Prolegomena and the Question of Final Salvation

I write this as something of a sequel to the essay on Salvation and the Question of Works.

It's one thing to discuss the nature of saving faith and to refute the spurious charges of rapprochement with Roman Catholic soteriology. But there's another issue or aspect of this debate that also deserves mention. This is the question of what is sometimes referred to as Final Salvation. I have written about it before and alluded to it in the recent aforementioned post but a few more comments are in order.

I mentioned that Eternal Security and Perseverance of the Saints are not the same thing. I would argue that the older Reformed doctrine of perseverance has all but degenerated into a Once-Saved-Always-Saved baptistic version of Eternal Security. I also talked about how salvation is presented in larger terms in which Justification is an essential component or aspect but it is not given the place of prominence, at least not in the way Solafideist theology has prioritised it. Additionally I mentioned how even these soteriological questions are cast in terms of the Already and the Not Yet.

These are questions and issues related to the controversial question of so-called Final Salvation. I don't really appreciate the term as it can lead to confusion. Additionally since most Reformed readers are going to approach the issue systematically, the use of such a term all but boxes one in. It allows the adherents of Hyper-Solafideism and other rationalist-leaning factions to find a point on which to focus and miss the larger issues.

Am I deliberately trying to be evasive and obtuse? No, but at the same time I think their methodology and indeed much that lies behind their hermeneutic is flawed and so rather than argue over precise verbiage related to chronology (i.e. 'final' or 'future' salvation), I prefer to cast the question in a very different light. These questions hark back to issues surrounding first principles or prolegomena. This is actually where the discussion breaks down. This is why so many of the debates are in the end at cross purposes and communication fails. This is why I equated Hypersolafideism with a rationalist tendency. The issues at stake are not really about soteriology or Justification. Rather they are questions of what the Bible is and how it is to be understood. As Bible-believers we all profess a faith in the divine authority of Scripture and at the very least profess that it is the authority that defines what we believe.

And yet how do we interact with the Scriptures? How do we take its doctrines and apply them to how we think and live? How do we understand its message in our words?  Much of the Church and certainly the heirs of the Magisterial Reformation and the Scholastic-Confessionalist heritage believe the Scriptures must be approached in a systematic fashion that allows the Church to formulate doctrinal or creedal statements delineating heads of ordered and coherently expressed ideas.

Words must be carefully and precisely defined so that solid coherent propositional statements can be formed that can be understood unequivocally and thus as objective and absolute. 

For those of this persuasion the application of this principle is critical, especially when it comes to the particulars of the Gospel. They sense a real imperative to formulate the particulars and even the mechanics of the Gospel in terms that are rigid and static, absolutely clear and unambiguous.  It is a noble motivation to be sure as indeed the Gospel is nothing to trifle with. Without a clear picture of the Gospel the Church will lose its way, fall under curse and condemnation, present a false Christ and lead people to hell. The stakes couldn't be higher.

And yet the Scriptures don't delineate this question the way they do. The New Testament does not teach doctrine in the form of systematic theology. Virtually all will acknowledge this but then respond to it in different ways. The proponents of systematic theology believe it is the task of the Church and specifically the academically trained theologians in its midst to take the divers and varied doctrines and portions of Scripture and shape or form them into a logical system, one that is coherent, defensible and though they may not always put it this way...  one that can be built upon.

As opposed to this I would say most of the New Testament is written in an Occasional or Contextual mode. And right away we're into a difficulty. Due to our cultural context such language smacks of equivocation and relativism. This is unfortunate as it tends to 'force the hand' of Scripture into a grid that it was not meant to go. Indeed much in the way of historical theological 'reaction' to the philosophical trends of the day has, instead of addressing epistemological issues head-on, the academy has tended to retreat into forms of reductionism. While coherent, these expressions nevertheless misrepresent the full teaching of Scripture and in fact present a rather impoverished picture (and at times a caricature) of its profound riches and mysteries. Those are Scriptural terms, not mine.

Dispensing with the bogus charge of relativism, what is meant by Occasional or Contextual doctrine? Simply this, whether we're speaking of the discourses of Christ or the Apostolic writings in the epistles, the teaching must be first understood or placed within its situation. This will sound to some like some kind of liberal trick to gut or downplay the text, to strip it of its full meaning. Indeed there are those that are guilty of such tendencies and practice and they too will speak of 'context' but that's not what's being advocated here. Their motives and methods are quite different.  Others, even many conservatives will insist this is already done and is a hallmark of their systematic method. And yet I contend that even while they may pay lip-service to context the larger and higher commitment to system (in the end) divorces doctrine from context, ideas from the text and falls into a different mode or pattern. It must be granted that some systematicians are certainly better than others, but I will continue to suggest that I mean this in a different way.

Christ is speaking to individual people and people-groups addressing their situations. Often he's provoking them and utilising hyperbole, other times he speaks in parables revealing mysteries that only the Spiritually enlightened will be able to grasp. This is important because all too often his words are misused by theologians to teach principles that once divorced from the immediate context can be transformed into meaning something else. Not only will the emphasis be different but in some cases the meaning itself can change.

Paul and the other Apostles are often addressing not only specific problems and sins but doctrinal issues which have arisen within the context of the congregations they're writing to. Sometimes they're teaching 'positively', expanding on nascent ideas and in other instances they're combating error, and often a specific group of teachers. This can be difficult as we're reading the response but often not knowing exactly what the problem is. On the one hand this constantly frustrates as the reader is desperate for more information. One wonders, why did God reveal doctrine in this way? It could have been made so much clearer.

But then on the other hand the way in which it is revealed allows the text to retain a sense of timelessness and it allows for categorical or universal application. We can learn enough regarding the errors to pick up on principles that apply at all times and in all places. The specific errors may not survive but the principles are revealed and we find there are a core group of errors being addressed by the Apostles that continually reappear throughout the history of the Church. We can figure out something of the nature of the error, but at the same time we can't always work out the specifics and particulars of what the false teachers were promoting. It's an aspect of the New Testament that continues to fascinate and upon reflection it is yet another testimony to its divine origin.

The Apostle Paul at times seems to contradict himself. On the one hand he can promote and encourage celibacy (1 Cor 7) and then on the other hand condemn those that would 'forbid' to marry as being demonically inspired (1 Tim 4). Again, what's the context? He can on the one hand say, eat any meat or food, but then later give occasions when it should not be eaten (1 Cor 8/10, Rom 14). And then in a different situation he can condemn those that forbid the eating of meats (1 Tim 4). It all depends on the specific context. There are principles and teachings which overlap each other. How to understand and apply them? It all depends on the context.

The error comes into play when one tends to prioritise the one over another or place the teaching in a coherent grid based on inference. Theologians will tease out principles, wed them to others and develop a body of doctrine which may indeed 'make sense' to human understanding and the laws of logic. It may even be constructed to honour and glorify God but may nevertheless fall short of or even misrepresent what the Scripture is saying.

The fairly basic ethical principles being discussed here apply no less to questions of soteriology, the host of issues and doctrines surrounding the gospel and the doctrine of salvation.

So what is to be done? Can we 'know' what God is trying to teach us? Of course, but the knowledge, in fact its very nature is a bit different than what one will find picking up systematic theologians like Hodge, Berkhof or even people like Turretin and Owen. On a practical level it may not be 'that' different but the approach is very different and over time the student of Scripture will become very frustrated with the approach and method, as well as the conclusions of the oft-celebrated scholastics and systematicians.

Our knowledge is not comprehensive or anything approaching it. Our knowledge is partial and rightly described as informed ignorance. We're told what we need to know and it's known not by means of philosophical inquiry and certainty but by faith... a trusting obedience in the person of Jesus Christ. He is the ratification, focus and the source of both the Old and New Testaments and their authority. He does not give us data points to form into systems. Rather he reveals divine and supernatural mysteries. The gap between our knowledge and that of God is qualitative not just a matter of quantitative degree. We cannot understand things the way He does and due to our finiteness there are many things we simply cannot understand. We are called to submit, obey, believe, trust and through the Spirit... apply.

Rather than embark on a quest to synthesize the various texts of Scripture into a coherent whole, we need to instead learn contentment with a large if seemingly disjointed picture. It is of course not really disjointed at all but at the same time it possesses certain philosophical and epistemological anomalies which will and must remain unresolved for us. It is after all a super-natural work. While paradox is not an enshrined principle that we can universally apply it nevertheless overshadows and all but permeates Scripture.

It shouldn't surprise us as the finite cannot grasp the infinite. Indeed His thoughts are above our thoughts and His ways above our ways (Isaiah 55.8-9). To even understand Scripture our eyes must be enlightened (Ephesians 1.17-18). The first three chapters of 1 Corinthians are replete with examples testifying to man's inability to grasp divine truth, that God is not known through the wisdom (the philosophy) of man but through what the world would deem as foolishness. Our faith is not in the wisdom of men but in the power of God. This wisdom is revealed as a mystery, unveiling 'deep' things (2.10) all but unknowable to us apart from the Spirit. Spiritual things must be compared with spiritual. Is this not a warning against weighing Scripture by the standards and logic of man? Indeed a closer examination of logic and philosophy ought to reveal that in the end it is wholly dependent on man's experience and limitations. Even schools of thought such as Idealism which seem to defy the limitations of empiricism and science fall prey to categories defined by human experience.

Logic itself, so enshrined by the theologians and by not a few erroneously (if not blasphemously) attached to the doctrine and Person of God, proves in the end incapable of divorcing itself from man's limited concepts of experience and temporality. It is a blunt and clumsy tool in probing the depths of Divine Mystery. It is wholly incapable and insufficient for doing any more than providing a basis for language and meaning, for us to grasp a rough outline of what is being revealed. Logic is used in language and thus cannot be wholly abandoned and that's not for a moment what is being suggested here. Indeed I am employing it (to a degree) in the arguments I am making. And yet clearly there is an imperative to subordinate and to a degree even suspend it when it comes to such questions of doctrine and the attempt to reconcile ideas and concepts which seem to defy the categories of reason. Otherwise it becomes the authority and arbiter of Scripture and the Bible itself becomes the secondary standard.

One must question the 'logic' of arguing for the authority of Scripture when the authority itself is not based on anything that fits the criteria of man's logic. It is super-natural and thus beyond the scope of what logic is able to probe let alone prove or establish with certainty. If we grasp and accept that Scripture itself is extra- or supra-logical, why then must everything it teaches now be subjugated to the 'test' of man's rationality, capacity and categories?

Some theologians will grasp something of what is being said here and will admit that logic has its limitations. And yet they insist on its rigid application to the utmost degree, abandoning it only when absolutely necessary, when doctrines such as the Trinity and Incarnation are pressed to the extreme and logic has been all but exhausted.

As opposed to this I am suggesting this method has erred from the outset. The Incarnation is in fact the model for how doctrine functions vis-à-vis logic. In the Incarnation Christ teaches us how to understand the whole of Biblical doctrine. We are to seek apprehension of Scriptural Revelation. Knowing that comprehension (exhaustive or otherwise) is all but closed to us will affect how we read, think and contemplate. Apprehension seeks to hear and understand but it does not dissect, infer or seek to construct a system. Even this last statement can be misunderstood. Christians ought to 'give themselves' to doctrine, study, contemplation and reflection (1 Tim 4.15). It is through these things and prayer that God is known but the Word let alone God Himself are not things that we put onto a lab table and subject to experiment and the whim of inference. They are not puzzles and enigmas to be solved by either the scientist or the intellectual engaging in parlour banter and speculation.

Paul describes himself as a steward of the mysteries of God (1 Cor 4.1). Reading further in the chapter reveals this foolishness extends even to the realm of ethics and Christian living. There is an antithesis with regard to the Christian in how we live and think (Romans 12) and rather than earning the world's respect through grand philosophical coherence (so-called worldview) and dazzling apologetics, Paul is content to be reckoned a destitute buffoon, a clown, an embracer of foolishness.

The Church has painfully lost this and though lip-service is paid to the idea, those that do so have (it would seem) largely failed to grasp it.

The Kingdom is not manifested in This Age by means of human wisdom or power. We are not here to rule as philosopher kings or to provide answers to the problems of the world system. We are to cast down their ideas, decimate them even (2 Corinthians 10.4-5) but the only solution we offer is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The only solution to the world's problems is faith and repentance. The way is narrow and few are saved and thus we understand that the world will never be fixed and will always persecute us until the Parousia when it is at last destroyed by fire and re-created. There are no solutions to the world's problems apart from the Gospel. If the majority of the world will always be lost as the Scriptures teach, then there is no possibility of remedy. And nowhere are we told to seek such solutions. There is no Gospel-system for the world's social problems. The lost cannot grasp let alone live by the mysteries and mandates of the Kingdom (Rom 8).

A part of our 'foolishness' is comprehended in that we're here to bear witness and testify to the glory of God. In addition to pursuing the lost we are living parables, martyr-witnesses testifying to the Parousia and the New Heavens and New Earth. Living as strangers and pilgrims we glorify God in rejecting the world system and all it has to offer. We are called to take up the cross, suffer and die for God's glory. That's not a marketable message but it's Scriptural. We don't 'get something' out of being Christians. We're Christians because it's the Truth and we've been saved by God's grace. Building systems to remedy the world, especially on its terms is not an errand we're called to.

There is a demonic dimension to unbelief that is often downplayed, especially by those who seek the world's respect or in other cases by those that find little room for it in their theological systems. We read in 2 Corinthians 4.4 that it is Satan that has blinded their minds. Their problem isn't irrationality per se, but it is spiritual blindness and rooted in evil. This nature of the conflict mentioned famously in Ephesians 6 as well as a host of other places is relevant to the discussion because once again the problem with man's thought, our conflict with the world, is spiritual in nature. It's not a failure to apply logic. We're not saved so that now we can employ 'right reason' to Divine Revelation and the cosmic conflict/scenario we find ourselves involved in. This is a paltry and impoverished view of the situation. Our foolishness as Paul declares in 1 Corinthians 4.9 is on display even before the angels themselves. The mysteries of the gospel of salvation itself are things wondrous even to them (1 Peter 1.12).

Sadly the abuses of the Charismatic movement have cast such thinking into disrespect. I believe such developments are no accident but instead represent a two-pronged attack on the doctrine of Scripture. Scripture is undermined through sensationalism and pseudo-charismata and is additionally damaged by the reaction to it.

Let us be careful that we do not fall into the trap of boasting in our knowledge, becoming smug in our philosophic prowess and the categorical potency of the systems and traditions we have allied with. The false apostles who overshadow the Epistles gloried in their wisdom and their ability to articulate according to the intellectual standards of the Judeo- and Hellenistic cultures they traversed and interacted with. Paul was content to be reckoned the fool, the impoverished and incoherent babbler revealing what was madness and proclaiming doctrines that were intellectually offensive. Have we forgotten this?

Let us be careful that we avoid the error of making the revelatory mysteries of the Gospel, the mystery of the fellowship, the unsearchable riches of Christ, that which is being revealed even unto the angels through the Church's proclamation (Ephesians 3.3-10) ... into something common, mundane, subject to inquiry that is known not by Spiritual eye-opening but instead by academic study. The breadth, length, depth and height Paul speaks of Ephesians, let alone the love of Christ are known by the Spirit (v.5). Let us be careful lest we suggest that these things can be known by intellectual training by taking academic courses which teach us the methods by which to speak of them and frame them into coherent and didactic forms... let alone dogmatic statements resting upon the same method.

We live in a time in between the times. Things have been set in motion, Divine earnest has been provided but at the same time the cosmic events inaugurated by Christ have not yet been completed. But then to put it another way they have been completed, but the new reality has not yet been fully applied to this age and time as we know it. This Age is an interlude, a quick pause as it were between the Old Testament and the Age to Come.

It is disjointed because we simply do not have the capacity, categories or ability to properly understand the doctrine as whole. This is why it is 'revealed' to us supernaturally by the Holy Spirit. The true nature of the universe and the plan of God are revealed through the Scriptures. We are not given but an iota of the whole, but what we're given is sufficient for This Age, for the Church to complete its mission on Earth in the days before the Parousia.

What we must do is accept the doctrines as presented and use them cumulatively... and with wisdom apply them to the right contextual situation. Synthesis will lead to 'ironing out' difficulties, smoothing out the rough spots and essentially re-forming the teaching into something more simple and accessible. While still undoubtedly profound, something is lost. It may be easier to teach, present and build upon but sadly it does not represent what the Scriptures have taught.

This tendency has been at work since the earliest days of the Church as in some cases well-meaning men sought to utilise Greek philosophy in the structuring and framing of Christian doctrine. The theological battles of Church History have often been over different Hellenistic tendencies in epistemology rather than what the Scriptures teach.

But if we don't synthesize the various texts, aren't we left with chaos? No, and I don't mean to suggest we abandon all harmonisation. But as I've suggested elsewhere the tendency and practice must be subordinated.

Scripture interprets Scripture. This maxim is often used as a justification for systematics. Don't we use the clear portions to interpret the less than clear passages? Yes and no.

This analogical principle is true and very helpful when it comes to narrative, when solving the seeming contradictions and difficulties found in the Gospels, Acts or even Old Testament histories.

And yet when this principle is applied to the Epistles or even the discourses of Christ one can get into real trouble. Synthesis and using one passage to interpret another can all but negate a portion of doctrine. One context is now dominating another. One doctrine is being prioritised at the expense of another. One aspect of doctrine is cancelling out another.

That's what needs to be opposed and in doing so the Scriptures are opened up and become actually even more vast and profound, if such a thing were possible.

Continue reading Part 2