I am intrigued by the commotion over a novel approach to who God is and how She relates to the world and its people. In this blog I will not focus on The Shack and legitimacy of the provocative suggestions Young makes regarding the nature of God. I am here more interested in the background reasons for the furor that this book has caused.
Human beings are self-centered creatures whose view of the world tends to presume themselves to be autonomous deities in their own little universe, rather than as creatures accountable to a higher God. This view is not explicit, but implicit, which means that people will seldom enunciate this view, but this paradigm is operative in their function. They operate as though they were autonomous deities.
Another way of talking about this is to say that we all operate with certain frameworks in place. These frameworks are what allows us to make sense of our world, but we seldom pay any attention to the frameworks that structure our understanding of our world. When you wear rose-colored glasses your outlook is always rosy, but in a very short time you become oblivious to, and unaware of, the rose-colored glasses you wear. This problem is only exacerbated when all your friends wear the same shades.
However, when you meet someone who is wearing blue shades you encounter a worldview that presents a jarring contrast to the world you thought you knew. It is this stark contrast which alerts you to the rosy tint which your own framework imposed onto your view of your world, and genuine dialogue with your blue-hued friend shows you a whole new way of looking at your world. If you are willing to really listen to your new friend you are forced to recognize that the world is not only as you had understood it to be. Your world changes right before your eyes, because the way you look at your world has changed. Your experience is of a world that has radically changed, and as you allow new insights to change and correct the way you operate in your world, your world is radically altered.
This is both the promise and the threat of a novel approach portrayed in The Shack. We have read the Bible for many years, and we know what the Bible says. We know what it tells us about God. We know who God is because we know what the Bible tells us. It never occurs to us that we have been reading the Bible through a particular lens. We are completely oblivious to the ways in which these lenses have colored the way we see God described in the Bible. Our first reaction when someone talks about God in ways other than what we are used to is to cry “Heresy!!” We have come to believe devoutly that any characterization of God other than what we read in the Bible is idolatry, and any such other image presents the most sinister threat to our eternal well-being.
Young presents an alternative, not to biblical truth, but to our reading of biblical truth. The fact that his reading of biblical truth is different from ours does not mean that his reading, however provocative, runs contrary to biblical truth. That evaluation requires that we listen carefully to what he is saying, and become willing to get radical with our evaluation of how our own lenses have always colored our own reading of biblical truth.
In the final end, I believe that the allure of Young’s reading rests not merely on the merits of its own provocative suggestions of who God is, but it derives its strength primarily from the promise contained in its potential to broaden our understanding of biblical truth. It is powerfully appealing not because it presents an alternative to biblical truth, but because it presents a larger vision of biblical truth than our frameworks have allowed us to see. To the extent that we are comfortable with the truth we know and are resistant to larger truth, this is diabolically threatening. On the other hand, if we are willing to have an encounter with the God Who Is, beyond our feeble understanding of God as limited by our knowledge, such an alternative carries profound promise. It is the difference between having a god we can hold, or having a God who holds us. When we finally do realize that we can never hold God, it is in fact more comforting to know that it is God who holds us. This realization both relativizes previous frameworks, and it becomes a framework that facilitates a broader and deeper recognition of the God Who Is that must itself be relativized if it is not to become a similarly restricting framework as well as an enabling framework. That God will forever elude our confident grasp and exceed our anemic frameworks is our only hope, not a most threatening heresy. Thanks be to God!!
46 comments:
This is a very nice post and seems to want to make a point about the nature of biblical truth. But what is the new "blue tinted" truth that you see Young making?
I am not intending any specific commentary regarding the nature of biblical truth, beyond saying that it is too large to be adequately captured in any particular framework. This is not to say some frameworks are not better suited to making sense of biblical truth than others, or that certain frameworks are not more useful for understanding certain aspects of biblical truth. I do wish to insist that just because an understanding does not fit within my particular framework does not mean it is not biblical.
After the Enlightenment theology has been increasingly considered an intellectual heritage that can be tested on the basis of its rationality. That approach has some merit but since this project is obsessed with excluding the human component from reliable knowledge, it inevitably denigrates the significance of the Incarnation.
Young reads scripture through the Incarnation (the life of Jesus). In so doing he reads a very differently nuanced revelation of God in Scripture than a merely literal or rational reading can achieve. I think this approach comes closer to doing justice to the whole of revelation in scripture, in which God is revealed not only in stories, experiences, and words, but ultimately in the Person of Jesus Christ. (See especially John 1:1-18; Hebrews 1:1-4)
What I meant to say first of all is "Thanks for your comment. I appreciate your contribution.".
I won't get into Young's book per se, but I'm just curious which framework you're using to evaluate frameworks, and which lens you're viewing Young's book through?
Is the Bible a lens in itself? In other words, is revelation the context as well as the message?
Hi Matt,
It is difficult to say what framework I use to evaluate frameworks because not all of our frameworks are explicit and conscious. I use the tools we inherited from modernism when I deem them appropriate. I use the insights of post-modernism when they provide a healthy corrective to modernism. I try always to be biblical, but I think it would be disingenuous to say the Bible is my only framework, because how I read the Bible is a product of frameworks, both recognized and subconscious. Much, if not most, of our frameworks are developed before we are capable of self-conscious thought. These frameworks are the product of our thinking, but also bear the imprint of our experiences going back into pre-analytic stages.
Most of all, what it means to be biblical, in my view, is to recognize that God's attempts to communicate with us culminated in God becoming flesh and blood. It seems irresponsible to refuse to recognize that such decisive action clearly mitigates the position of the spoken and written Word in relation to the Living Word. That action seems an undeniable declaration that spoken and written words would never do the job God wished to accomplish. In the end even the Living Word failed to accomplish all God desired, but that was not due to any lack on God's part. It was due to the stubborn wallowing in sinfulness in which that most prized of all creation persisted.
I am fully aware that this interpretation will sound blasphemous to some Calvinists, but I have heard their staunch explanations and incantations, and have found them wanting. I have learned much from people in the Calvinist tradition, and deeply respect the contribution that Calvin and his disciples have made to Christian thought, but there are some Calvinists who I consider equally as blasphemous as they will consider me.
I guess that goes to frameworks again. There are frameworks that provide valuable resources for the pursuit of truth, but all frameworks also place limits on the truth that can be understood within their structures. To me one of the implications of scripture is that truth can be conveyed in words, but it (ideally) resides in people. That would be anathema to a modernist, as it runs explicitly counter to the fundamental tenets of modernity.
Henry,
as to frameworks, I'm sure we are agreed on the noetic effects of the Fall. However, I'd like to know if the mind itself is renewed and opened up to spiritual truth when a person is regenerated (Reformed shiboleth intended)? Is the Holy Spirit capable of doing a supernatural act in our minds as well as our hears, or do we remain exclusively under the bondage of the old nature?
How does the following relate to being trapped inside of frameworks?
For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds. 5 We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ, 6 being ready to punish every disobedience, when your obedience is complete.
2 Corinthians 10:4-6
Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.
Romans 12:2
Hi Matt,
trapped inside of frameworks indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of the whole notion of frameworks. It betrays the age old aspiration to a God's-eye view that (I think) led to the Fall in the Garden. It likewise betrays our ongoing desire, usually unacknowledged and generally vehemently denied, to be gods unto ourselves. We still want to be like gods, knowing with an objective perfection. Paul recognized that "we know in part and we prophesy in part, . . . Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror" (1 Corinthians 13).
A framework is the only way we are enabled to understand anything at all. We understand because we are able to fit things into a framework. Unless we have a framework to fit things into we are utterly unable to make any sense of things. This framework is a necessary condition of the freedom that comes from knowledge and understanding, but in fitting things into a specific framework we are limited in our ability to understand how they would fit into a totally different framework unless we are willing to take the chance of at least temporarily letting go of our first framework to see how things look in another frame of reference.
The references you mention speak of such a transformation of frameworks. It is the transition from being gods unto ourselves and viewing the world as though our perspective were the only perspective that mattered, to recognizing ourselves as creatures who must bow to a higher God.
Note that both references are instructions to take action in this transformation and renewal. This is not something that just happens to us, but something we need to participate in (eg., obedience, discernment) if we are to realize the fuller benefits of this transformation.
So if I hear you correctly, some frameworks are more biblical than others?
A qualified yes, because of the way the question is framed. I have no trouble saying that some frameworks are more amenable to biblical truth, some frameworks are better informed by biblical truth, and some frameworks provide better resources for understanding and applying biblical truth. The modernist notion of truth as propositional is a tool that has merit for making literary sense out of scripture, but as a fixation the notion of truth as propositional precludes an understanding of the most fruitful aspects of biblical truth. Hence the postmodern recognition of the limits of propositional truth can be a more biblical framework than is an insistence that propositional truth is the only reliable category of truth. That notion is inimical to the Incarnation.
I've got no problem with your assertion that our knowledge is always fallible and finite on this earth, even after being regenerated. It is no different than the fact that we still continue to sin here on earth, even after our sinful nature has been made new.
However, my contention is that you are seemingly attempting to explain all knowledge (including knowledge for the Christian) in naturalistic (read: modernistic) terms. I know you rail against modernism as strongly as I do, but you seem to think that postmodernism is an alternative or a corrective to modernism, when in fact it is the logical conclusion of modernistic autonomy. It is the end of thought.
My question is: does anything supernatural happen to a person's ability to understand and apply God's infallible when he is regenerated? If so, what implication does that have for the existence of a biblical framework (read: worldview) as opposed to a framework where we are merely autonoms enslaved to our cultural and linguistic baggage?
Wishing you a wonderful Lord's day, Henry.
Matt
you seem to think that postmodernism is an alternative or a corrective to modernism, when in fact it is the logical conclusion of modernistic autonomy. It is the end of thought.
Post-modernism is the end of thought reigning supreme as the final arbiter of truth. No Christian should ever confuse that with the end of thought.
does anything supernatural happen to a person's ability to understand and apply God's infallible (?) when he is regenerated?
I would be interested to hear your definition of supernatural. How do you distinguish this from the “God told me...” error you rightly dispute? I can’t help but be suspicious that this is special pleading for a wee bit of this to endorse a certain reading of scripture. Is it because of this supernatural insight that some are able to correctly understand scripture, when others disagree? How does that differ from "God told me so"?
I would also like to know how you clearly distinguish supernatural from the dualism of Greek philosophy, unless you accept Greek philosophy as a proper framework for reading scripture and doing theology.
In the absence of your clarifications I would say yes. Very much along the lines that something supernatural happens when one chooses to eat a healthy breakfast of oatmeal rather than settling for coffee and donuts. A wholesome diet is an important avenue of experiencing God's healing. The supernatural is not something added to the natural world, it is part of everything that happens in our world. The fact that something supernatural happens should not lead one to think that there are supernatural insights that one dare not probe because to do so would be to blasphemously question God. The growth (and insights) that follows a decision to radically re-orient one self in response to God’s gracious call are a supernatural event that could be viewed as the most natural thing possible.
This issue of the supernatural is a huge issue that I think underlies much of the misunderstanding about the place of miracles in Christian thought. I won’t even try to deal adequately with it at this point.
a framework where we are merely autonoms enslaved to our cultural and linguistic baggage
Frameworks still enslave us, eh? Frameworks are a condition of possibility for freedom. You need a perspective if you are to see anything. The perspective also delimits what you might see from another perspective, but without this limitation one would be too incessantly bombarded by sensory input to make any sense out of the information overload.
what implication does that have for the existence of a biblical framework
None that come to mind if you intend a biblical framework untouched by the world one inhabits, except that such a framework would be monumentally insignificant (that has to be an oxymoron) as it would have no point of reference for one's lived experience. Do you see anything? I am interested.
God bless you, Matt. Rest easy in God's sufficiency.
So the Holy Spirit has no more power than my decision to eat oatmeal?!
I'm not advocating "God told me so", nor am I suggesting that we are untouched by the world as long as we live in unglorified bodies and use unglorified minds.
My concern is that practically, at least, you are denying that Scripture teaches that even our minds are redeemed when Jesus saves us.
I think it's easy to see a distinction between our mind being supernaturally opened to receive biblical truth and "God told me", because Scripture is accessible and verifiable whereas subjective, personal "revelations" are not.
So do I hear you correctly that in practice, nothing happens to a person's mind when Jesus redeems him/her. At least not anything that can't be explained in rational, naturalistic terms.
I'm fairly confident you'll respond that I'm misrepresenting you (that is, after all, the golden ring of emerging apologetics), yet you fail to provide any demonstration that it's just more of the same for our minds, frameworks, etc. when Jesus gets a hold of us.
What's so special about that Jesus guy anyway? I might as well just eat oatmeal.
Hi Matt,
Would eating oatmeal not be a valid step in following 'that Jesus guy'? Does following Jesus not lay claim to every facet of life? I am not saying the mind is not impacted by regeneration. I am saying the mind is not specially impacted in a way that no other part of the person is, making the mind the locus of salvation. Salvation impacts the whole person, mind, body, soul, intellect, emotions, health, social, etc., etc.. No part is left out, but no part is immediately perfected. We are saved, we are being saved, we look forward to our final salvation (1 Peter 1:3-9). That goes for all parts. Christian theology believes that salvation means complete healing for the body, but not right now. Our salvation is complete in Jesus' work, but our experience of salvation is not. Not for the body, not for the mind. Eating oatmeal and thinking rightly are ways in which we enhance our experience of salvation. Regeneration of body and mind is more than we can explain and understand, but it is not entirely outside the reach of our action, either.
I am not reducing space for God. I am insisting that we cannot relegate God to the supernatural. God is everywhere, concerned with everything, and all is God's. To say that a thing is natural should not automatically be taken to mean that it is therefore less godly (in this I dispute the dualism of Greek philosophy). God is the Creator of our world in its physical reality. Growing trees, singing birds, and rolling waves are intensely natural and intensely godly.
Hey Henry,
no problem with what you say, as far as it goes. I'm just not convinced it goes far enough.
Does Jesus do anything to us, or is it all about me in some way, shape, or form?
Hi Matt,
Ephesians 2:4But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved. 6And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus,
Colossians 1:22But now he has reconciled you by Christ's physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation— 23if you continue in your faith, established and firm, not moved from the hope held out in the gospel. This is the gospel that you heard and that has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, have become a servant. 24Now I rejoice in what was suffered for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ's afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church.
Phillipians 2:12Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed—not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence—continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, 13for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose.
I think it is fairly clear the God does it all for us. When we were dead, He made us alive. After God has done it all for us, if we are to grow in our salvation, if we wish to enhance our experience of salvation we must work hard, with fear and trembling, to continue in truth, and even that is God working out His will in us.
Hi Henry,
I love those passages, but I didn't think you were Reformed...
Yes, I too believe in monergism. It seems that our forms of monergism may part company immediately after we affirm that Christ does everything in salvation. Would I understand you correctly if I said it sounds like in your form, Jesus may save somebody without them even knowing it, or without them ever professing belief in Him?
I believe the biblical form of monergism says that Christ calls us and regenerates us (i.e. - we are born again) so that we can believe in Him. The work of regeneration is followed by a profession of belief in Jesus Christ 100% of the time. Scripture seems to be fairly clear that a)Jesus does all the work of salvation, and b)nobody is saved apart from their faith (read:belief). Their faith is part of being born again in Jesus as per Ephesians 2, which you quote.
Blessings,
Matt
Hi Matt,
The work of regeneration is followed by a profession of belief in Jesus Christ 100% of the time.
Are you serious? Can you explain? Are you saying that God handpicks believers?
Are you saying that God handpicks believers?
Well I am Reformed...
The answer is yes. I'm no fan of Tony Campolo, but I must say that I indeed am a "red letter Christian", including the red letters of John 6:22-70
Henry, you've got me curious. First, you seem to downplay supernatural elements of regeneration at the expense of naturalistic explanations, and then you seem to endorse some form of monergism. To further confound my confusion, you're now seemingly unhappy with monergism after all.
I'll return a question to you.
Can a person be saved without them knowing it? Can someone who has never believed in Jesus be justified?
The simple answer is yes to both. Surely you do not disagree. Did Moses know he was "saved"? How many "true Israelites" were justified without ever having heard the name of Jesus? Of course, you will have a simple explanation for why that is not related to your questions. I've heard all of that, Matt. I have spent years studying at Calvinist and Reformed institutions and have great respect for what they have to offer the church. However, there are huge areas of Reformed theology which I find problematic. With all due respect to Reformed thinkers who are obsessed with the law of non-contradiction, I find many of them spend entirely too much time trying to explain how two contradictory things can both be true. I see this in their soteriology, as well as their doctrine of the sovereignty of God.
So you consider yourself Reformed? Does that mean you no longer consider yourself Anabaptist? I am not surprised by this because the way you read scripture is much more compatible with popular Reformed theology than it is with Anabaptist theology. The move is entirely predictable on that count.
We are back to earlier discussions regarding language and the meaning of words. If you read John 6 as a piece of literature in the context of scripture as truth in the written word you have a lot of latitude in terms of what the words mean. When you read John 6 as the words of Jesus the Christ, God in the flesh, Incarnated to communicate, as clearly as God can to the creature whom He would die to save, his desire for the creature's salvation, then those red letter words take on a whole new significance. We've had the discussion and I do not hope to change your mind on that now. You have too much invested in your particular take on what counts as truth to be easily convinced to consider a larger truth now.
The simple answer is yes to both. Surely you do not disagree. Did Moses know he was "saved"? How many "true Israelites" were justified without ever having heard the name of Jesus?
So you're a professing inclusivist? That doesn't surprise me. Why do you still want to share Jesus with others? Of what eternal benefit is it? God will justify whoever He wants without them ever knowing it. Think about how cruel that actually is. If what you say is true, and someone can be justified without knowing it, then one could potentially be saved and still live their life in fear of condemnation. Your view seems to me the cruelest form of torture on offer.
Moses and all the other of God's people in the OT were saved by faith in Yaweh, as per Hebrews 11. Sure, they didn't know the name Jesus, because God hadn't yet revealed Himself in that form. Yet, their belief in the triune God is still what justified them.
If we're agreed on the progressive nature of revelation (I assume we are), then we are forced to recognize that God deals with us differently now than He did with His people before the Incarnation. Romans 3 makes that pretty clear. We know from Hebrews that all who were saved in the OT were saved on the basis of faith in God, and we learn here and in Acts 17 that God now expects us to repent and profess faith in Jesus for our salvation. There is no justification apart from repentance and faith in Christ.
Romans 10 also provides ample clarity that one is justified on the basis of Jesus alone, through faith alone, by grace alone. No way around it, Henry. God's election brings with it repentance and faith 100% of the time.
So you consider yourself Reformed? Does that mean you no longer consider yourself Anabaptist?
May it never be! I don't see the two as being mutually exclusive. I would offer this post and this post as evidence. I quote Simons himself. But I should be clear when using the word Anabaptist. I would consider myself an Anabaptist in the tradition of the early Anabaptists such as Simons and Hubmaier, not in the tradition of the revisionist neo-anabaptists like J. Denny Weaver or Herald Press. I see nothing in Simons that puts him at odds with Reformed soteriology. Sure, him and Calvin were disagreed over credo vs. paedo baptism (I side with Simons on that one, BTW), or on the role of Christians in government (I'm with Simons here too) but Simons' firm belief in biblical authority, substitutionary atonement, etc. would be quite consistent with the rest of Reformation theology.
We are back to earlier discussions regarding language and the meaning of words. If you read John 6 as a piece of literature in the context of scripture as truth in the written word you have a lot of latitude in terms of what the words mean. When you read John 6 as the words of Jesus the Christ, God in the flesh, Incarnated to communicate, as clearly as God can to the creature whom He would die to save, his desire for the creature's salvation, then those red letter words take on a whole new significance. We've had the discussion and I do not hope to change your mind on that now. You have too much invested in your particular take on what counts as truth to be easily convinced to consider a larger truth now.
What a wonderful postmodern paragraph! Lots of words that convey little other than ambiguity.
What do the words of John 6 actually mean? Pretty tough to avoid the fact that a)Jesus teaches that He is 100% successful in ensuring the salvation of all who come to faith in Him; and b)that nobody has the ability to come to Him without God's drawing. So that leaves us with either 1)universalism; or 2)a view of election that has since come to be known as the "Reformed" view. Apparently, wasn't much more popular to Jesus' hearers then, than it is today.
Your view seems to me the cruelest form of torture on offer.
That's a pretty strong statement, considering you do not seem to understand my view. The view you outlined is a caricature of my view based on a misreading and attributed implications that have nothing to do with my view.
Why do I want to share Jesus with others? For the same reason you keep going to church and discussing issues with people who have heard of Jesus. Salvation is not just a fire insurance policy. (Do you see why emerging people sometimes suggest that as the operative principle of evangelical theology? I don't think you really believe that, but this argument sounds like it.) It is about growing God's kingdom on earth, in the hearts, minds and actions of people. I might ask you the same question. Reformed theology has struggled with this very question and, in my view, has never yet mustered a satisfactory response.
If we're agreed on the progressive nature of revelation (I assume we are), then we are forced to recognize that God deals with us differently now than He did with His people before the Incarnation.
Is it the progressive nature of revelation that is at issue, or is it the timing of the Incarnation? Does God deal differently with people after the knowledge of the Incarnation or after the fact of the Incarnation? If, as you suggest, it is progressive revelation that is at issue not only the event, would it not follow that those who have not heard now are in the same situation as those who lived before the time of Christ?
I have no problem per se with your attempt to glean the best of Reformed and Anabaptist theology into one, though you will not be able to do so without seriously compromising some of the fundamental values of one or the other. Your attempt is curious though, after you so thoroughly lambaste Mclaren for doing the same thing on a much broader scale. So when do you get to being an Anabaptist Reformed Catholic Hindu? Much of your foundational theology (as long as it bears any semblance of orthodoxy) is rooted in 2000 years of Christian theology and so is Catholic, and surely the Hindus also have some very good things that you would do well to consider. How important are names?
If I had to choose between universalism and Reformed views of salvation (I don't. I think you would call that a false antithesis if you were in my shoes. Your gloss on John 6 is too facile.) I would choose universalism. It is much closer to the truth of scripture, and it much better reflects the character of God as revealed in scripture and in Jesus. Reformed theology at some points makes it very difficult (impossible, even) to distinguish God's work from the devil's work. That actually comes pretty close to Jesus' definition of blasphemy. Unfortunately, that would not be the first time thelogy became blasphemous.
Jesus said belief is work (in the John 6 passage you cited). Are you willing then to concede that your soteriology (cross + belief = salvation) requires works for salvation? Or do those red letter words not mean what they say? Just curious.
God bless you, Matt. Interestingly, it sometimes seems that the longer we talk, the further apart we find ourselves.
It is about growing God's kingdom on earth, in the hearts, minds and actions of people
What about God's eternal kingdom? And, how is it even God's earthly kingdom if it includes people who have never professed belief in Yaweh?
Salvation is not just a fire insurance policy.
A hearty, unconditional "amen" to that, Henry! Salvation opens the door to sanctification and growth. So it is certainly more than escaping Hell. But it is just as certainly no less than it.
Is it the progressive nature of revelation that is at issue, or is it the timing of the Incarnation?
I believe it's both.
Does God deal differently with people after the knowledge of the Incarnation or after the fact of the Incarnation?
After the fact of the incarnation, as Romans 1 and Acts 17 teaches.
If, as you suggest, it is progressive revelation that is at issue not only the event, would it not follow that those who have not heard now are in the same situation as those who lived before the time of Christ?
No. See above, especially the "now" in Acts 17.
I have no problem per se with your attempt to glean the best of Reformed and Anabaptist theology into one, though you will not be able to do so without seriously compromising some of the fundamental values of one or the other.
Why? How? There are plenty of baptistic Reformed out there. I don't see how Reformed soteriology is mutually exclusive with historic Anabaptism. If you mean to highlight the fact that Calvinists typically emphasize orthodoxy and that Anabaptists emphasize orthopraxi, then I see the two as being complementary in a very helpful way. I don't see orthodoxy and orthopraxi as contradictory.
Your attempt is curious though, after you so thoroughly lambaste Mclaren for doing the same thing on a much broader scale.
I don't lambaste McLaren for seeing complementarity between different veins of history. I lambaste him for redefining practically every theological system in order to force them to be complementary. You'll notice that I'm actually interacting with Simons' writings and with Reformed theology. You'll also notice that McLaren reduces historic evangelicalism to "enthusiasm", completely redefines TULIP to make it what he wants it to be, etc, etc. That's revisionism, not generosity.
Much of your foundational theology (as long as it bears any semblance of orthodoxy) is rooted in 2000 years of Christian theology and so is Catholic, and surely the Hindus also have some very good things that you would do well to consider.
So church history belongs to Roman Catholics? I would assert that the Reformers followed in the ways of their fathers, not the RCs.
Hindus may have some good things about them, but I don't see how that bears any significance to this discussion. If there are any redeeming traits in Hinduism, those values are already in Christianity. So we need not look anywhere other than Christ or engage in any form of syncretism.
Are you willing then to concede that your soteriology (cross + belief = salvation) requires works for salvation? Or do those red letter words not mean what they say? Just curious.
My soteriology isn't cross + belief = salvation. It's cross + election = salvation. God does it all. Once He's done it, I'm new and will believe and do works. Where does Jesus suggest that works is a pre-requisite for salvation?
My soteriology isn't cross + belief = salvation. It's cross + election = salvation. God does it all. Once He's done it, I'm new and will believe and do works.
And your comment on the Good Friday thread:
The question isn't "is the cross enough", but rather "will the work of the cross be applied to me in the absence of my belief in Jesus Christ? If that's what you're asking then my answer is a resounding "no". If belief isn't necessary for my salvation, how would you explain (away) John 3:16, for one less than obscure example?
I am sorry. I must have misunderstood. Not sure how that happened.
Where does Jesus suggest that works is a pre-requisite for salvation?
I never said that. I said Jesus said belief is work. That seemed to be a significant point when I thought you had said that belief was necessary for salvation. Now that I know I misunderstood you that is moot.
God bless you, Matt. May you rest easy in the sufficiency of His work for you, your family, and your world.
Hey Henry,
I can see how there was possible confusion. In my statement:
The question isn't "is the cross enough", but rather "will the work of the cross be applied to me in the absence of my belief in Jesus Christ? If that's what you're asking then my answer is a resounding "no". If belief isn't necessary for my salvation, how would you explain (away) John 3:16, for one less than obscure example?
I intentionally avoided chronology. I didn't say that belief precedes regeneration. The monergistic work of Christ is not dependent upon me first believing. It makes me new and produces belief in me, so that I have assurance in what Jesus has done for me.
I hope that clarifies what I'm saying.
Grace and peace,
Matt
Hi Matt,
So if your God chooses some to saved and does it all, then He also chooses some to be eternally damned? We really do not have a choice. We just think we do.
We do have a choice, Henry. The reality is, though, that we always choose according to our desires. The unregenerated man has evil and sinful desires, and so he always chooses according to those desires. Because he has no desire for Jesus, he never chooses Jesus.
However, once Jesus makes us spiritually alive, we have a new heart, and a desire to believe in and follow Him.
So, He does all the work, and we choose according to our desires. Yes, in the ultimate sense, God saves some and not others, but sinfulness is the default position of man. So, God's work in regeneration is active (i.e. - positive), and His passing over some is passive.
Quite something that this has turned into a discussion on election!
Henry, I totally understand some of your objections to Reformed theology. Until recently, I've had the same objections. The overwhelming testimony of Scripture, though, has forced me to give up my comfortable, uncritical belief in Arminianism. You can see my initial objections here.
I never want to be guilty of committing the sin Jesus condemns in Mark 7:8. For me, Arminianism was a man-made belief system that was my tradition. It was exceptionally difficult for me to let go of it, but it was a necessary step for me.
Peace in Jesus,
Matt
Hi Matt,
This is an example of the intellectual gymnastics of Reformed theology that I object to. Why pretend to say one thing when we are really saying the opposite? Why pretend we have a choice when our choice is not only guided but determined by someone else? That is dishonest. If God is so sovereign that nothing happens without his willing it so (and I don't care how many qualifications you add to how His will is permissive not directive. It still boils down to His control), and then he demands a bloody sacrifice for the things over which He presided, that is not a god I have any interest in, and far more significantly, that god bears no resemblance whatsoever to the God we see in Jesus Christ. Scripture can be twisted to endorse such a god, but it is also twisted to endorse a whole host of other perversions of theology (Jonestown, religious/psychological/physical abuse of mostly women and children) so a purported basis in scripture does not impress me. This is why the way we approach scripture is so important. An excessive reliance on the propositional nature of truth allows perversions that a more wholistic understanding of truth as personal can correct.
Jesus never told anyone to go to hell. He allowed people to make such a choice but sorrowfully. If that choice had originated entirely at His will then the pretense of sorrow would be hypocritical.
As to man-made belief systems, get used to it. If you think Reformed is any less a man-made belief system than Arminianism, then I think you are wrong. For example,
So, God's work in regeneration is active (i.e. - positive), and His passing over some is passive. because man's default position is sinful, you say. How did that get to be our default position? God created us good, right? Then somehow according to His will we became sinful? Now he is less culpable because his passing over some is passive? Sounds to me like you have a god that needs saving. A man-made belief system is a very handy way to do that.
This is an example of the intellectual gymnastics of Reformed theology that I object to. Why pretend to say one thing when we are really saying the opposite? Why pretend we have a choice when our choice is not only guided but determined by someone else? That is dishonest. If God is so sovereign that nothing happens without his willing it so (and I don't care how many qualifications you add to how His will is permissive not directive. It still boils down to His control), and then he demands a bloody sacrifice for the things over which He presided, that is not a god I have any interest in, and far more significantly, that god bears no resemblance whatsoever to the God we see in Jesus Christ. Scripture can be twisted to endorse such a god, but it is also twisted to endorse a whole host of other perversions of theology (Jonestown, religious/psychological/physical abuse of mostly women and children) so a purported basis in scripture does not impress me.
Your propensity to be dismissive suggests to me that you grew up with the same caricature of Reformed theology that I grew up with. How about actually following the link I embedded in my last comment and actually reading the conversation that took place there.
Jesus never told anyone to go to hell. He allowed people to make such a choice but sorrowfully. If that choice had originated entirely at His will then the pretense of sorrow would be hypocritical.
It is our choice, but the thing about us is that we act according to our desires. Since we are by nature sinful, and children of wrath, we always choose to rebel against God.
Tell me, Henry, what did you do today that was against your strongest desire?
Sounds to me like you have a god that needs saving
Wow, Henry. That's pretty strong language to use about the God that Jesus talks about in John 6, that Paul talks about in Ephesians and Romans, that was the majority view of the patristic fathers, and that was the view that was recovered along with biblical authority by the reformers. You're free to not accept Reformed theology (I didn't until recently), but to suggest what you do is plain silly. An alternative would be to view the God of Reformed theology as abundantly graceful. The "doctrines of grace" are called so for a reason. What's incredible isn't that God doesn't save every individual, but that He saves any individual. He would be perfectly justified in allowing us all to suffer the penalty for our sinfulness, yet in His abundant mercy and grace, He does save many.
On this vein, aside from all the lofty platitudes you make that allow you to evade the biblical texts, I would like to ask you head on to exposit John 6, Romans 9, and Ephesians 2 for me. If that's too much work, I'd be more than happy with an exposition of John 6 that doesn't end in universalism or election.
Blessings,
Matt
Hi Matt,
Your propensity to be dismissive suggests to me that you grew up with the same caricature of Reformed theology that I grew up with. How about actually following the link I embedded in my last comment and actually reading the conversation that took place there.
I probably did grow up with the same caricature, but I have also indicated repeatedly that all my post secondary education (4 years of undergrad, and another 4 or 5 years of graduate studies) was done at Calvinist and Reformed institutions. I have also said that I appreciate and have great respect for the contribution they have to make to Christian theology. The propensity to be dismissive is an unfair comment, but I make no apology for vocalizing my dissent when I see their theology departing from good scriptural exegesis.
Tell me, Henry, what did you do today that was against your strongest desire?
If I have to choose between Matt, Randy (I did read that conversation) and Calvin or Paul, I'll go with Paul. Romans 7:14-25.
to suggest what you do is plain silly
Thank you! Otherwise intelligent, silly, if you take 4 of the leading thinkers of the camp you put me into you get a total IQ of about 7. I think I get the picture.
the lofty platitudes you make that allow you to evade the biblical texts
I realize I do not pepper my comments with scripture references, but that is done for several reasons. For one, those kinds of references tend to be proof-texts that ignore context and therefore they are usually unconvincing. Second, the lens through which one reads scripture determines what one gets out of scripture (you indicated as much in the thread you cited. See! I did read it!!), and such frameworks have been my main concern. This is why I tend not to itemize my grievances with the references you cite.
I would like to ask you head on to exposit John 6, Romans 9, and Ephesians 2 for me.
Fair challenge. Except I try to avoid proof-texting so Romans 9 will be placed in the context of Paul's thought developed in the book as a whole. That has significant ramifications for understanding what Paul is about in chapter 9. That is a project that books don't do adequately, so it will be sketchy. Give me some time.
I'd be more than happy with an exposition of John 6 that doesn't end in universalism or election.
Do you normally decide before hand what scripture is allowed to tell you? Actually I think there is a powerful case to be made for some form of universalism if one reads scripture with an ear to hear what it says. Paul certainly seemed convinced of that. However, Paul seems equally convinced that just because the cross applies universally does not mean everyone will be saved in the end. I think the Calvinist/Reformed commitment to their version of sovereignty does not allow them to see that. That goes to frameworks again, and involves exegesis, which I need to give more time later.
If I have to choose between Matt, Randy (I did read that conversation) and Calvin or Paul, I'll go with Paul. Romans 7:14-25.
If you read the conversation, I think that Randy quite ably answers my objections on Romans 7 (comment #7)
Thank you! Otherwise intelligent, silly, if you take 4 of the leading thinkers of the camp you put me into you get a total IQ of about 7. I think I get the picture.
I know what you're referring to here, Henry. That comment was meant to be a joke in response to your previous joke. It wasn't a kind comment on my part, even if it wasn't serious. I apologize. No qualifications.
I realize I do not pepper my comments with scripture references, but that is done for several reasons. For one, those kinds of references tend to be proof-texts that ignore context and therefore they are usually unconvincing. Second, the lens through which one reads scripture determines what one gets out of scripture (you indicated as much in the thread you cited. See! I did read it!!), and such frameworks have been my main concern. This is why I tend not to itemize my grievances with the references you cite.
I agree with you that there is such a thing as frameworks. However, we have to do more than exposit frameworks; eventually we still have to get to the text. We need to determine the context, the literary style, the original audience, etc., and then exegete the text accordingly. It seems to me that you haven't gotten to that point yet in this discussion.
Give me some time.
No problem.
Do you normally decide before hand what scripture is allowed to tell you?
No. I didn't in my challenge, either. I simply challenged you to exposit those chapters in such a way that doesn't result in universalism or election. I'm simply stating that I don't see any other alternative than those two.
Actually I think there is a powerful case to be made for some form of universalism
If it wasn't for all those red letters again...
Have a great weekend, Henry.
Grace and peace,
Matt
Hi Matt,
If you read the conversation, I think that Randy quite ably answers my objections on Romans 7 (comment #7)
I did not find Randy's response convincing because I see his framework (that word again) for divine/human interaction as fundamentally flawed. He put too much emphasis on this being an antagonistic relationship. If you buy this framework his response has some merit. I think this framework does not adequately recognize the problem of sin, and at times confuses the human element with sin itself. It casts humans and God as bitter enemies, and neglects to adequately recognize that the greatest gulf exists between God and sin. The biblical story seems to me to cast divine human interaction much less antagonistically than Randy does, and then his response loses much of its traction.
Apology accepted.
Your explanation sheds helpful light on your universalism or election comment. I do not think those two choices exhaust the options. Absent this false dichotomy those red letter words are beautiful words that extend a universal invitation to everyone to repent and believe.
Henry,
we're once again back to frameworks. I agree with you that it's important to recognize the factors that influence and bias our thinking.
However, the way you evade biblical texts and always go back and play the "framework" card seems to suggest that you commit a fallacy of believing in an infinite regress of frameworks. For example, what framework do you use in recognizing frameworks? Which framework would you use to analyze that framework, etc. ad infinitum. Very soon you have no basis for any kind of knowledge whatsoever.
I don't dispute that all humans are biased and fallible, however, that doesn't mean that God can't break through and transform even our frameworks with the power of His Word, both written and living.
Blessings,
Matt
those red letter words are beautiful words that extend a universal invitation to everyone to repent and believe.
Right, and nobody will repent and believe without the help of the Holy Spirit. Everything about our salvation is dependent on the graciousness of Jesus.
It would be a shame if my supposedly "free" will was able to frustrate the plans of almighty God. Either He's sovereign, or my choices are. Knowing what I know about my sinfulness, and His goodness, I'm thankful that He's over me, not vice-versa!
Soli Deo Gloria!
Matt
Hi Matt,
You said at one point that you subscribe to 5 point Calvinism. That would include Limited atonement? You also presumably still subscribe to inerrancy, verbal plenary inspiration, and perspicuity?
I am still trying to ascertain exactly where you are.
Yes, I subscribe to all the things you mention: inerrancy, verbal plenary inspiration, perspicuity, and limited atonement.
However, I need to say that I find the title "limited atonement" rather unfortunate. It leads to misunderstanding. Seeing as you're familiar with Reformed theology, it'll make sense to you if I say I prefer the name "particular atonement" or "effectual atonement".
I think it's actually Arminianism which limits atonement, as the effects of the atonement are dependent upon man. In the "unlimited atonement" view, it is actually theoretically possible that no person accepts Christ, and the cross could theoretically have accomplished nothing.
In "limited" atonement, the cross is guaranteed to produce an effect in all who Christ calls. That's why I say that I believe that the "limited" view is actually more unlimited than the "unlimited" view is.
Grace and peace,
Matt
Snow,
I know this is off topic by now, but seeing as we were discussing the compatibility of Mennonitism to aspects of Reformed theology at a previous time here on your blog, I thought you might find this link interesting. It's written by a Reformed Baptist. In fact, he's a pastor in John MacArthur's church, to be precise.
Blessings,
Matt
Hi Matt,
You sound not entirely comfortable with Reformed theology, which is fine by me. I am still not certain as to precisely which form of Reformed theology you endorse. You seem to be shying away from the notion of limited atonement. You seem to wish for a theory of atonement that at least makes the atonement available to everyone. This cannot happen without universalism in Reformed theology because of the particular (flawed) understanding of sovereignty.
However, this is all based on logic so far. What if scripture clearly indicated, even only once, that the cross applies as broadly as does the fall (universally)? Would you re-interpret the verse to allow for limited atonement or would you drop the notion of limited atonement?
I am still trying to understand precisely what your position is.
You sound not entirely comfortable with Reformed theology, which is fine by me. I am still not certain as to precisely which form of Reformed theology you endorse. You seem to be shying away from the notion of limited atonement. You seem to wish for a theory of atonement that at least makes the atonement available to everyone.
I'm fine with the doctrine of limited atonement, I just think that the name is unfortunate. The atonement is for the elect, even though the non-elect still benefit from it via common grace. In other words, even though non-Christians are as bad off as they could be, most or none of them are as bad as they could possibly be. I still affirm, though, that atonement in the sense of salvation/justification is only for those whom God draws (i.e. - the elect).
What if scripture clearly indicated, even only once, that the cross applies as broadly as does the fall (universally)? Would you re-interpret the verse to allow for limited atonement or would you drop the notion of limited atonement?
Depends on the verses in question. We need to give priority to the verses that are most clear and most forceful, and use to understand those that are less clear or could be understood in a number of ways. For example, if one wanted to understand the word "world" in John 3:16 in such a way that means "every person in the entire world will be saved", then I would reject that. I would go to the words of Jesus on Hell and damnation, give them priority as they are plain and clear, and then understand John 3:16 through that lens. Or, I would just keep reading John 3 past verse 16 and see that clearly "world" means "particular people all throughout the world" and not "ever single person in the world". In theory and principle, at least, I'm sure we're agreed on giving priority to clearer, plainer, more forceful, and more straightforward texts, and then understanding the more difficult texts through that lens.
I am still trying to understand precisely what your position is.
I'm happy to oblige. However, trying to draw me out in order that I provide clarity and precise answers to controversial topics is certainly not very emergent of you :-)
Grace and peace,
Matt
Hi Matt,
Let me put aside all pretentiousness and tell you exactly where I am going. Romans 5:18 seems to me to be one of those verses that is so clear as to provide a benchmark by which we interpret verses like John 3:16, 1 John 2:2, and many others.
Romans 5:18
NIV Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.
ESV Therefore, as one trespass[a] led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.
NASB So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.
There is absolutely no doubt that whatever happened in Adam is more than reversed in Jesus. Those impacted by Adam's action are likewise impacted by Jesus' action. Those who sin and die in Adam are justified and given life in Jesus. To say anything less is to fail to hear what Paul intends in this verse, and its context. This is the unconditional regeneration that Anabaptists hold. What we do with this is our responsibility. We can choose to squander our gift, but if we do so we spurn not only the gift of life which we are given at birth, but we also squander the gift of regeneration given before we are even aware of our need of redemption.
Hey Henry,
Romans 5:12 - Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned
Romans 5:17 - If, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.
This is the context in which Romans 5:18 is laid.
If, as you suggest, literally every person was justified by Jesus, then our default position is "saved". Yet we know this isn't the case. If we were saved until lost, then the message of the gospel wouldn't be "repent", but rather "don't fall away". The fact that the gospel demands repentance is proof that our default position is "unsaved".
Paul places a condition on justification in v.17 by singling out only those who receive the gift of grace. Given the context of this passage, and the clear thrust that we are all sinners by nature (not saints), then it is impossible that v.18 suggests all people are justified.
Rather, the same principle as John 3:16 must apply. Here's how I believe Romans 5:18 could be summarized:
Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men (who die in Adam), so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men (who die in Jesus).
Hi Matt,
If, as you suggest, literally every person was justified by Jesus, then our default position is "saved". Yet we know this isn't the case.
Ergo, the verse cannot mean what it says. It must mean Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men (who die in Adam), so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men (who die in Jesus).
Matt, That is not what this verse says. It is unequivocal that the cross reverses the curse for the same people and in the same way. It quite specifically says justification for all. The context indicates that only those who accept/receive/continue in the truth will experience the fruition of this justification, but all are justified in the finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross. That is what the verse 18 says.
I agree with your principle that clearer statements should set the context for interpretation of less clear statements. I think scripture is allowed more latitude to speak in its own voice if other statements (eg v 17) are understood in light of verse 18, rather than the other way around. The other verses do not significantly lose their meaning when so understood. If you make verse 17 the norm for verse 18 then verse 18 means something entirely different than the word choice indicates. Do we let scripture speak first or do we make sure our theology is not compromised?
(What am I doing?? I thought I was the one who did not care about exegesis!!)
If, as you suggest, literally every person was justified by Jesus, then our default position is "saved". Yet we know this isn't the case.
Sounds like a man-made belief system telling us what scripture is allowed to say. "We know that what this verse says is not the case."
The fact that the gospel demands repentance is proof that our default position is "unsaved".
Are you suggesting that repentance is no longer required for saved people?? No one is ever so saved that repentance is not required. If this is proof, it is very weak proof indeed.
Here's how I believe Romans 5:18 could be summarized:
Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men (who die in Adam), so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men (who die in Jesus).
Looks like the original writer did not use quite the right words.
Matt, Does your endorsement of verbal plenary inspiration, inerrancy, and perspicuity mean anything when you read scripture or are those just words you use when you want to make sure you are seen to be on the right side of a particular fence? In the case of Romans 5:18 it seems clear to me that you cannot endorse these principles and subscribe to any notion of limited atonement, unless so radically qualified as to be unrecognizable as Reformed theology.
I have expressed my appreciation for Reformed theology. I have also said I would not apologize for dissenting when it strays from biblical theology. I have heard Reformed thinkers call the theory of a limited atonement the most abominable theology ever devised. I think the testimony of scripture would concur.
God bless.
I think scripture is allowed more latitude to speak in its own voice if other statements (eg v 17) are understood in light of verse 18, rather than the other way around
What would be your justification for saying that? That reading would set up a contradiction in that v.17 says only some are saved, and then v.18 says all are saved. That can't be. I think that it makes the most sense to suggest that the two "all" statements are referring to the entirety of two separate groups.
Sounds like a man-made belief system telling us what scripture is allowed to say.
I'd have to disagree with that. Henry, if our default position was "saved" and then we had to actively reject our salvation in order to be lost, then Christ's insistence on rebirth, repentance, accepting Him, etc. would be nonsense. The language of "born again" signifies a radical transformation. Certainly quite different from the "keep doing what you're doing" theme that would be consistent with your view of Romans 5.
Are you suggesting that repentance is no longer required for saved people??
Of course not. However, one does not accept the gospel without repentance. Regeneration has an effect on us, and one of the effects is repentance. Not all people repent and accept the gospel, therefore, not all people are saved until such time as they actively reject salvation.
In the case of Romans 5:18 it seems clear to me that you cannot endorse these principles and subscribe to any notion of limited atonement, unless so radically qualified as to be unrecognizable as Reformed theology
See above. If we look at the context of Romans 5:18, within the chapter, within the book of Romans, and within the unified testimony of Scripture, then we can't believe that Romans 5:18 should be exegeted in such a way that universalism is endorsed, seeing as it is so forthrightly denounced in the rest of Scripture.
What we can't do is say "this verse teaches this", "yeah, but this verse teaches the opposite" and leave it at a stalemate. We need to see Scripture as a united whole.
I have heard Reformed thinkers call the theory of a limited atonement the most abominable theology ever devised. I think the testimony of scripture would concur.
How would you reconcile that statement with John 6, Acts 2, Romans 10, etc?
Just leave it as a stalemate? Or try to allow Scripture to interpret Scripture?
I've been enjoying this, Henry. Thank you for the engagement. I'll be leaving for Thunder Bay tomorrow to see if I can't pick up some cows at a herd dispersal there. It'll be a whirlwind for the next few days,so I won't be checking in for probably the remainder of this week.
Grace and peace,
Matt
I think scripture is allowed more latitude to speak in its own voice if other statements (eg v 17) are understood in light of verse 18, rather than the other way around
What would be your justification for saying that? That reading would set up a contradiction in that v.17 says only some are saved, and then v.18 says all are saved. That can't be. I think that it makes the most sense to suggest that the two "all" statements are referring to the entirety of two separate groups.
Sounds like a man-made belief system telling us what scripture is allowed to say.
I'd have to disagree with that. Henry, if our default position was "saved" and then we had to actively reject our salvation in order to be lost, then Christ's insistence on rebirth, repentance, accepting Him, etc. would be nonsense. The language of "born again" signifies a radical transformation. Certainly quite different from the "keep doing what you're doing" theme that would be consistent with your view of Romans 5.
Are you suggesting that repentance is no longer required for saved people??
Of course not. However, one does not accept the gospel without repentance. Regeneration has an effect on us, and one of the effects is repentance. Not all people repent and accept the gospel, therefore, not all people are saved until such time as they actively reject salvation.
In the case of Romans 5:18 it seems clear to me that you cannot endorse these principles and subscribe to any notion of limited atonement, unless so radically qualified as to be unrecognizable as Reformed theology
See above. If we look at the context of Romans 5:18, within the chapter, within the book of Romans, and within the unified testimony of Scripture, then we can't believe that Romans 5:18 should be exegeted in such a way that universalism is endorsed, seeing as it is so forthrightly denounced in the rest of Scripture.
What we can't do is say "this verse teaches this", "yeah, but this verse teaches the opposite" and leave it at a stalemate. We need to see Scripture as a united whole.
I have heard Reformed thinkers call the theory of a limited atonement the most abominable theology ever devised. I think the testimony of scripture would concur.
How would you reconcile that statement with John 6, Acts 2, Romans 10, etc?
Just leave it as a stalemate? Or try to allow Scripture to interpret Scripture?
I've been enjoying this, Henry. Thank you for the engagement. I'll be leaving for Thunder Bay tomorrow to see if I can't pick up some cows at a herd dispersal there. It'll be a whirlwind for the next few days,so I won't be checking in for probably the remainder of this week.
Grace and peace,
Matt
Hi Matt,
That reading would set up a contradiction in that v.17 says only some are saved, and then v.18 says all are saved.
No contradiction if v17 is read in light of v18. 18 says salvation is for all in Jesus' work, just as all died in Adam. V17 says those who continue in the faith will experience the fruition of that salvation. The simplest meaning of both verses is maintained. There is a contradiction only if you try to read v18 in light of v17.
You do not have to subscribe to universalism on the basis of v18. You can read it simply to say that salvation is made available to all in Jesus. I think that is reading it too weakly, but that is an option, and it is the very weakest option available. There is no room to say the atonement is only for some.
Neither is it an option is to hold verbal plenary inspiration, inerrancy, perspicuity, inherent stable meaning in words, and limited atonement. To make v18 even allow (not even close to endorse, just allow) for limited atonement you must compromise every one of those hermeneutical principles. You do not take the verse to mean what it plainly says. You cannot bend the verse to allow for limited atonement without significantly changing the words used, or the meaning of the words used. If you continue to hold to limited atonement then you are saying that what this verse says is in error. That much seems clear to me.
Just leave it as a stalemate? Or try to allow Scripture to interpret Scripture?
I see no reason to declare a stalemate. Allowing scripture to interpret scripture has always been a primary rule of hermeneutics that I endorse whole-heartedly. One thing this discussion makes clear is that even before we allow scripture to interpret scripture we have frameworks that determine how much latitude we allow scripture in interpreting scripture.
Enjoy TBay!
Post a Comment