Biblical Inerrancy: From the Bible, or the Enlightenment?

Aaron Rathburn has an interesting post (dated March 14, 2009) on biblical inerrancy and it's connection to the Enlightenment. Here's a quote from that post:

What if a supremely powerful God wanted to reveal himself with a text? Can we give him the freedom to do it how he wants, and not have to bend to our expectations? I mean, he’s the god, not us—right?

If you are expecting the Bible to be a a propositional-style manual of ethics, then it is wildly and completely errant. But similarly, if you are expecting a science textbook, it is wildly errant. If you are expecting it to be a 21st-century history book, it is wildly errant. But is God capable of using human mistakes for his divine purposes? I would say absolutely.

The Bible is perfect, but it is perfect for God’s will and purposes, according to his standards and expectations—not our preconceived notions of how it “should” be. I can’t help but hear the echo of Paul—who are you, oh man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “why have you made our Bible like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay? (Rom 9)

The Bible is not the 4th-member of the Trinity, and the Bible didn’t climb up on the cross and die for our sins. But it is his text that he has used to reveal himself to us—and we should take it very, very seriously, as the fully inspired, fully divine, authoritative and infallible word of God.

I agree with Aaron that the scriptures are very important but only as they point to Christ. However, I'm more partial to ScottL's comment on Aaron's post:

Unfortunately, I feel that, due to the influence of the Enlightenment, scholars and most Christians alike have now tried to push onto the Bible a 20th/21st century idea of accuracy and inerrancy. ‘Inerrancy’ seems to be a word that has only come about in the last 100+ years.

Therefore, coming to the Gospels, we see contradictory passages where there were either one (Matt 28:2) or two (John 20:12) angels at the tomb of Jesus’ resurrection. Some (more liberal) see this and claim the Bible as ‘inaccurate’. Some (more conservative) see this and therefore think of all sorts of explanations so the Scripture can maintain its status of inerrancy. But I can’t see this being a problem in the days that the Scripture was being recorded. But for us westerners who love our empirically based ‘inerrant’ evidence, it becomes a problem.

The Scripture was first and foremost recorded as the story of God’s redemptive acts, summed up in Jesus Christ. To that, I believe it is completely faithful and that God has communicated faithfully through these human authors, though there might be a handful of places which seem contradictory from the perspective of our day and age, but were of no consequence in the day when the Scripture was being recorded.

I’m glad the Scripture authors weren’t dictated to as their eyes rolled back in their sockets and they foamed at their mouths. I am so glad God delights in the personality, historical and cultural context of those to whom and through whom He communicates.

Both are excellent quotes all the same.

A Synthesis Of Luther And Barth's Trinitarian Metaphors

Jack Kilcrease on Luther and Barth's Trinitarian metaphors:

Barth's metaphors have to do with seeing, Luther's with hearing. This makes sense in light of how they understand divine revelation. Barth views divine revelation as the unfolding of a single subject (God) in an act of revealing himself in time. He does this by echoing his eternal decision to be "one who loves in freedom" in the temporal narrative of Jesus. This temporal narrative is "unveiling" is further echoed in "Jesus, Bible and proclaimed Word" which echoes the Father, Son and Spirit, as "revealed, revealer, revealing." Barth's view of revelation is essentially analogical. Analogy has to do with a kind of visible similitude between things and therefore envisions human knowledge (following Aristotle) as a kind of intellectual vision.

Luther's theology works on the basis of hearing. In other words, God's agency manifests itself through the law which is present and visible through all creation. Human can observe how the world works and see what God's legal will is. They can also see this in the horrific act of judgment that God causes to take place in salvation history. Nevertheless, God promises his grace and enacts under his act of judgment and under act of weakness. The supreme one is the cross. We are told that Jesus is God and that the cross is an act of grace. Nevertheless, all we see is weakness (a weak, beaten and dying Christ) and condemnation (i.e. a symbol of Israel's sin and continuing exile). Contrary to this, we hear "surely he was the Son of God" and "today you will be with me in paradise." Consequently, revelation's hiddenness is transcended only by hearing the Word. Proper knowledge of God is set against analogical and visible knowledge of God, and placed in the realm of hearing.

Interesting stuff---I'd have to say that these two views are easily reconciled as the human experience with God's revelation of God's self has always been both visual and audible. And as we know God's fullest and final self-revelation was in Jesus Christ Himself---who was both seen and heard as the Word of God Himself. The Trinitarian implications of both of these views can be seen in these ways: Jesus Christ as the Word of God actualized, the Bible as the encounter in which we realize that Jesus Christ is the One True and Living Word of God and the Kerygmatic preaching of Jesus Christ the One True and Actual Word of God in which our Divine Election of and by God is revealed. This Election is most fully realized in the Cross and can only point to Jesus' self-sacrificial death upon the Cross. In this sense also the Word of God, God's revelation of God's self in Christ is both seen and heard as God in Christ is both the subject and object of our faith: the whole content and character of the Christian revelation.

Karl Barth also said in Credo: Volume IV of his Church Dogmatics:

It can be asserted and proved with the utmost definiteness and accuracy that the great theological-ecclesiastical catastrophe of which the German Protestantism of the moment is the arena, would have been impossible if the three words Filium eius unicum ["his only Son"] in the properly understood sense of the Nicene trinitarian doctrine had not for more than two hundred years been really lost to the German Church amongst a chaos of reinterpretations designed to make them innocuous. This catastrophe should be a real, final warning to the evangelical Churches, and, especially to the theological faculties of other lands, where, so far as trinitarian dogma is concerned, no better ways are being trodden. Christian faith stands or falls once and for all with the fact that God and God alone is its object. If one rejects the Bibhcal doctrine that Jesus Christ is God’s Son, and indeed God’s only Son, and that therefore the whole revelation of God and all reconciliaion between God and man is contained in Him—and if one then, in spite of that, speaks of ” faith ” in Jesus Christ, then one believes in an intermediate being, and then consequently one is really pursuing metaphysics and has ready secretly lapsed from the Christian faith into a polytheism which will forthwith mature into further fruits in the setting up of a special God-Father faith and a special Creator faith, and in the assertion of special spiritual revelations. The proclamation of this polytheism can most certainly be a brilliant and a pleasant affair, and can win continuous and widespread approbation. But real consolation and real instruction, the Gospel of God and the Law of God, will find a small and ever-diminishing place in this proclamation. (49-50 – emphasis mine)

And with that I close---so what are your thoughts?

Welcome Back Fred!

First, I would like to welcome back my friend Fred H. Anderson to the Blogosphere with his new Blog: Neoorthodoxology. Secondly, I'd highly recommend reading his Lenten post: The Desert Will Blossom. Here is a snippet:

Jesus will have as his center God alone.
What Jesus insists on is remaining in relationship with God.

Thus it is appropriate that Jesus does not answer on his own terms alone.
Jesus refutes the devil each time by quoting scripture.
Jesus answers every temptation by a reminder of his relationship with God.
Jesus answers in terms of that relationship.
The desert forces the question,
but Jesus will not isolate himself from God.

The desert where we sometimes find ourselves forces the same question on us:
Will we be faithful
or will we not?

Of course, the question comes to us in more attractive wrapping than that.

The first temptation is to turn stones into bread:

“If you are the Son of God, command this stone to become a loaf of bread.”

This is to satisfy our hunger at any cost,
to shrink to become nothing more than appetites,
a partial self
living a distorted existence.

Jesus knew that and responded with Deuteronomy 8:3:

"It is written, 'One does not live by bread alone.'"

The second temptation is to replace God with something else.

"Then the devil led him up and showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world. And the devil said to him, 'To you I will give their glory and all this authority; for it has been given over to me, and I give it to anyone I please. If you, then, will worship me, it will all be yours.'”

Jesus knew that was a lie, and he responded:

"It is written, 'Worship the Lord your God, and serve only him.'"

You see, what we put at our center,
if it is not God,
can never give us satisfaction,
but leaves us open to disintegration and despair.

The words of the Barmen Declaration show us our center:

Jesus Christ, as he is attested for us in Holy Scripture, is the one Word of God which we have to hear and which we have to trust and obey in life and in death

.

Lastly, I'd like to say Amen! At the center of Jesus is God as Jesus is both fully human and fully God and Jesus is the one Word by which we were created by God and by which we were Elected to New and Eternal Life in Him.

In Defense Of Drew Tatusko's Position On Scripture Continued

Continuing from my last post: TheoPoetic Musings: Scripture And Liberty Of Conscience: In Defense Of Drew Tatusko's Position On Scripture

Here is the Greek Text of John 14. The keywords I would like to highlight are commandments, words and Comforter. In Greek these words are respectively: ἐντολὰς which deals with a prescriptive injunction of religious law, ῥήματα which is distinct from the Logos(Christ) and literally means "Divine Utterances"---but does not refer to the bible and finally, παράκλητον who is the Guide that God sent to lead us to all Truths.

Thirdly, in all things Christ has authority as per:

ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΤΘΑΙΟΝ 28:18 Greek NT: Westcott/Hort with Diacritics
καὶ προσελθὼν ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἐλάλησεν αὐτοῖς λέγων· ἐδόθη μοι πᾶσα ἐξουσία ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ [τῆς] γῆς.

Notice how there is no mention of βύβλος (the bible) nor ῥήματα (the Divine Utterances) in this verse but as it plainly states:

And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. (RSV)

Therefore we can conclude that any authority the scripture has is imbued to it through Christ via the Holy Spirit.

Next here are some Baptist views of scripture:

Baptist Faith And Message 1963---I. THE SCRIPTURES

The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is the record of Gods revelation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. It reveals the principles by which God judges us; and therefore is, and will remain to the end of the world, the true center of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and religious opinions should be tried. The criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ.

Ex 24:4; De 4:1-2; 17:19; Jos 8:34
Psa 19:7-10; 119:11, 89, 105, 140
Isa 34:16; 40:8; Jer 15:16; 36:1-32
Mat 5:17-18; 22:29; Lu 21:33; 24:44-46
Joh 5:39; 16:13-15; 17:17; Ac 2:16; 17:11
Rom 15:4; 16:25-26; 2Ti 3:15-17
Heb 1:1-2; 4:12; 1Pe 1:25; 2Pe 1:19-21

Roger Williams said:

"Christ is King alone over conscience is the sum of all true preaching."

A BRIEF

CONFESSION

OR

DECLARATION

OF

FAITH



XXIV. That it is the will, and mind of God (in these Gospel times) that all men should have the free liberty of their own Consciences in matters of Religion, or Worship, without the least oppression, or persecution, as simply upon that account; and that for any in Authority otherwise to act, we confidently believe is expresslly contrary to the mind of Christ, who requires that whatsoever men would that others should do unto them, they should even so do unto others, Mat. 7. 12. and that the Tares, and the Wheat should grow together in the field, (which is the world) until the harvest (which is the end of the world,) Mat. 13. 29, 30, 38, 39.

Finally, Drew is right in this:

However, a key to the problem is a misinterpretation of one passage that has been misused for all forms of biblical inerrancy and/or infallibilism.

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

Because scripture has its source in God means that it has a special use for the functions that Paul names here. This in no way is meant to be interpreted as plenary verbal inspiration as Muslims understand to be the source of authority for the Qu'ran. Although Silva appeals to "the literal Greek" in his post, what he fails to understand is that the Greek text of the New Testament is an amalgamation of fragments that scholars worked very hard to assemble in what they believed was the most accurate rendering of what was likely the original source.

However, even if you go to the Greek text, which one? Modern translations come from critical editions that have been edited and assembled by groups of biblical scholars based on manuscripts and fragments scattered all over the world. It is inspired because it is animated in the same way that the Spirit of God animates the human spirit to discern the unfolding of God's revelation. This is the same Spirit that hovers over the void in Genesis. Moreover, did Paul intend his letter to Timothy to be placed on the same level as the Torah, Nev'im, and Kethuvim? To claim this is highly doubtful. Scripture is useful to be sure, but to claim that Paul was ascribing the same authority to his own letters as he ascribed to those Scriptures of the Old Testament is a judgment that Christians make.

The problem is that even if we uphold that the text is "verbally inspired" and assume we have in front of us exactly what God "said" still places the burden of the person interpreting to understand what the text was supposed to mean in the context in which it was written. Further, the translations are interpretations and reading itself is an act of interpretation. Along the path from constructing the Greek text from and into so many critical editions and manuscripts there are interpretive decisions that the reader of the English text is assuming were made correctly. This is why a literal reading or "literalism" is nothing more than a hollow ideology that is less about understanding the Bible than in ascribing authority to one's self. And this is precisely why authority cannot come from just the text, but the risen Christ who reveals the unfolding grace and love of God in the church and in the world.

While Silva claims that I have "enough formal education to confuse" myself, his own reading of his mythic infallible text relies on the work of hundreds and hundreds of biblical scholars before him who brought the text to us in the state we receive it. But I am sure he will not now say that his text is an amalgamation of other more educated and perhaps more confused scholars than myself. Which makes this claim equally as odd, and equally as misinformed as his clear desire to distort the text that lies in front of him for reasons I shall not judge.

The biblical literalist in their zeal for the false doctrine of inerrancy is yet to answer which is the best text and how we would know. Most literalists continue to remain ignorant of the canonization process of the scriptures as well in their blind slavery to the dead letter of the text of scripture like their ancestors the Pharisees were rather than the Spirit of the text as Christ and Paul call us to.

Romans 7:5-6 (New International Version)
5For when we were controlled by the sinful nature,[a] the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death. 6But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.

See also: TheoPoetic Musings: Luther, The Biblical/Textual Critic, TheoPoetic Musings: Literal and Figurative Language in the Bible And Bibliolatry, TheoPoetic Musings: Sola Scriptura Or Prima Scriptura: Not Solo Scriptura, TheoPoetic Musings: John Dominic Crossan On Bible Literalism, TheoPoetic Musings: Historical criticism today: a word to evangelicals, TheoPoetic Musings: The Absurdity Of Biblical Inerrancy and TheoPoetic Musings: Biblical Criticism Continued.

Scripture And Liberty Of Conscience: In Defense Of Drew Tatusko's Position On Scripture

"For why should my liberty be subject to the judgment of someone else's conscience?" (1 Cor. 10:29, NRSV).

Recently Drew Tatusko tweeted this statement:

@dtatusko: our authority comes not from scripture alone, but from the risen christ.

In which Ken Silva---Fundamentalist Calvinist apologist--- took offense to and responded promptly with this post:

OUTLAW PREACHERS ARE WRONG CONCERNING SOLA SCRIPTURA
By Ken Silva pastor-teacher on Sep 18, 2009 in AM Missives

Today Andrew (Drew) Tatusko Tweets:

@dtatusko: our authority comes not from scripture alone, but from the risen christ. #outlawpreachers #badpresbyterian (Online source)

You may recall that Apprising Ministries introduced you to Tatusko, who has just enough formal education to confuse himself, in Jay Bakker, Radical Love, And Homosexuality when he made the following stupid statement:

trying to pick a fight with ken silva: http://bit.ly/16pSkB (Online source)

Well, Tatusko’s Tweet has the largely Biblically illiterate group who’ve crowned themselves outlaw preachers now sprouting up around head Outlaw gay affirming “pastor” Jay Bakker, all in a tizzy.

They’ve been ReTweeting it as if there’s some divide between Jesus—the Living Word of God—and the text of Holy Scripture—the written Word of God. And this is because all false prophets and teachers must first attempt to circumvent the Bible in order to advance their myths.

(Read full text: Here).

And subsequently Drew fired back with this post:

ken silva's reading problem
Sep 19th, 2009 by Drew Tatusko. Print This Post

Ken Silva has blessed us with another opportunity to learn what not to do. I use him for teaching moments and this is a good one. Ken Silva decided it was in his best interest to challenge a statement which I tweeted:

@dtatusko: our authority comes not from scripture alone, but from the risen christ.

Now anyone reading this who disagrees is not left with many options. Either authority is based on only scripture as if there is no living Christ to guide us, or it is a combination of the two. Quite simple. Not for Silva who needs to read into things while offering the presumption that he's got it all together for us. So this is what Silva reads from this:

Now, I have no way to know why someone like Drew Tatusko wants to work to make people think Sola Scriptura is somehow in opposition to Jesus; however, I can judge that his reasoning is fatally fallacious spiritually

.

What? A conditional statement as I made which is "not alone…but also" is not a statement of opposition where the subject and the predicate are mutually exclusive. He further confuses this by saying the following which appears to agree with the tweet I posted which got him upset:

the Risen Christ—the Lord God Almighty Who’s placed His authority and His Word above all things

The emphasis on "and" is mine to illustrate the reading problem. So either Silva is being fantastically dishonest or he has a problem with reading into a text in a process called eisegesis. What we ought to do with scripture is a process of exegesis which is extracting the best possible meaning of a text as it was conveyed at the time of its writing. I am not going to judge which of these two options we are seeing here, but it appears a combination of the two is in play. Silva is clearly building yet another strawman. For what reason I have no idea.

However, a key to the problem is a misinterpretation of one passage that has been misused for all forms of biblical inerrancy and/or infallibilism.

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

Because scripture has its source in God means that it has a special use for the functions that Paul names here. This in no way is meant to be interpreted as plenary verbal inspiration as Muslims understand to be the source of authority for the Qu'ran. Although Silva appeals to "the literal Greek" in his post, what he fails to understand is that the Greek text of the New Testament is an amalgamation of fragments that scholars worked very hard to assemble in what they believed was the most accurate rendering of what was likely the original source.

(Read on: Here).

And here is Ken Silva's response to that: DREW TATUSKO DEMONSTRATES CONFUSION FOR US. So anyways, here are some thoughts pertaining to this argument:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

First of all, the Word Of God is not the bible, but Jesus Himself as per:

This false idea of the bible being the Word Of God is based on a faulty reading of the English translation of John 1:1-Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος. (en arche en ho logos kai ho logos en pros ton theon kai theos en ho logos.) Had the author or authors of John meant what bibliolaters want this verse to mean he or they would have written: Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ βύβλος, καὶ ὁ βύβλος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ βύβλος. (...biblos): in the beginning was the bible, and the bible was with God and the bible was God or similarly...hagiographa (Divine Writings).

Secondly, God never promised us a bible or a canon of scripture as a guide but a Comforter---the Paraclete/Holy Spirit as scripture plainly teaches:

[John 14]
The believers' relation to the glorified Christ

1 "Do not let your hearts be troubled. Believe in God, believe also in me. 2 In my Father's house there are many dwelling places. If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you? 3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, so that where I am, there you may be also. 4 And you know the way to the place where I am going." 5 Thomas said to him, "Lord, we do not know where you are going. How can we know the way?" 6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7 If you know me, you will know my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him."

8 Philip said to him, "Lord, show us the Father, and we will be satisfied." 9 Jesus said to him, "Have I been with you all this time, Philip, and you still do not know me? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'? 10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own; but the Father who dwells in me does his works. 11 Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; but if you do not, then believe me because of the works themselves. 12 Very truly, I tell you, the one who believes in me will also do the works that I do and, in fact, will do greater works than these, because I am going to the Father. 13 I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 If in my name you ask me for anything, I will do it.

15 "If you love me, you will keep my commandments. 16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate, to be with you forever. 17 This is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, because he abides with you, and he will be in you.

18 "I will not leave you orphaned; I am coming to you. 19 In a little while the world will no longer see me, but you will see me; because I live, you also will live. 20 On that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you. 21 They who have my commandments and keep them are those who love me; and those who love me will be loved by my Father, and I will love them and reveal myself to them." 22 Judas (not Iscariot) said to him, "Lord, how is it that you will reveal yourself to us, and not to the world?" 23 Jesus answered him, "Those who love me will keep my word, and my Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them. 24 Whoever does not love me does not keep my words; and the word that you hear is not mine, but is from the Father who sent me.

25 "I have said these things to you while I am still with you. 26 But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything, and remind you of all that I have said to you. 27 Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled, and do not let them be afraid. 28 You heard me say to you, 'I am going away, and I am coming to you.' If you loved me, you would rejoice that I am going to the Father, because the Father is greater than I. 29 And now I have told you this before it occurs, so that when it does occur, you may believe. 30 I will no longer talk much with you, for the ruler of this world is coming. He has no power over me; 31 but I do as the Father has commanded me, so that the world may know that I love the Father. Rise, let us be on our way.---(NRSV).

I'll continue my thoughts in my next post: TheoPoetic Musings: In Defense Of Drew Tatusko's Position On Scripture Continued

Graeme Randall On The Word Of God

Here is a quote from Graeme Randall:

John 1:1 says “In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God.” It goes on to say “and the word became flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1:14). The writer of Hebrews writes “For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart” (Hebrews 4:12). Now, we can debate whether it is “Big ‘W’ word” or “Little ‘w’ word” as much as we like. But it would seem plain that the Bible is saying that Christ is “The Word of God” - “Divine Logos.” Christ came to fulfill the Old Testament - so the Old Testament looked forward to Christ. It was but a dim reflection of what is in Heaven. The New Testament is about Christ more explicitly. I would suggest that the Word of God is Christ, and that the Bible is man’s commentary on the Word of God (Christ).

This gives us a very different way of understanding the Bible, and our own faith. Only then can we fully reconcile positions such as women in church leadership, gender inclusive language, issues of sexuality within the church - the list goes on - to science, psychology and our personal understanding of our faith.

The Bible is not The Word of God; it is commentary on The Word of God. It is fallible and open to interpretation. It gives us a historical understanding of how men and women have understood God and salvation. It must continue to change and evolve. If it doesn’t, then - as all things which do not change and grow - it is dead and has no power.

On God's Creation And God's Election

Anyone that reads Reformed theology will soon come to know that God's elective acts are firmly rooted in God's creative acts. Whereas all Reformed theology gets it right to tie the act of God's creating to God's electing---I must part ways with the Calvinist stripe of Reformed theology on several points of Tulip theology. First of all, Tulip theology is mainly associated with predestination though predestination has nothing to do with Tulip theology. Here are all the points of Tulip: Total Hereditary Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace and Perseverance of the Saints. I agree with most all of these points except for the way that Calvinists define them.

On Total Depravity---whereas depravity of humanity is true, no state of depravity is total or else experience of God's salvific power would be impossible even if by the sole act of God. Rather humanity is in a state of spiritual blindness until the Holy Spirit prompts individuals to respond to God's effectual call. Arminian Today: Article 3: An Arminian Commentary on the Five Articles of the Remonstrance, Classical Arminianism: WHAT IS CLASSICAL ARMINIANISM? PART THREE: TOTAL DEPRAVITY, John Fletcher on Being “Dead in Sin” Once then when an individual responds to God's effectual call via the Holy Spirit's prompting then the individual's will is totally freed from the bondage of sin.

Election is both conditional and unconditional depending on the ontological and empirical object and subject of election. Unconditional election then is only true of Christ, for Christ is both elected and reprobated for us in the event of the Incarnation and the Crucifixion and in the harrowing of hell. Jesus as elected one pertains to Jesus being elected as both God and man for us from the foundation of the world. Jesus was reprobated for us in the moment during His Incarnation that He became sin for us at the advent of the Cross. http://theevangelicalcalvinist.blogspot.com/2009/08/karl-barths-election-alternative-to.html, ::: How Barth’s Doctrine of Election Informs His Doctrine of Justification ::: The election of individual believers then is conditional upon Christ then as all who are in Christ are elected in Christ and must continue in faith and belief in Christ in order to be saved. Classical Arminianism: EN CHRISTO Election then is a matter of Christological truth rather than a random and arbitrary act of determinism.

The Atonement is both limited and unlimited depending on the effects of the Atonement one is talking about. The full effects of the Atonement are limited in scope but not in number. The scope by which the Atonement's full effects are limited is that only those who have true faith and belief in Christ shall be saved---which is the full effect of the Atonement---salvation. Arminian Today: The Extent of the Atonement, Classical Arminianism: LIMITED ATONEMENT: BIBLICAL MANDATE OR SYSTEMATIC PRESUMPTION? (PART ONE), Classical Arminianism: LIMITED ATONEMENT: BIBLICAL MANDATE OR SYSTEMATIC PRESUMPTION? (PART TWO) However the Atonement is unlimited in extent and range as the world is continually in a state of reconciliation and redemption and no one is beyond redemption. Also as Article IV of the Saxon Visitation Articles states:

Article IV. On Predestination and the Eternal Providence of God.
The pure and true Doctrine of our Churches on this Article.

1] That Christ died for all men, and, as the Lamb of God, took away the sins of the whole world.

2] That God created no man for condemnation; but wills that all men should be saved and arrive at the knowledge of truth. He therefore commands all to hear Christ, his Son, in the gospel; and promises, by his hearing, the virtue and operation of the Holy Ghost for conversion and salvation.

3] That many men, by their own fault, perish: some, who will not hear the gospel concerning Christ; some, who again fall from grace, either by fundamental error, or by sins against conscience.

4] That all sinners who repent will be received into favor; and none will be excluded, though his sins be red as blood; since the mercy of God is greater than the sins of the whole world, and God hath mercy on all his works.

Scripture also testifies that Jesus has sheep in other pastures and that they will know Him by His voice.

Next Grace is unconditional but resistible hence those unwilling to believe or continue in belief in Christ. Classical Arminianism: "I" for IRRESISTIBLE GRACE, Arminian Today: Prevenient Grace Compared With Irrestible Grace,The Arminian and Calvinist Ordo Salutis: A Brief Comparative Study Wesley on the resistibility of grace:

It is generally supposed, that repentance and faith are only the gate of religion; that they are necessary only at the beginning of our Christian course, when we are setting out in the way to the kingdom.... And this is undoubtedly true, that there is a repentance and a faith, which are, more especially, necessary at the beginning: a repentance, which is a conviction of our utter sinfulness, and guiltiness, and helplessness.... But, notwithstanding this, there is also a repentance and a faith (taking the words in another sense, a sense not quite the same, nor yet entirely different) which are requisite after we have "believed the gospel;" yea, and in every subsequent stage of our Christian course, or we cannot "run the race which is set before us." And this repentance and faith are full as necessary, in order to our continuance and growth in grace, as the former faith and repentance were, in order to our entering into the kingdom of God.

Finally there is a perseverance of the saints but it is not a "once saved always saved" type of perseverance but one centered and contingent upon continued faith and belief in Christ. Luther on falling from grace also from the Saxon Visitation Articles:

The False and Erroneous doctrine of the Calvinists On Predestination and the Providence of God.
1] That Christ did not die for all men, but only for the elect.

2] That God created the greater part of mankind for eternal damnation, and wills not that the greater part should be converted and live.

3] That the elected and regenerated can not lose faith and the Holy Spirit, or be damned, though they commit great sins and crimes of every kind.

4] That those who are not elect are necessarily damned, and can not arrive at salvation, though they be baptized a thousand times, and receive the Eucharist every day, and lead as blameless a life as ever can be led.

Source: The Creeds of Christendom, Volume III, by Philip Schaff (Copyright, 1877, by Harper & Brothers.

http://classicalarminianism.blogspot.com/search/label/Perseverance%20of%20the%20Saints,Arminian Today: Perseverance: The False and the True, http://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/category/perseverance/page/2/

Anyways these are my personal views upon which I believe the Doctrine Of Election either stands or falls. However when you get down to it, your views on election are informed by that which you find most consistent with God's self-revelation in Christ. See also: Martin Luther and the Doctrine of Predestination and http://threehierarchies.blogspot.com/2005/08/lutheranism-between-calvinism-and.html.

The Movie Signs And Faith

This past Wed. night, we discussed the movie, Signs as we watched that movie for the last two Weds. Vick didn't have a handout prepared as we were going to watch the movie, The Big Kahuna, but had to substitute Signs instead. For that movie the question: how can we share our faith in this postmodern age? is appropriate. But anyways---back to Signs---here is some general background info on the movie:

Signs is a 2002 science fiction thriller film written, produced, and directed by M. Night Shyamalan starring Mel Gibson, Joaquin Phoenix, Rory Culkin, and Abigail Breslin. Although the plot revolves around aliens and crop circles, producer Frank Marshall said, "It's really about human emotions set in motion by a supernatural event." The film received generally positive critical reception and was one of the highest grossing films of 2002.

(As a side note, since Vick is involved in the movie industry, I'd just like to say that one of my relatives on my dad's side, Don Smetzer got to know the Culkin family really well when he was the still photographer for Home Alone).

One of the issues of the movie, Signs, is the loss of faith. In one of the key scenes at 9:17-9:31 of this clip:

reminds me somewhat of 1:37-1:53 of this clip from Amadeus and Family Guy: ---if just for the sense of feeling abandoned by God. Loss of faith is a mystery, but for whatever reason---it happens and tragedy like in the movie is a common cause of it. As an example the esteemed textual critic, Bart D. Ehrman:

... says the reason he turned to agnosticism was due to his inability to deal with the problem of evil and suffering as it is presented in the bible and not the reliability of the text.

Vick brought up this verse within the context of the movie:

Romans 8:29 RSV- For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the first-born among many brethren.

In Greek: οτι ους προεγνω και προωρισεν συμμορφους της εικονος του υιου αυτου εις το ειναι αυτον πρωτοτοκον εν πολλοις αδελφοις

Transliterated: oti ous proegnô kai proôrisen summorphous tês eikonos tou uiou autou eis to einai auton prôtotokon en pollois adelphois

For a more detailed study of this verse see: Romans 8:29. The two key terms are:

proginosko--- Definition
Strong's - to know beforehand, that is, foresee: - foreknow (ordain), know (before).
Thayer's - to have knowledge before hand; to foreknow - of those whom God elected to salvation; to predestinate.
Webster's - To have previous knowledge of; to foresee.
And: προώρισεν (proōrisen)--- Definition
-to predetermine, decide beforehand
in the NT of God decreeing from eternity
to foreordain, appoint beforehand

Predestination:
A Calvinist understanding of this verse is that individuals are randomly and arbitrarily chosen by God before God even created the world with no insight into individuals' lives as if God played Russian Roulette to determine who is saved. The Hyper-Calvinist view is that God even chose who is damned through no fault of their own. The Arminian understanding is that: "...God does not so much choose, but instead infallibly predicts, who will believe and, persevering, be saved. Although God knows from the beginning of the world who will go where, the choice is still with the individual." The Barthian view is that:

predestination only properly applies to God Himself. Thus, mankind is chosen for salvation in Jesus Christ, at the permanent cost of God's self-surrendered hiddenness, or transcendence. Thus, the redemption of all mankind is a devoutly to be wished for possibility, but the only inevitability is that God has predestined Himself, in Jesus Christ, to be revealed and given for mankind's salvation.

My view is somewhere between the Arminian and Barthian views, of course. One other note is the question of the Traditional understanding of one of God's attributes, Omniscience---which was subtly explored in the film. Although, I agree with the Traditional understanding, I am sympathetic to the valid question of Open Theism: does God know all? After all, Jesus who is God incarnate said:

Matthew 24:35-36 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society


35Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.

The Day and Hour Unknown
36"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son,[a] but only the Father.

Footnotes:

Matthew 24:36 Some manuscripts do not have nor the Son.

Blog Posts Of Interest 3

On spiritual meaning in the High School Musical phenomenon: Spiritual meaning in ‘High School Musical’ (really).


On the possibility of Pope Benedict XVI being a Barthian Catholic: Narrative and Ontology: Is the Pope Barthian?.


On Indiana Jones being denied tenure: C. Orthodoxy: Indiana Jones Denied Tenure.