If that were the point, Jesus could have said it like that. No, the point seems to be Jesus’ very specific warning, addressed to the disciples themselves: “So also my heavenly Father will do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother from your heart.”
David Gadbois said,
January 8, 2007 at 3:54 pm
Yes, I believe “destruction” is something less than eternal condemnation. Notice a few lines before from Calvin, he mentions a “ratification” of the forgiveness (justification) we already have - this is something close to Lane’s distinction of a forgiveness of fatherly displeasure:
“And yet the forgiveness, which we ask that God would give us, does not depend on the forgiveness which we grant to others: but the design of Christ was, to exhort us, in this manner, to forgive the offenses which have been committed against us, and at the same time, to give, as it were, the impression of his seal, to ratify the confidence in our own forgiveness. Nor is any thing inconsistent with this in the phrase used by Luke, καὶ γὰρ, for we also Christ did not intend to point out the cause, but only to remind us of the feelings which we ought to cherish towards brethren, when we desire to be reconciled to God. And certainly, if the Spirit of God reigns in our hearts, every description of ill-will and revenge ought to be banished. The Spirit is the witness of our adoption, (Romans 8:16,) and therefore this is put down simply as a mark, to distinguish the children of God from strangers”
David Gadbois said,
January 8, 2007 at 4:05 pm
“If that were the point, Jesus could have said it like that.”
This isn’t exactly a recognized rule of hermeneutics. I have heard it quite a bit, however, from a good variety of cultists, Muslims, and Romanists applied to other passages of Scripture.
“No, the point seems to be Jesus’ very specific warning, addressed to the disciples themselves”
The disciples themselves were a mixed group - some like Judas were not born again and forgiven.
Warning passages, strictly speaking, only present us with counterfactuals. Saying “if you do X, Y will happen” does not imply that all hearers are in equal danger of doing X.
pduggie said,
January 8, 2007 at 4:08 pm
“But as the Puritans say, there are two kinds of forgiveness: ultimate once-for-all forgiveness of sins, and the Fatherly forgiveness of daily sins.”
Well, and the FV (and the bible) say there are three kinds. There’s also the less-than ultimate temporary forgiveness of sins that can be revoked by those who esteem the goodness and mercy of God offered to them as a light and worthless thing. Like those who crucified Jesus, that the God-man implored the Father to forgive.
There’s probably a fourth kind of forgiveness in 1 Kings 21:28-29
Todd said,
January 8, 2007 at 4:21 pm
“Warning passages, strictly speaking, only present us with counterfactuals. Saying “if you do X, Y will happen” does not imply that all hearers are in equal danger of doing X.”
I agree with this, of course. And yet, Jesus does speak with some emphasis:
“So also my heavenly Father will do to *every one of you,* if you do not forgive your brother from your heart.”
And, all your Muslim and cultist friends notwithstanding, I still believe that we ought to be careful about imagining a “main point” for a passage that is bland and common, compared to the jolting and scary original.
greenbaggins said,
January 8, 2007 at 4:41 pm
I go with David here (does that surprise anyone?). I think Calvin is talking about fatherly displeasure, even when he talks about destruction, since there are passages in Scripture that talk about our works being destroyed (see 1 Cor 3, for example).
Todd said,
January 8, 2007 at 5:38 pm
Calvin speaks of the destruction of people, not of their works. 1 Cor 3 is hardly parallel.
Todd said,
January 8, 2007 at 5:40 pm
“But as the Puritans say, there are two kinds of forgiveness: ultimate once-for-all forgiveness of sins, and the Fatherly forgiveness of daily sins.”
I’ll ask now for an example or two of the Puritans applying this distinction to Matthew 6.
David Gadbois said,
January 8, 2007 at 5:56 pm
For starters:
“God doth continue to forgive the sins of those that are justified;a and although they can never fall from the state of justification,b yet they may by their sins fall under God’s fatherly displeasure, and not have the light of his countenance restored unto them, until they humble themselves, confess their sins, beg pardon, and renew their faith and repentance.”
WCF 11.5
It uses Matthew 6 as a proof-text
David Gadbois said,
January 8, 2007 at 6:02 pm
“Well, and the FV (and the bible) say there are three kinds. There’s also the less-than ultimate temporary forgiveness of sins that can be revoked”
And this is precisely where FV is defective. We can distinguish between “forgiveness” from Fatherly displeasure (filial) and justification (a legal matter, based on the imputation of Christ’s righteousness) in substance, but FV’s third category is artificial and not distinguished in substance.
David Gadbois said,
January 8, 2007 at 6:04 pm
“I still believe that we ought to be careful about imagining a “main point” for a passage that is bland and common, compared to the jolting and scary original.”
This last-ditch effort can’t resuscitate your interpretation. Parables are never meant to be pressed in the details. What wouuld this do to the Parable of the Unjust Stewart? Oy veh.
Todd said,
January 8, 2007 at 6:42 pm
“WCF 11.5, It uses Matthew 6 as a proof-text”
David, this is beneath you, unless you just didn’t look carefully.
Matthew 6:12 is a proof text for the first section only: “God doth continue to forgive the sins of those that are justified;a”
It is not a prooftext for the section on “fatherly displeasure.” Matthew 6:14-15 is not listed at all here.
Nice try.
greenbaggins said,
January 8, 2007 at 6:49 pm
Todd, you just keep on refusing to see good and necessary consequence, don’t you? If the forgiveness of sins about which the WCF footnotes Matt 6 is not ultimate forgiveness, then it must be God’s fatherly forgiveness, which, of course, is directly related to God’s fatherly displeasure, and, in any case, rules out Matt 6 talking about ultimate forgiveness entirely, which is David’s point. So David was completely correct in his argumentation here.
markhorne said,
January 8, 2007 at 6:57 pm
“I like what he says at first “If you mean by ‘truly possessed’ that they had forgiveness in the same sense that those who are elect unto salvation have, then the answer is, ‘no.’” But then, he immediately qualifies this statement with the completely unproven assertion that “The Bible speaks of members of the visible church, as those who are counted among the redeemed, washed, and sanctified and promises forgiveness for all who abide in Christ and persever in faith.” Let’s examine this closely.”
Not if you’re going to accuse him of heresy. Steve’s first answer rules out any accusation that he is unconfessional on this issue. He may still be wrong, and you may be right to disagree with him, but Wilkins is within the bounds whether or not he is correct in his interpretation of Scripture.
What makes this a smear and not a discussion is your use of the word “heresy.” Even if you were right in your exegesis, you have still exonerated Steve in what you have alleged about him. You have not shown him to be outside the bounds of Confessional orthodoxy. Quite the opposite.
Todd said,
January 8, 2007 at 6:59 pm
Uttery unconvincing, as you would say, Lane. Again, nice try. There’s an important difference between “good and necessary consequence” and “fascinating strectch of the imagination.”
Any, ahem, clearer examples of Reformed authors teaching that Jesus is speaking of something less than ultimate forgiveness in Mt. 6:14-15? I’m open to seeing them, but I’m more and more doubtful as I see you guys stretch and struggle.
greenbaggins said,
January 8, 2007 at 7:24 pm
“Utterly unconvincing,” now, there’s a powerful argument! I wonder why I never thought of using that before! Let’s try zero interaction with what was said, and a wholesale dismissal of the argument! That ought to do it! Let’s try ending a sentence with something other than one exclamation point!!
Seriously, Todd, you come to this debate about Matt 6 determined already that our arguments are not going to convince you. Therefore no arguments do. You’re not open to seeing them. Otherwise, you would already have acknowledged that we have a point. But since you’re not going to acknowledge that, then there is no point in continuing that particular debate.
Mark, “What makes this a smear and not a discussion,” is hardly convincing. This isn’t a discussion that we’re having on my blog: 25 comments on this entry, and hundreds and hundreds of comments on my other posts on Wilkins, but we’re not having any discussion! Glad that thing is cleared up. I was afraid we might be getting somewhere. It’s not a smear if it’s the truth, and that’s precisely what we’re discussing. Wilkins is hardly going to get kicked out of the PCA because of what I’m doing anyway. He would only get kicked out of the PCA based on what the SJC does. What Wilkins has written he has chosen to make public. If it’s public, then it’s fair game. If someone wanted to take my sermons (almost all of which are available on this blog) and accuse me of heresy on the net, I could hardly stop them. But what impact do you think that would have on my ministry in ND, where hardly any of my congregation even read my blog? What impact would it have even on those who appreciate my blog? Everyone agrees that this will be settled in the court. My aim in all of this is to show that the rest of us should not be FV, but should reject it as being heresy.
To address the substance of what you’re saying, Wilkins is not within the bounds of the WCF if he is constantly redefining terms in different ways than the WCF defines them, *when on trial for his orthodoxy.* This is the time for Wilkins only to use the Confessional language. He didn’t do that. I’m on the Candidates and Credentials Committee of my presbytery. If someone were to come in and answer questions the way Wilkins was answering them, when all the committee wants to hear is the Confessional language, I would not vote to have him pass. The idea here is not creativity in the substance of theology.
Todd said,
January 8, 2007 at 7:32 pm
“Seriously, Todd, you come to this debate about Matt 6 determined already that our arguments are not going to convince you. Therefore no arguments do. You’re not open to seeing them.”
Come on, Lane. Just a couple of Reformed authors teaching that Jesus is speaking of something less than ultimate forgiveness in Mt. 6:14-15. I’m so open to seeing them.
greenbaggins said,
January 8, 2007 at 7:34 pm
Not until you acknowledge that the WCF actually does so.
greenbaggins said,
January 8, 2007 at 7:34 pm
Because, as a matter of fact, that represents the entire Westminster Assembly. Then I would say QED.
Todd said,
January 8, 2007 at 7:35 pm
It’s getting a bit childish in here. If you’ve got the goods, show us.
greenbaggins said,
January 8, 2007 at 7:38 pm
Todd, to really answer your question, would you not acknowledge that Matt 6:14-15 is simply an explication of the fifth petition of the Lord’s Prayer? If it is, then the context itself determines that we are praying to the *Father,* and are therefore asking for God’s *Fatherly* forgiveness. The word “Father” is also explicitly in the text. We could not call God “Father” unless He had already ultimately forgiven us.
Todd said,
January 8, 2007 at 7:40 pm
Sure it’s an application of that petition. But that doesn’t lessen or lighten what it actually says. So how about some other commentators?
pduggie said,
January 8, 2007 at 8:45 pm
“We could not call God “Father” unless He had already ultimately forgiven us.”
Except when we’re dealing with covenant children. Then I guess we’re using a judgement of charity or federal holiness to justify so doing.
David Gadbois said,
January 8, 2007 at 10:42 pm
“Sure it’s an application of that petition. But that doesn’t lessen or lighten what it actually says.”
This is evasion and, well, isn’t even an argument.
markhorne said,
January 8, 2007 at 10:54 pm
Look, I see the shrillmeter is going up and I do want to pull back. Really! But I have to point out that you have posted a comment admitting that Wilkins is still a member in good standing of a presbytery and yet your freely promulgate that he is a heretical teacher. Wouldn’t that be consonant with independency rather than presbyterianism. Couldn’t you just about say everything you are saying and wait to drop the H-bomb?
I appreciate your point about the ongoing discussion. Sorry to ignore what is in fact happening. As to whether we are getting anywhere…. ???
John said,
January 9, 2007 at 2:39 am
Re. Matthew 18:
(1) Jesus uses the term “forgive” and so it is permissible for us to use the term “forgive” (and variants thereof, e.g., “forgiveness”
to speak of what is promised/given to all those in the covenant. Every Sunday, for instance, in the absolution, I pronounce forgiveness upon the congregation which has just corporately confessed its sins. That’s in keeping with Matthew 18.
(2) The parable would lose its force if the forgiveness at the start were less than genuine. What makes the sin of the unforgiving servant so serious is precisely that he was forgiven. This isn’t a story about a man who failed to forgive. If it were, it could have started with a servant meeting a man who owed him money. But it starts where it does because it’s the story of a forgiven man who fails to forgive.
(3) Jesus applies the parable, not just to those of His disciples who weren’t true believers (i.e., Judas). He applies it to all of His disciples. It applies to everyone in the church. Even the most faithful person in church needs to know that Jesus’ Father will treat him the way the master treated the unforgiving servant if he doesn’t forgive his brother from the heart.
(4) What is “forgiveness”? First of all, the term “forgiveness” is today a theological technical term. But it’s good to look at it in its historical setting.
For instance, Jesus talks about a vinedresser asking the owner of the vineyard to “forgive” an unfruitful vine for three years. “Forgive” there has the sense of “leave it alone.” It means: “Don’t uproot it.” To forgive is to not condemn and destroy.
When Jesus says, “Father, forgive them,” the Father answered His prayer and He didn’t instantly destroy Israel and the Roman soldiers. Some of them He saved, but all of them He spared at that moment, thereby giving them an opportunity to hear the gospel and repent and believe. (I think that’s Klaas Schilder’s understanding of this passage, which is probably in his Christ in His Sufferings trilogy somewhere. I haven’t read it; I was just told about it in seminary.)
The servant was forgiven. He was not condemned and punished for his debt at the start of the parable. That forgiveness is genuine: he genuinely was not required to pay back the debt and he genuinely was spared imprisonment and torment.
Second, forgiveness is a promise, a pledge, a performative speech act. When someone says, “I forgive you,” saying it does it. The speech itself is forgiveness. It’s a promise, a pledge not to bring up someone’s sin against him and condemn him for it. And so in this parable: The Master’s forgiveness is his pledge/promise not to hold the servant accountable for his debt. But that pledge/promise is conditional, it turns out. The Master withdraws that promise when the servant is himself unforgiving.
And that’s what Jesus’ Father will do to us if we do not forgive. Sunday after Sunday corporately, and day after day individually, He promises us forgiveness. He pledges to us that, for Jesus’ sake, He will not punish us as our sins deserve. But if we don’t forgive our brothers from the heart, He will treat us as the Master treated the unforgiving servant. Isn’t that the point of the parable?
greenbaggins said,
January 9, 2007 at 9:24 am
I’m perfectly willing to draw back on the shrillmeter, as long as people realize that what I’m saying is that Wilkins is out of accord with the WCF. This is in fact what I mean by the “H” bomb in this context. While Wilkins is currently a member in good standing, that standing is under close scrutiny by the SJC. It is in question.
However, I cannot resist responding to Todd’s number 30: I hope your students at your classical school are learning how to argue by following your example.
Thomas Boston, volume 2, pp. 615-616 (read all the way to the end of the quote before jumping to any conclusion about what you think it means) : “What is meant by forgiveness or pardon? It is the removal of guilt, which is an obligation to punishment. Guilt is two-fold; the guilt of eternal wrath, and the guilt of temporary fatherly anger…every soul, upon its first closing with Jesus Christ in the gospel, is pardoned…pardon of the guilt of temporary strokes and fatherly anger…So the children of God, who are beyond the reach of eternal wrath, are oft-times liable to temporary fatherly wrath, which they need a pardon for, as the child needs the father’s pardon.” This series of quotations, by the way, is taken from his exposition of the SC as it deals with the fifth petition of the LP.
Thomas Watson, in his exposition of the Lord’s Prayer, fifth petition (pg. 157): “Q. But is God angry with his pardoned ones? Ans. Though a child of God, after pardon, may incur his fatherly displeasure, yet his judicial wrath is removed.” These two are very clear.
Ridgely hints in this direction when he says, “Hence, even if we have a full assurance that God has forgiven our sins, yet, as we daily contract guilt, we are daily to pray that he would not lay it to our charge, or deal with us as our iniquities deserve” (pg. 637 of vol 1). I acknowledge that this quotation is not as clear as the others.
greenbaggins said,
January 9, 2007 at 10:04 am
John, what you’re saying is that it is possible to be ultimately forgiven, and then to have that ultimate forgiveness revoked. Surely, 10,000 talents can be nothing less than the whole kit and kaboodle. It’s *everything.* To say that someone can be ultimately forgiven like that, and then have that forgiveness revoked is Arminian, John.
The proper interpretation of the parable is that it is a modus tollens argument: if a, then b; not b, therefore not a. What Jesus is saying is that a situation where you have an unforgiving forgiven person is ***impossible.*** That kind of person doesn’t exist. Therefore, the pastoral impact is as follows: forgiven people need to realize that their job is to forgive others; and secondly, people who are not forgiving should be torn with doubts about their “forgiven” status. You are forgetting the end of the parable: the man was *not* ultimately forgiven!
pduggie said,
January 9, 2007 at 10:38 am
So the parable of the wheat and the tares is foundational for the idea of a visible church in distinction to the invisble, where the “kingdom” that the angels gather the tares out of is the visible church (as the WCF also defines the visible church as the kingdom).
So then, since matthew 6 is another parable of the Kingdom, why don’t we just assume that the subjects of the servant are simply also “visible” members of the church. Some will be forgiving, and some won’t be forgiving, so the contingent forgiveness that the members of the visible church enjoy will be lost by them.
God has contingently forgiven many, after all.
Does that make sense?
greenbaggins said,
January 9, 2007 at 10:42 am
Actually, the parable of the wheat and the tares is not foundational for the distinction between visible and invisible church, since the field is the world, not the church. Even though I am not entirely convinced by this interpretation, yet I cannot press the interpretation of that parable into the visible/invisible church distinction. The parable of the dragnet, on the other hand, is quite clear. The kingdom of God is the net. Contingent forgiveness is an Arminian category, Paul, plain and simple.
pduggie said,
January 9, 2007 at 10:45 am
38: what kind of a distinction are you trying to make? That because the debt forgiven is 10,000 talents, that means the forgiveness has to lack contingency? I agree that the size of the sum is a great indication of the vast grace of the master. But it doesn’t mean that its TEMPORALLY ultimate, just that it comprehends all sins.
Am I supposed to be ok with the idea of God forgiving some of the sins of the non-elect (contingently), but as long as I don’t say he forgives (or offers forgiveness) of ALL of the sins of the non-elect (contingently and temporarily)
Do we admit that God forgives some sins of the non-elect? Does he forgive temporarily, or when they sit in hell, will some of those forgiven sins not be in view? If he forgives SOME sins of the non-elect temporarily (and he does), then what theologically prevents us from saying he also forgives ALL of the sins of the non-elect members of the kingdom?
When you join the Kingdom, youre joining a kingdom where what is on offer is forgiveness of 10,000 talents.
greenbaggins said,
January 9, 2007 at 10:48 am
Scripture interprets Scripture. That means that this parable is a modus tollens argument. That is, it is hypothetical. Jesus is arguing that that the unforgiving “forgiven” person is not actually forgiven. Why are you ignoring the end of the parable? Modus Tollens: if forgiven, then forgiving; not forgiving, therefore not forgiven. Notice the all-important “if” there. I do not in any way, shape, or form, grant that this person was actually forgiven. If he was, then he was also justified, since forgiveness of sins on the basis of Christ’s righteousness is half of justification. Scripture interprets Scripture.
pduggie said,
January 9, 2007 at 10:58 am
Why are you ignoring most of the of the parable? “forgave him the debt”
“You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me. And should not you have had mercy on your fellow servant, as I had mercy on you?”
There are just details we’re supposed to ignore? They’re there to make the parable realistic? They’re not revelatory of God and his purposes?
pduggie said,
January 9, 2007 at 11:02 am
My point is, if it’s a “kingdom of heaven” parable, then its dealing with the visible church (what does the WCF intend to exegete by defining the visible church as the Kingdom of God in contradisticntion to the invisible)?
So if its dealing with the visible church, we have no grounds for worrying about implications of justification_WCF
Todd said,
January 9, 2007 at 11:12 am
“However, I cannot resist responding to Todd’s number 30: I hope your students at your classical school are learning how to argue by following your example.”
Abolutely. They often have to encourage one another to remember not to descend to childish argumentation and name-calling.
The Boston quote is exactly what I needed. Thanks.
greenbaggins said,
January 9, 2007 at 11:15 am
Calvin says this: “As to the clause which immediately follows, it is foolish to inquire how God punishes those sins which he has already forgiven; for the simple meaning is this: though he offers mercy to all, yet severe creditors, from whom no forgiveness can be obtained, are unworthy of enjoying it.”
You are also forgetting, Paul, that it would have been impossible for any servant to owe a master 10,000 talents. Therefore, Jesus is already in the realm of the hypothetical. That makes the modus tollens understanding of the parable given above the correct interpretation.
greenbaggins said,
January 9, 2007 at 11:16 am
Of course, what I meant, Todd, was that calling someone’s argument childish is hardly an argument. It is a put-down, but not a logical argument.
pduggie said,
January 9, 2007 at 11:34 am
As I said, that calvin is great at coming up with arguments.
Does God ever forgive sins temporarily? Did God answer Jesus prayer on the cross?
greenbaggins said,
January 9, 2007 at 11:39 am
No, God does not forgive sins ultimately and temporarily. We don’t know whether or not Jesus’ prayer was answered. The prayer is certainly evidence of Jesus’ forgiving nature, and it is paradigmatic of what Jesus came to do: forgive the sins of those people (i.e. all of us) who put Him on the cross. But in the parable, no, God did not forgive the sins of the ungrateful servant, as Calvin explicitly says.
Todd said,
January 9, 2007 at 11:43 am
“Of course, what I meant, Todd, was that calling someone’s argument childish is hardly an argument.”
Was I responding to an argument? Really? Here’s what I was responding to: “Not until you acknowledge that the WCF actually does so.”
Todd said,
January 9, 2007 at 11:45 am
“God did not forgive the sins of the ungrateful servant, as Calvin explicitly says.”
Of course God didn’t forgive the sins of this fictional character. But his fictional master did.
pduggie said,
January 9, 2007 at 11:46 am
Jesus forgave those who crucified, right? And Jesus is God.
pduggie said,
January 9, 2007 at 11:47 am
“No, God does not forgive sins ultimately and temporarily”
Why this construction? It sounds very specific, as if it allows for other kind sof temporary forgiveness.
What kind of forgiveness will God do temporarily?
greenbaggins said,
January 9, 2007 at 11:49 am
Yes, Todd, the *argument* that the WCF has that interpretation of Matt 6. Todd, your post 51 is completely non-sensical. What could you possibly mean by it?
Paul, we simply do not know enough about those people, whether they were really and finally forgiven, whether they were afterwards part of the church (though some of them were, as Acts says). So it is impossible to get from that text that God forgivess temporarily.
greenbaggins said,
January 9, 2007 at 11:51 am
What I mean is simply this: God does not remove someone’s sins as far as the East is from the West, but then revoke that later. That is all I mean. I certainly don’t intend to imply any other kind of temporary category.
Todd said,
January 9, 2007 at 11:56 am
“Todd, your post 51 is completely non-sensical. What could you possibly mean by it?”
I guess I was trying to point out that it’s pretty weird to talk about whether God has forgiven the sins of a fictional character or not.
“But in the parable, no, God did not forgive the sins of the ungrateful servant, as Calvin explicitly says.”
The point of the parable is the relationship between the servant and his master, not between the servant and God.
JWDS said,
January 9, 2007 at 12:03 pm
Lane, you keep referring to the parable of the unforgiving servant as a modus tollens, but can you address the fact that the lesson Jesus applies is not, “So the servant was never truly forgiven,” but rather “This is what will happen to you if you do not forgive.” Good and necessary consequence does not, so far as understand it, supercede an explicit consequence made in a passage. The Lord himself uses the parable, not as an indicative to show that someone wasn’t truly forgiven, but rather as an imperative.
greenbaggins said,
January 9, 2007 at 12:07 pm
Jesus is saying, “if you are not forgiving, then question your idea that you are forgiven. You cannot have the one without the other.” f you are not a forgiving person, then you are not forgiven, and therefore need to repent, lest hell happen to you. Jesus is not saying that it is possible to be forgiven, and then lose that forgiveness later.
Please give us your full name, JWDS.
Todd said,
January 9, 2007 at 12:10 pm
“Jesus is not saying that it is possible to be forgiven, and then lose that forgiveness later.”
But he’s talking to the disciples, right?
John said,
January 9, 2007 at 12:33 pm
Lane, you seem to think the modus tollens works this way: If you aren’t forgiving, then you haven’t been forgiven; if you are forgiving, then you have been forgiven. In other words, your current behavior (forgiving or not forgiving) demonstrates whether you have or have not been forgiven *in the past*.
But when Jesus drives the point of the parable home, He doesn’t talk about the *past* but about the *future*: “This is how my Father WILL treat each of you if you do not forgive your brother from the heart.”
In other words, in this passage failure to forgive doesn’t indicate that a person hasn’t ever been forgiven. Clearly, in the parable itself, the servant WAS forgiven. That’s explicit. But failure to forgive means that a person will not be forgiven *in the future*. And so the servant who was genuinely forgiven the debt in the past is now thrown into prison until the debt is repaid. His past forgiveness is revoked.
But you seem to be treating forgiveness here as a once-for-all sort of thing. That appears to me to be the unspoken premise in your argument and the way you “get around” the fact that Jesus is speaking about the future in the conclusion of the parable. In other words, your argument goes something like this:
(a) If you’ve been forgiven in the past you will be forgiven in the future.
(b) If you aren’t going to be forgiven in the future, therefore, you must not have been forgiven in the past.
(c) Therefore if the unforgiving servant isn’t ultimately forgiven at the end of the parable, he mustn’t have been forgiven at the start of the story.
But this framework is something you’re importing into the passage. It isn’t something you’d derive from the passage itself. The passage itself speaks about a change in history: a person is forgiven, responds a certain way, and then is punished for the debt which was once forgiven.
Again, if the forgiveness at the start of the parable isn’t real, then the parable’s point is lost. The parable’s point is not just that we ought to forgive. If that were the point, the parable could well have started with the servant meeting his fellow servant and not forgiving him. But the point is expressly that those *who have been forgiven* must now forgive.
The point isn’t that they *will* forgive or that it’s impossible for them not to forgive. That may or may not be true. And it certainly seems possible to me for someone to have been forgiven and then to be wronged by someone and bear a grudge for years. But again, that’s not the point of the parable. The point is to warn us that if we who have been forgiven don’t forgive from the heart, we will not ultimately be forgiven in the end.
greenbaggins said,
January 9, 2007 at 12:44 pm
Point 1, John, is this: when Jesus says “this is how the Father will treat you,” He is saying that the whole kit and kaboodle, *taken as a whole* is how the Father will treat us. It is not as if we should press the parable for this chronological exactitude that you are placing on the text. Quite frankly, your formulation is Arminian. How can it not be? Someone is forgiven 10,000 talents, and then is not forgiven: this is the very definition of the Arminian daisy: He loves, He loves me not, He loves me, He loves me not. You are not letting other Scripture interpret this parable, but are letting it stand all on its lonesome. If you are right, then the Bible is Arminian. So, we come right back round again to the analogy of faith, which you are refusing to allow into the interpretation, and upon which I insist on allowing and controlling the interpretation of this parable. You still haven’t answered my argument about whether this is hypothetical (not fictional, but hypothetical, Todd) or not. The figure of 10,000 talents is way too large to be a real story. This is a hypothetical construct of Jesus’ making in order to illustrate just how seriously we are to take forgiving other people. You are not allowing the genre of the parable to influence its interpretation, either, John. You are bullheadedly pushing forward a literalistic interpretation, because it suits your theology. I have argued that the interpretation of the parable’s genre, plus its modus tollens arrangement, plus the analogy of faith combine to prohibit your interpretation.
pduggie said,
January 9, 2007 at 12:56 pm
What Todd is saying is that it sure is funny that Calvin notes that the master represents God in the parable, but everything the master says and does has no analogy to anything God does, or anything that takes place in the kingdom of heaven.
Even though Jesus said the KoH is like a master who forgives people, even though some will not respond in faith to that forgiveness,.
Lane, can we say for sure that Jesus forgave his crucifiers in any sense? If so, was it an action of his human nature in distinction from his divine nature? IF that’s possible (it supposed to not, AFAIK), isn’t it still revelatory of God?
I MIGHT argue (I haven’t given it enough thought) that “taking away sins” and “forgiving” sin are two different things. The torah is full of statements that “his sins will be forgiven him” after a blood sacrifice. And indeed, the liability to death that the worshipper faces in the face of a holy God is averted. But though the worshipper is forgiven, he is not forgiven “ultimately” or better put, he does not have his sins removed. “without the shedding of blood there can be no forgiveness” AND “the blood of bulls and goats cannot TAKE AWAY sins” are two related, but distinct ideas. The general statement about forgiveness wouldn’t work if forced to fit the second statement about every other kind of blood failing to take away sins.
pduggie said,
January 9, 2007 at 1:13 pm
“I have argued that the interpretation of the parable’s genre, plus its modus tollens arrangement, plus the analogy of faith combine to prohibit your interpretation.”
Yep. you did everything except read the text and believe what it says.
I don’t think it’s arminian, because I think its talking about a forgiveness that IS temporary, is not like the forgiveness the elect have but is a “kingdom” forgviness, or “passive” or “general” or “covenantal” or “sacramentally,” “extrinsically,” “conditionally,” “federally,” “visibly,” (List cribbed from Joel garver’s response on Barlow’s blog).
Does an infant get to be federally holy without any sins being forgiven? There are reformed stawarts who beleived that baptism removed the guilt of Original Sin.
I’m sorry you don’t think you can maitain a Calvinist gospel without Matt 18 as a crutch. William Young and Floyd E. Hamilton didn’t like haveing their crutches removed either. The FV thinks Calvinism is still true even if they’ve been convinced that the texts about covenant election reveal decretal election by way of supremacy and additional theologizing on creation.
That’s what this seems to be about sometimes if I may speculate on the motives of some critics (not you Lane). They’re upset to see their favorite verses taken away by the FV. Even Ephesians 1 is pressed into service of a temporary election.
It is a general problem for anyone when a favorite verse or prooftext is shown to not bear the weight it has been given. It seems to me fairly clear that John Owen surely came up with a very clever explanation of “sanctified” in hebrews because he surely didn’t like the idea of that being a problem text. But it ends up being special pleading (”ignore the details”
Todd said,
January 9, 2007 at 1:16 pm
“This is a hypothetical construct of Jesus’ making in order to illustrate just how seriously we are to take forgiving other people.”
Just how seriously should we take forgiving other people, Lane? It’s not like our salvation is dependent on it.
JWDS said,
January 9, 2007 at 2:11 pm
Full name (given on another comment, as well): Joshua W.D. Smith.
And that is not what Jesus says, Lane! He does not say: “Question whether you’ve been forgiven.” He says “Thus will the Father do to you”–i.e., what the master did, revoke the forgiveness offered and turn the servant over to the penalty–”if you do not forgive your brother.” It is in fact a modus ponens, not a modus tollens: If you do not forgive, this will happen. So you’ve read the logic of the parable backwards.
greenbaggins said,
January 9, 2007 at 4:34 pm
Todd, of course our salvation is not dependent on our forgiving others. But our forgiving others is inseparable to our being forgiven. Dickson notes this in his commentary on the passage: that is the real point of the parable. We cannot be forgiven, and not be changed into unforgiving people. That is the point.
Paul, our discomfort could be *partly* what you say it is. But I plain and simply disagree with the FV’s interpretation of just about every verse they come up with the support their position. I have given countless exegetical considerations challenging the FV on the exegetical level, hardly any of which have been answered in any meaningful way. I am usually accused of twisting the passage in an ST direction, and that supposedly constitutes argumentation. I’m not sure I am going to answer any more of those kinds of arguments. And “you did everything but read the text and believe what it says” is also a non-argument to which I am not going to respond. Sometimes I wonder why you are so gung-ho about supporting the FV, Paul, when your church doesn’t support it, and the denomination is turning against it. It is a sinking ship, Paul, a passing fad.
Joshua, don’t take one little snippet of my conclusion, reject it, and then think you’ve completely smashed my whole argument. Logic doesn’t work that way, although Todd has done it innumerable times on my blog and elsewhere. Why isn’t anyone commenting on the hypothetical nature of the whole parable, which is absolutely proved by the fact that 10,000 talents are in the story? *This would never have happend in the ancient world.* A talent was equivalent to 6,000 denarii. One denarii was one day’s wages for a normal wage-earner. Therefore, Jesus is talking about 60,000,000 day’s wages. For Jesus’ hearers, the figure was plainly unpayable even from the very outset. Is this zero indication that Jesus is speaking hypothetically? I think it is such an indication.
pduggie said,
January 9, 2007 at 4:47 pm
1. Jordan is right on Genesis 1-3.
2. I can say that FV needs to be cut a break, or I can say arminians are hell-bound, lutherans worship a false God, and everyone involed in intervaristy is living a lie because to be in IVCF you have to agree to not criticize RCs who want to participate. If you can’t believe calvinism without Matt 18 on your “side” I can’t believe calvinism without throwing everyone off my side. Been there, done that, ruined lives.
3. Lane, can we say for sure that Jesus forgave his crucifiers in any sense?
greenbaggins said,
January 9, 2007 at 4:51 pm
1. Prove it
2. I’m talking only about the PCA, and men who take vows to uphold the standards of the PCA and aren’t.
3. Those in Acts who got convicted of Peter’s preaching were certainly forgiven. We have no evidence that anyone else was. That simply goes beyond the text, Paul.
pduggie said,
January 9, 2007 at 5:20 pm
By saying “Father, forgive them” was Jesus expressing personal forgiveness towards his crucifiers?
Can I meaningfully say “Dear God, please forgive sally for her sin against me” while not forgiving her myself?
Todd said,
January 9, 2007 at 6:53 pm
I’d love to see Lane respond to Joshua’s argument here:
“It is in fact a modus ponens, not a modus tollens: If you do not forgive, this will happen. So you’ve read the logic of the parable backwards.”
David Gadbois said,
January 9, 2007 at 8:07 pm
“I’d love to see Lane respond to Joshua’s argument here:
“It is in fact a modus ponens, not a modus tollens: If you do not forgive, this will happen. So you’ve read the logic of the parable backwards.”
Even if Joshua is right here, it doesn’t get him where he needs to go.
“If you do nto forgive” could be a descriptive, not a prescriptive condition. In that case, it would indeed have the effect of “if forgiven, then forgiving” etc.
And the “this will happen” part could also have the weight of Lane’s formulation - what will “happen” is that God will not forgive the unforgiving one, not that God will “revoke” forgiveness. If we admit that the parable cannot necessarily be pressed on the details (and has a hypothetical element to it, as Lane suggests), then the analogy of faith here would prohibit us from the FV interpretation.
pduggie said,
January 9, 2007 at 8:44 pm
Can we all admit that its the “analogy of faith” within the FV that creates the FV? If the FV didn’t care about the analogy of faith, there would be no need for all the secondary theologizing about temporary or covenantal faith/election/justificaion, etc
It sounds like youre trying to accuse the FV of denying the analogy of faith, while its actually the AoF that motivates the FV to make new terminology
greenbaggins said,
January 10, 2007 at 9:50 am
I totally disagree that it’s the analogy of faith that created the FV. I would argue strenuously that it is a denial of the analogy of faith that created the FV. Scripture is intepreted absolutely on its own, and ST concerns are never allowed to affect the exegesis. Now, of course, that’s a rhetorical overstatement. But the truth is still there. For ST categories to be allowed into exegesis is a twisting of Scripture, if you believe the FV proponents. Otherwise, they would never have come up with their reading of Paul’s letters as actually applying everything that is said to absolutely everyone who might ever possibly read the thing.
Todd said,
January 10, 2007 at 9:53 am
David: ““If you do nto forgive” could be a descriptive, not a prescriptive condition. In that case, it would indeed have the effect of “if forgiven, then forgiving” etc. And the “this will happen” part could also have the weight of Lane’s formulation - what will “happen” is that God will not forgive the unforgiving one, not that God will “revoke” forgiveness.”
But what is the relationship between this interpretation and the fact that Jesus is speaking, in second person, to the disciples, who, as Lane has said, are already forgiven.
When the applicaton comes in verse 35, he’s not speaking about hypothetical people, “the unforgiving one.” He’s speaking to his followers, every one of them. “So also my heavenly Father will do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother from your heart.”
Todd said,
January 10, 2007 at 9:58 am
“their reading of Paul’s letters as actually applying everything that is said to absolutely everyone who might ever possibly read the thing.”
Lane, you love your “rhetorical overstatement,” don’t you? But what you’ve written above is just false. The FV claims have always concerned the original audiences of Paul’s letters, and then, by good and necessary consequence, readers/hearers in the same situation — baptized church members.
I’m still not sure that the FV claims are correct, but it’s silly for you to misrepresent them like you have here.
greenbaggins said,
January 10, 2007 at 10:04 am
Todd, you amaze me. In one breath you condemn me for overstatement, and then in the very next breath confirm what I just said about FV interpretation of Paul’s letters! Define irony.
Todd said,
January 10, 2007 at 10:18 am
Silly, rhetorical overstatement: “absolutely everyone who might ever possibly read the thing.”
greenbaggins said,
January 10, 2007 at 10:31 am
Todd, if you can’t read that statement as a rhetorical overstatement (and that I meant it that way), then you can’t read genres very well. Number 77 is just stupid, Todd.
Todd said,
January 10, 2007 at 10:46 am
I bet that in a conflict like this it’s worth quoting and paraphrasing our adversaries accurately. False witness, etc.
greenbaggins said,
January 10, 2007 at 10:48 am
Yep, you should pay attention to that before you misread rhetorical statements like the one I made. That way, you won’t think that calling it a “silly, rhetorical overstatement” is actually an argument when in fact I meant it as a rhetorical overstatement (though not silly, of course).
Todd said,
January 10, 2007 at 11:00 am
Of course.
David Gadbois said,
January 11, 2007 at 2:53 am
“When the applicaton comes in verse 35, he’s not speaking about hypothetical people, “the unforgiving one.” He’s speaking to his followers, every one of them. “So also my heavenly Father will do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother from your heart.”
I never said that the “unforgiving one” is “hypothetical”, but rather that some of the disciples (Judas as an example) were not elect and therefore they were “unforgivine ones” amongst the disciples. Again, simply telling an audience that “if X happens, Y will happen” does not mean that they are all equally susceptible to performing X.
Todd said,
January 11, 2007 at 7:36 am
“Again, simply telling an audience that “if X happens, Y will happen” does not mean that they are all equally susceptible to performing X.”
And again, I agree with this. But I don’t think that the relationship between assurance and biblical warnings works in such a way that an assured believer can hear a warning, think a bit, and then decide that Christ is not talking to him. “Every one of you.” You’ve put more qualifications into this relationship than the WCF does.
David Gadbois said,
January 11, 2007 at 8:13 pm
“I don’t think that the relationship between assurance and biblical warnings works in such a way that an assured believer can hear a warning, think a bit, and then decide that Christ is not talking to him. “Every one of you.”
This imports an unproven assumption, that in order for Christ to be talking “to me” his words must have immediate and/or non-hypothetical application to me. But this would make a mess of Scripture. Jesus was talking “to” all of his disciples in his commandments on marriage, for instance, even though not all of them were married. The commandment is still given to them, even though the application was not immediate.
David Gadbois said,
January 11, 2007 at 8:45 pm
Your argument also suffers from a logical problem - HOW could someone with full assurance (assuming, it was legitimate and well-founded assurance) non-hypothetically apply the warning passages to themselves? If they know they are elect, then by definition they won’t fall away and thus the threatenings only apply to them theoretically. Unless, that is, you challenge the legitimacy of the doctrine and possibility of full assurance.
What a tangled, confused web you have woven.
Todd said,
January 11, 2007 at 9:22 pm
“HOW could someone with full assurance (assuming, it was legitimate and well-founded assurance) non-hypothetically apply the warning passages to themselves?”
Ask the standards. By faith, a Christian trembles at the warnings.
Todd said,
January 11, 2007 at 9:26 pm
“Jesus was talking “to” all of his disciples in his commandments on marriage, for instance, even though not all of them were married. The commandment is still given to them, even though the application was not immediate.”
Second person commands? I’m asking without looking, so remind me gently.
Also, any emphasis in these commands — “every one of you”?
David Gadbois said,
January 12, 2007 at 1:25 am
“Ask the standards. By faith, a Christian trembles at the warnings.”
Indeed, but do they tremble because the FV are right and the elect can lose their elect status or lose forgiveness or whatever?
But you have given another non-answer. You don’t show us how your argument and your system adds up logically. So we should either toss out your arguments and beliefs as irrational, or conclude that WCF is irrational, or, more likely, conclude that you and FV have faulty interpretations of WCF.
“Second person commands? I’m asking without looking, so remind me gently.”
In the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew, especially, the formula is “I say to you…whoever does X.” Including the teachings on marriage.
“Also, any emphasis in these commands — “every one of you”?”
There is emphasis, but that doesn’t get you where you are trying to go. The emphasis is emphasizing that God will not show partiality, and prevent presumption. This does not provide you with a basis for the extraneous assumptions you make about warnings.
Todd said,
January 12, 2007 at 6:56 am
“Indeed, but do they tremble because the FV are right and the elect can lose their elect status or lose forgiveness or whatever?”
This isn’t a good summary of the FV view–too many undefined terms. But the FV doesn’t have to be right for your approach to this line in the standards to be silly: “They tremble because they may not be sure of their elect status.” The WCF just doesn’t say that. You’re trying to tidy things up too much.
“In the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew, especially, the formula is “I say to you…whoever does X.” Including the teachings on marriage.”
Right. Third person - “whoever.” Not at all the pointed, straight-forward warning that we’ve been talking about, warnings designed to be believed and trembled at, instead of explained away “logically.”
David Gadbois said,
January 13, 2007 at 10:57 pm
“But the FV doesn’t have to be right for your approach to this line in the standards to be silly: “They tremble because they may not be sure of their elect status.” The WCF just doesn’t say that. You’re trying to tidy things up too much.”
You can’t call my position silly if you aren’t willing to back a concrete interpretation here.
Now how naive is it to say something like “WCF just doesn’t say that.” Gimme a break. Well, indeed, WCF’s intention is not to answer the question you’ve asked. But this does not address the logic of my position one way or another.
“Right. Third person - “whoever.” Not at all the pointed, straight-forward warning that we’ve been talking about, warnings designed to be believed and trembled at, instead of explained away “logically.”
You assume once again, without argument, that my position involves some “explaining away.” Todd, you are going to have to ante up and give an actual argument one of these days, you know. You are just being childish at this point.
Yes, the formula in Matthew is not quite the same, but the formula “God will do to every one of you…if” is still the same thing - they are both second person and conditional.