Prolegomena and the Question of Final Salvation Part 2

But again, isn't certainty eliminated? By no means. Does it become all but impossible to form creedal statements and confessions? Not in the least, but of course I question the motives behind this impulse. The statements will out of necessity become broader and thus more inclusive. Once again at this point I will be accused of being an ecumenicist, a liberal, one whose doctrinal sea is a mile wide but an inch deep.

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.

Riddles of Fundamentalism Part 4: False Fideisms, False Biblicisms and the Quest for Coherence

It is at this point in the discussion wherein fideistic and anti-modernist labels that are used to describe many 20^th century movements such as Neo-Orthodoxy, Barthianism and the 21^st century Emerging Church are exposed as flowing from the same polluted Athenian font that continues to overshadow virtually all Western intellectual endeavour.

Desperate Attempts to Refute Two Kingdom Theology

http://reformedforum.org/ctc443/

I'm referring specifically to the conclusion of the discussion beginning at about 53:00.

Signs and Symbols: Israel and Covenant in Romans 9.6

In Romans 9 Paul launches into a discussion regarding Israel and brings up the very important question regarding the fate of the Jewish people. Were these people so long in covenant with God now simply abandoned? With the inclusion of the Gentiles into the New Covenant were the Jews no longer part of God's plan? Paul addresses these questions by probing the plan of God throughout history and unveiling another layer essential to understanding both the Old Testament and the nature of salvation in general. He expands on the message he's already been discussing, that salvation has always been by faith in Christ even before Christ came upon the scene. There is a grand uniting story but it is told in two very different ways and historical settings.

Temporal Conditionality and Typology vis-à-vis Eternal Reality

We read in 1 Kings 2.4

'If your sons take heed to their way, to walk before Me in truth with all their heart and with all their soul,' He said, 'you shall not lack a man on the throne of Israel.'

The Davidic promise is two-fold. It contains both a temporal/provisional aspect which is typological and an eternal/unconditional aspect which is the reality.

A Few Clarifications Regarding Philosophy and Christian Theology

This is an update/revision of an article originally published in July 2010

For years I grappled internally and with others over theological issues. As time progressed I became convinced most theological debate was basically fruitless due to fundamental differences regarding reason itself, and accepted or assumed thought categories.

We bring this baggage with us when we read the Bible and we run the risk of two extremes.

Hyper-Solafideism- Part 3

The Bible presents us with a strange dynamic, one that defies Aristotelian-like attempts at systemization. As with the Incarnation, we are presented with a dialectical soteriology. We have seemingly opposite and irreconcilable truths that we cannot reconcile. We cannot systematize them either by reaching a synthesis or by reading one pole in light of the other.

Just as the Scriptures seem to teach God predestines our free choices, we are also given a doctrine of Salvation by Grace through Faith Alone, grounded in election, and yet somehow cast in conditional terms dependent on our perseverance. We could say 'seemingly' dependent and that would probably be correct, but I would prefer to avoid this and other attempts at systematizing, because when we do this, we start the process of explaining it away. By throwing the word 'seemingly' or some other term if you prefer...in front of a word like dependent, we're viewing the conditional passages through the lens of election...which raises the types of dilemmas we often see resulting from System problems gaps.

Questions like....are the warnings genuine? are they written to believers? Is the gospel offer really sincere?

Once were asking these questions, we're on the wrong path. We're second guessing the text because it doesn't fit with our systemic presuppositions.

Hyper-Solafideism Part 2

 The Scriptures clearly teach that Salvation is a free gift. We can do nothing to earn it. We are lost, alienated from God, cursed and deserving of physical and eternal death. Adam the first man acted for himself and for his posterity. He was the Federal Head of the entirety of the human race. His sin, whether the actual sin or the resulting curse, passes on to all of us, all of his descendants. As CS Lewis put it, being descendants of Adam we can hold our heads high and yet also hang our heads in shame. We bear the image of God and yet we're cursed by sin.

Like it or not, we're united to Adam, we're in Adam. We need a 2nd Adam to come along and create a new race, a new people. Old Testament Israel represented both the 1st and 2nd Adams…a sort of repeat performance of the first and an anticipation of the second. This point is often missed, certain groups emphasizing the one to the exclusion of the other. The 2nd Adam comes and passes the test, completes the tasks and yet to rescue those under the curse of the 1st Adam he must pay the penalty of sin and make a way of reconciliation to God. Christ the 2nd Adam does this and now we are 'in' Him…united to Him, 'under' Him.

There's nothing we can do to affect this, to earn this, or even to maintain it. It truly is a gift. God out of pure love for His treasonous creatures did this for us. All of mankind is shown mercy, but only those of us who are saved can grasp the wonders, the breathtaking wonders of Grace. Its foundations in the Person and Work of Christ are rightly called amazing, and its application via the Holy Spirit…well, even the Angels are in awe of it.

Hyper-Solafideism and Meta-System Part 1

For those unfamiliar with theological jargon, this article will delve into unfamiliar waters. As much as possible I'm trying to avoid using too many terms but I'm afraid it is somewhat inescapable. In this post and several subsequent parts I will be discussing the doctrine of Sola Fide or Justification by Faith Alone and how that works both in the Bible and how we in seeking to understand the Bible, and teach it, run into certain dilemmas. These dilemmas and the way we deal with them are actually the source of the many divisions within the Church today.

Over the course of history people have lived in different contexts and these contexts affect how they think. Due to these contextual factors, we read the Bible in different ways and one group may really focus on one thing while someone else in a different time and place focuses on something else. I'm arguing we tend to overly focus on certain things and that sharply affects how we understand or in some cases don't understand the rest of the Bible.

In this particular series I'm dealing specifically with those who are committed to the Bible being the very Word of God and claim it as the Sole Authority for faith and life....Scripture Alone/Sola Scriptura. Thus far we're in agreement. But now how do we read it and what tools do we employ in seeking to understand it? That's a different question and one that I wish to raise.

A clever attempt to refute Two Kingdom theology

The author of this post has been receiving quite a bit of attention. To many his argument deals a mighty blow to the advocates of Two Kingdom theology. It's worth a read and consideration. I've left it mostly intact, with a few responses. I have not read the Van Drunen book he is interacting with though I have certainly heard of it and have some familiarity with him. I've listened to some lectures and things and overall I am quite appreciative of where he's coming from.---Proto

Ecclesiology #5- Means Theology, a review

I have been in the process of trying to clean up some of the older posts. Back in June and July I laid out some of my initial ideas. I explained this a few posts back.

In light of the present discussion regarding Means, the following posts may or may not be helpful.

I wrote them quickly and didn't always explain my terms. I assumed quite a bit from the reader. Some of you will be familiar enough to benefit, others may end up being quite lost. If you're interested and you find yourself confused over a term or a name, email me and I'll explain.

I know I'm completely losing some of you on these theological points but as always I'm trying to challenge. If you don't agree that's fine, but thinking about these things will only enrich your Bible reading. And if you don't agree it will help you to understand why some people believe as they do and perhaps even help you to argue against people like me. I hope that's not the case but I'm certainly willing to take the risk.

Here are a few relevant posts that I've cleaned up. Again, it's all pretty much the same idea, but perhaps explained a different way, it may resonate in a way the recent posts have not.

http://proto-protestantism.blogspot.com/2010/06/8-hermeneutical-key-from-augustine.html

http://proto-protestantism.blogspot.com/2010/06/9-augustine-and-hermeneutics-part-2.html

http://proto-protestantism.blogspot.com/2010/06/10-hermeneutics-continued.html

http://proto-protestantism.blogspot.com/2010/06/11-dialectical-hermeneutics-continued.html

http://proto-protestantism.blogspot.com/2010/06/more-on-visible-church.html

http://proto-protestantism.blogspot.com/2010/06/dialectical-theology.html

Ecclesiology #3- A Theology of Means part 3

For some this discussion of Means will seem strange. Many who are interested in the non-institutional or as some would put it the tradition of dissent are more often than not Baptistic in their theology.

I'm afraid I'm stepping on some toes here, but I believe these issues to be quite important. For those who don't agree with this whole line of discussion...I understand. Believe me I understand very well.

But I urge you to think about it.

Ecclesiology #2- A Theology of Means part 2

Paul speaks of Circumcision in Colossians 2.11 and then of Baptism in verse 12. The ideas are related. The physicals signs differ but the cutting away is symbolic of the same idea…death and a new person. The Jews should have understood because the Old Testament is abundantly clear that the forms were not the end.

They were told to circumcise their hearts…showing that the outward act could not actually save in and of itself.

They were told to obey is better than to sacrifice showing the obedience flowing out of a regenerate heart was more important than the Form, the sacrifice showing a sign of your repentance.

But that didn't mean you could just ignore circumcision as Moses did in Exodus 4.

Ecclesiology #1- A Theology of Means

God willing this will be the first of several posts in which I try to interact with present ecclesiastical understandings and discuss what I believe to be a better way, the Biblical understanding of the Church on Earth and how it is to work.

Though the idea of Means is not very popular today, this is critical to understanding the tensions between many of the Biblical passages which seem to stand in contradiction.

Paul tells us in Romans 9 that they are not all Israel who are of Israel. This profound passage can be used as something of a starting point for the discussion.

Nativities, Nestorianism, and Redemptive-History

or Biblical Christology in the New Covenant and the traps and pitfalls of Idolatry

The Christmas Wars of the Evangelicals are fought on several fronts, one being the conflict over whether or not to shop at stores that say, "Happy Holidays," vs. "Merry Christmas."

Another of course surrounds the public schools and whether or not Christmas programmes can include hymns or be reduced to secular carols.

And just as important to them, there is the battle for the nativity scene.

Five Point Reductionism- Part 3...Accused by Onesimus

Recently, I had an occasion to interact with someone who was clearly not understanding the dynamic/dialectic of Scripture. As I mentioned in part 1, I was at another website, on a post dealing with Unconditional Election and Irresistible Grace. The author of the post gave the standard Arminian position, and I responded. Another commenter going by Onesimus accused me of sin and blasphemy.

Here's my first post, followed by Onesimus and then my reply. I haven't heard back. I hope he answers.

Please feel free to comment, especially if you don't agree.......

Five Point Reductionism- Part 2, Method and the danger of Meta-system

In the end, the Five Points express truth but are a wholly insufficient and lopsided expression of it. I've always marveled at Calvinism's insistence in employing these points as an expression of their system, or even worse as a starting point. The Five Points resulted from the work of the Synod of Dordt in the early 17th century. The Arminian party put forward the Five Points of Arminianism, I summarize:



Partial Depravity

Conditional Election

Universal Atonement

Resistable Grace

Conditional Salvation



And the Calvinists responded with their Five Points...



Total Depravity

Unconditional Election

Limited Atonement

Irresistable Grace

Perseverance of the Saints.



So the Calvinistic points are just responses to another faction's argument. Calvinists then take the Five Points and teach them as a bedrock to their system. Again, while true, how can we think we can reduce the faith to five doctrines? Why would we want to? On one level we could say the bedrock or foundation is one point....Christ Jesus. On another level we would need to insist on a hundred points.

Five Point Reductionism- Part 1

Recently I was on another website and responded to an article concerning Unconditional Election and Irresistible Grace. Some of you will recognize these two doctrines as the 'U' and 'I' in the famous Calvinist acrostic TULIP. If you're unfamiliar with it, read on.

While TULIP is certainly true, the problem is the Bible also teaches reciprocal truths on each of these points. The so-called Five Points are dealing with eternal truths, focusing on the decretal activity of God as it pertains to individual salvation. It deals with fallen man's state and need, God's purpose and how salvation is applied. But the categories all deal with what I would call the eternal or invisible. This would include God's workings beyond the realm of space and time (meta-creational/eternal) and with man's internal or spiritual state.

Johnson's Primer: Discussion, Expansion, and Solution

This article has three sub-points:

Johnson's Hyper-Calvinism Primer, it's strengths and weaknesses.
The Core Principle of Hyper-Calvinism and Arminianism.
The benefit of Dialectical Theology

Anyone who has examined the contents of this site know more than once I have mentioned the problem of Hyper-Calvinism. Phil Johnson has done a great service in his very succinct Primer on Hyper-Calvinism which has been read by many and we can be thankful for that.

He outlines several key doctrinal points which are helpful in identifying the Hyper-Calvinist position. Of course not all hold to all the points, but all hold to at least some of them.

Here's Johnson's list: