RSSTime
A background issue in the discussion of apostasy has to do with time, and God’s relation to it. This is what I was getting at in my post last week on election and reprobation, though in retrospect that post was probably premature. Anyway, the apostasy discussion has provoked it again.
I argued in that post that God both transcends time and works within it. He knows the end from the beginning because He has pre-scripted the whole drama before the foundation of the world. At the same time, He has pre-scripted that He would be the central character in the drama, and His action and inter-action in the drama is as real as the action and inter-action of any other character. God knows what we need before we ask, and He has predestined our prayers; and yet He really and truly does RESPOND to our prayers (a response He decided to make before the foundation of the world).
This has huge implications for how we work with soteriological categories. Look at the parable of the sower. Ultimately, there’s A and not-A. There are seeds that get rooted and grow up to bear abundant fruit; there are seeds that bear no fruit, that wither and die.
Along the way, though, there are seeds that spring up and grow for a time. Are they alive? Yes, of course. Are they alive in the same sense and in the same way as the seeds that good deep into the ground and bear fruit? No. But that difference is revealed over time.
It makes sense to say, “The shallowly-rooted plants cannot be both alive and not-alive. They have to be A and not-A.” But it only makes sense in a single snapshot of time. Ask the question when the seed is springing up quickly - A or not-A, alive or dead? The answer is, They’re alive. Ask the question when the plant has withered - A or not-A, alive or dead? The answer is, They’re dead.
But what do you say to the whole life-story of the seed? Can you force that into an A/not-A dichotomy? No. Precisely because it’s happening over time.
So to Saul: Ask at the moment when the Spirit comes upon him - is he alive or dead, a new man or not, with a new heart or with an old heart? The answer is, He’s got a new heart. That’s what the text says. Ask a few years later when the Spirit departs - a new man or not? It sure looks like he’s an old man again, a man without the Spirit.
Bill’s married, I assume. But once he was unmarried. Is it confusion to say he was once not-A and now is A? Of course not. It’s no contradiction of the “law of non-contradiction” because we’re talking about things that change over time; Saul is not A and not-A in the same sense, because he’s A and not-A at different times.
James Jordan
September 25th, 2007 at 10:47 am
Yes. This gets back to the overuse of timeless/spatial metaphors in post-Renaissance thinking and theology. It plays into the distinction between first and final justification, as I set it out earlier. Also, it seems clear that the Spirit entered the creation at the moment of creation (there’s no “sending” of the Spirit in Genesis 1:2; He’s already there) and has never left it. The Spirit is near enough to be grieved. He’s the way God has ongoing interaction with us in history.
One other thought: When God sees at the end of the 5th day that things are “good,” does that contradict the fact that things were “good” at the end of the 4th day? No. But then what about Aristotle and timeless thinking? Aristotle’s world is a zero-sum game. Bad economics, because the Spirit makes the world grow and the reality is that a rising tide lifts all boats. What was fully good at the end of the 4th day was not, after the “death and resurrection” of evening and morning, quite good enough at the beginning of the fifth day. This is one more example of how we must think temporally and eschatologically if we are going to think Biblically.
W.H. Chellis
September 25th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
Time is not the issue (although an interesting one. I know what it is if you ask me about it but as soon as I starting thinking….).
Rather, the issue is clarifying what you mean by regeneration.
On one hand you are saying that the elect are regenerated in a way that can only apply to them because they are elected to perservere.
On the other hand you are saying that some reprobate will be regenerated in a way that is different from the elect-unto-eternity because they will not perservere.
Then you are saying that this regeneration is the same in both. What gives?
Maybe we need a definition. Regeneration has a wide range of meaning among Reformed theologains. Maybe you could define your terms for us?
James Jordan
September 25th, 2007 at 12:46 pm
Peter can reply his way, but I’m saying that God is the same in both. I use “regeneration” to mean the New Age, usually, since that’s the meaning in the Bible. I’m happy to use it to mean “new life as a result of being connected with the Spirit of God, who gave old life.” If you press me, I’ll say that new life is a result of being connected to God, not the other way around. Divine monergism is thereby preserved
Anthony Cowley
September 25th, 2007 at 1:07 pm
But, you see, Bill - from an eternal perspective (always my favorite POV)…
Something like RE-GENERATION, Palin-Genesis, new age, new birth, being Born Again has all to do with time, does it not?
Its like saying, “Define the incarnation and the two natures of Christ without reference to Time.”
When the Confession defines Effectual Calling, look at one of the proof texts under 10:4 about the non-elect who have “some common operations of the Spirit” — Mat 13:20 As for what was sown on rocky ground, this is the one who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy, 21 yet he has no root in himself, but endures for a while, and when tribulation or persecution arises on account of the word, immediately he falls away.
You have the same good seed. You have real life, but not permanent life. The falling away happens in time. So, it is all about time. The non-elect (in the decretal sense of the Confession) do not have real faith, and never had that quality of faith that is ultimate saving faith. Were they in ANY sense born again, part of the new age, given a changed heart?
If Doug or Peter answers, “Yes,” then some will attack them for causing people to doubt justification, regeneration or assurance. But, they say, “Well, it has to do with the issue of perseverence, aka, time - that is how the seed and ground and heart are tested, and that is how we know the reality of the faith that is saving.” THen you ask, “No - I want a definition that is timeless.”
Sorry, the whole topic of NEW birth is a time bound issue that leads to eternal life, the life of the age to come. Is not that part of the whole W2k deal? Maybe your demands are insufficiently eschatological! Here is a case of intrusion and you don’t want it. The genuine elect have the future intrude into their lives.
Love,
Tony
Chapter 10:
Of Effectual Calling
10:1 All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, He is pleased in His appointed and accepted time effectually to call (Rom_8:30; Rom_11:7; Eph_1:10, Eph_1:11), by His Word and Spirit (2Co_3:3, 2Co_3:6; 2Th_2:13, 2Th_2:14), out of that state of sin and death, in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ (Rom_8:2; Eph_2:1-5; 2Ti_1:9, 2Ti_1:10); enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God (Act_26:18; 1Co_2:10, 1Co_2:12; Eph_1:17, Eph_1:18); taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them a heart of flesh (Eze_36:26); renewing their wills, and by His almighty power determining them to that which is good (Deu_30:6; Eze_11:19; Eze_36:27; Phi_2:13), and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ (Joh_6:44, Joh_6:45; Eph_1:19): yet so, as they come most freely, being made willing by His grace (Psa_110:3; Son_1:4; Joh_6:37; Rom_6:16-18).
10:2 This effectual call is of God’s free and special grace alone, not from anything at all foreseen in man (Rom_9:11; Eph_2:4, Eph_2:5, Eph_2:8, Eph_2:9; 2Ti_1:9; Tit_3:4, Tit_3:5), who is altogether passive therein, until being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit (Rom_8:7; 1Co_2:14; Eph_2:5), he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it (Eze_36:27; Joh_5:25; Joh_6:37).
10:3 Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ through the Spirit (Luk_18:15, Luk_18:16, and Act_2:38, Act_2:39, and Joh_3:3, Joh_3:5, and 1Jo_5:12, and Rom_8:9 compared), who worketh when, and where, and how He pleaseth (Joh_3:8): so also, are all other elect persons who are uncapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word (Act_4:12; 1Jo_5:12).
10:4 Others, not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the Word (Mat_22:14), and may have some common operations of the Spirit (Mat_7:22; Mat_13:20, Mat_13:21; Heb_6:4, Heb_6:5), yet they never truly come unto Christ, and therefore cannot be saved (Joh_6:64-66; Joh_8:24): much less can men, not professing the Christian religion, be saved in any other way whatsoever, be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature, and the law of that religion they do profess (Joh_4:22; Joh_14:6; Joh_17:3; Act_4:12; Eph_2:12); and to assert and maintain that they may, is very pernicious, and to be detested(1Co_16:22; Gal_1:6-8; 2Jo_1:9-11).
Peter
September 25th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
Bill, I didn’t say that “this regeneration is the same in both.” I said: “Along the way, though, there are seeds that spring up and grow for a time. Are they alive? Yes, of course. Are they alive in the same sense and in the same way as the seeds that good deep into the ground and bear fruit? No. But that difference is revealed over time.”
W.H. Chellis
September 25th, 2007 at 2:46 pm
O.K. we can agree that there is something different at work and the difference is revealed over time.
So what is the difference?
James Jordan
September 25th, 2007 at 4:32 pm
I don’t know that Peter and I are quite in the same paragraph here (but this is a conversation that is far from over, so..) but, Mr. Chellis, I wonder if there is any need for Peter to say what the difference is. God is predestinator of sin but not author of sin. What does that mean? It’s a rather flat contradition. All it means is that God willed Adam to sin in Sense A, but did not will Adam to sin in Sense B, and that only God understands this. We accept both sides of the coin since both negatives are inescapable (God is not against himself; nothing happens that God did not will to happen). Is there any necessity for Peter to understand and explain how the two kinds of people differ “all along”?
Peter
September 25th, 2007 at 5:06 pm
Bill, thanks for the questions. What follows is not exhaustive, but might make some progress.
First, though, I agree with Jim Jordan that the same God the Spirit is at work, personally, with both the reprobate and the elect. Whatever life they have is the result of their personal connection with God.
But to differences:
1) The life of the reprobate is temporary. That’s not a minor difference. One marriage starts rocky but lasts 50 years; another starts well but ends in rancorous divorce after 5 years. The first is “successful” and the second “failed,” and one of the things that distinguishes the two is how they ended.
2) The Spirit who renews a reprobate for a time knows throughout that the reprobate is a reprobate.
3) Dordt uses the terms of the parable of the sower to describe the differences between temporary and saving faith. I’d do the same for the temporary life of the reprobate: For some, the seed of the word goes in and produces life, but it’s not deeply rooted; etc.
A final comment: Your suggestion that Saul was changed “according to the human perspective” sounds like special pleading to me. The Spirit worked to make him another man and give him another heart. Why limit that to “from the human perspective”? Is there any basis for that in the text?
D Hart
September 25th, 2007 at 7:40 pm
Could it be that some of this is a mystery and that to go farther is to engage in harmful speculation? It sounds somewhat like Peter wants the tradition to go farther than it has been willing to go, partly because the Reformed tradition at its best moments has been anti-speculative.
Could it be that Saul is not the place to go for the doctrine of regeneration? Why can’t he be a special case? Also, why isn’t Paul the preferred expositor of regeneration at this point since FV seems to rally to Paul on other points? The Reformed hermeneutic has been to let the clear interpret the obscure.
Could it be that some FVers want to make trouble?
JMuether
September 25th, 2007 at 8:17 pm
Peter, forgive me but I am at least as confused as Bill on this thread. I don’t think your marriage analogy helps. In both “failed” marriages and “successful” marriages couples are joined temporarily in the same institution. The divorced 30-year old and the widowed 80-year old both left a state of marriage and reentered the state of singlehood. It doesn’t help account for whether a temporary faith and persevering faith both originate from a new heart and partake of the same life.
Bill suggests a “human perspective†that distinguishes genuine faith/life from its counterfeits. You consider that to be “special pleading.” But Toby Kurth (9/24) wondered whether it might be called the analogy of Scripture and I am left wondering too. You say Saul could not be regenerated because regeneration by definition is irreversible – isn’t that the analogy of Scripture at work? Why stop at regeneration, why not apply the same principle to a “new heartâ€? Aren’t there good biblical, theological, and pastoral reasons for insisting that a heart transplant is irreversible too? (I apologize if you answered Toby already and I missed it.)
Peter
September 26th, 2007 at 8:49 am
A few scattered responses. (Some of this is stilted because for some reason every time I use an apostrophe the site sends me into search mode.)
Darryl, yes I agree that there is mystery here. But I am not pushing for speculation. I am pushing for systematic theology that takes seriously the biblical texts that do not seem to fit our systematic categories.
Your other question about Saul being a special case does not work I think. And this gets to the question John asks about the analogy of Scripture. I am all for the analogy of Scripture, but I do not see Saul as an isolated case. In my posts, I have brought up 2 Peter 2, the parable of the sower, and we could also bring in John 15, 1 Corinthians 10, and Hebrews 6 (and other passages of Hebrews). All of these seem to me to fit with the way I have read the Saul story - namely, that God gives new life to some people that lasts only a time.
JMuether
September 26th, 2007 at 9:14 am
Sorry pester you Peter, but just so I am clear: Saul was granted “new life” but you would not call that “regeneration.”
Peter
September 26th, 2007 at 9:22 am
John, Right. And I am not using the word “regeneration” because of the connotations it has in systematic theology - because it is by definition something permanent and given only to the elect. If “regeneration” is used in a softer sense of “new life given by the Spirit,” then I’d apply it to Saul.
Nicholas T. Batzig
September 27th, 2007 at 7:32 pm
Peter,
I need a little help with my exegesis of the parable of the sower, John 15.1-5, 1 Corinthians 10, and Hebrews 6. Where is “life” mentioned in any of these passages? I find support for some kind of spiritual influence on various people but I can’t find where it says that they are given “new life” for a time. This seem to me to be a series problem with the FV formulations.
What is wrong with the typical, historic Reformed formulations of these passages? Why can’t we be content to believe that they teach that there is such a thing as a false conversion, a temporal enlightening of the mind, and
the enjoyment of temporal spiritual benefits? If it is a matter of defeating an introspective conscience, it seems that the answers the FV men have supplied should make us far more introspective and put us in a place that we can never attain assurance-unless, that is, we adopt a sacramentalism that gives us what our theology has taken away, namely, assurance. Would I be correct in this final assertion?