https://www.clr4u.org/will-christ-ever-spew-lukewarm-christians-out-of-his-mouth-revelation-316/
Will Christ ever spew lukewarm Christians out of His mouth?
Dean Davis says no, because he believes in Eternal Security and as such the implied warning is merely hypothetical, a case of hyperbole, a warning to those who aren't actually part of the Church but pretend to be.
The letter in Revelation 3 is written to the church at Laodicea. These are baptized believers. These are Christians. The question of election (and thus eschatological salvation) is not on the table – though in many cases Paul will speak in general terms of those who are elect and apply the concept to the Visible Church, knowing full well there are those within that flock (at Ephesus for example) that will not persevere. Elsewhere the question of salvation is cast in provisional terms. The totality of New Testament doctrine is far more nuanced and complicated than what Davis suggests and as such his ability to integrate the imagery and implications of Revelation 3 is limited.
The problem here is one of philosophical theology overriding Scripture. Theology takes these terms and concepts and forces them into tight definitional boxes that must logically cohere with other doctrines in which the same process is employed. A grid is created that is logically coherent but that doesn't mean that it's Biblical, or accurately reflects Scriptural teaching. It may just be a paper castle, a theological facade.
Under this kind of reasoning, 'love' in Revelation 3.19 must be universalized in the same way as John 3.16 – because if they're not Christians than Divine Love (so goes typical Calvinist reasoning) cannot apply to these pseudo-believers. Love here is not covenantal – despite the fact that the context clearly indicates it is. As such, there's a warning to Christians – to those in the covenant.
The word (in this case) is not addressed as a general declaration to the world (as in John 3) but to a church. In order to maintain theological integrity, words have to keep being parsed when it's not called for and in other cases re-defined. Context of course is critical but that's often not what's happening in these discussions and that's certainly the case here. The context doesn't indicate that John is switching gears to a universal-revealed will or hypothetical category. Rather, Davis has a theological problem and so in order to maintain the integrity of the system, he distorts the text and by the end of the discussion completely inverts it.
By way of comparison, the same thing often happens in connection to both the terms 'justified' and 'works' in James 2.
Davis' appeal to the reality-profession dichotomy is a doctrinal point well taken, but the hard division being advocated simply doesn't reflect the text. He's reading it into the text in order for the text to make sense with the systemic assumptions he's bringing with him. The example of Judas is a stretch – especially when applied to the church at Laodicea. Was the whole congregation just bogus then? A bunch of phoneys? There's no suggestion of that.
Undoubtedly there are false Christians out there. We know this to be the case but these questions are rarely addressed in specific terms. They are within congregations – and yet while in those congregations they are still part of the Church and partaking of covenant life. The language in Hebrews is quite strong – which is why it's the most problematic book for these people. This presents a problem as next to Romans, it is the most doctrinal of the epistles – and Hebrews in particular provides some very critical 'broad strokes' for understanding redemptive-history.
And one should be careful regarding how the parables are used. We can just as easily point to the parable of the sower and its examples of faith that are real and yet temporary and non-persevering. Though I'm not one who is impressed by appeals to John Calvin, he understood this and his commentaries helped me almost thirty years ago to re-think the very nature of theology. I will admit the courses I pursued were not in keeping with Calvin's own theology and yet I find many modern day Calvinists denounce his views as heretical when expressed in the contemporary setting – another case of progressive orthodoxy at work.
I find Davis' handling of 2 Peter 2 to be highly troubling. He takes what Peter says and then negates it because his logic tells him that it cannot be so. For my part, I'll stick with Peter - whose words are in perfect harmony with the language found in Hebrews, where we read of those who have fallen away – even though they have tasted of the heavenly gift, partaken of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come. I know the standard explanation – none of this was salvific. The language is powerful, even overwhelming, but the theology just won't accommodate it.
As far as the example of 2 Peter, we know (from Romans 9) that not all are Israel who are of Israel – implying that one may be outwardly part of the covenant and yet not truly part of it. And yet we must be careful here. Sometimes the covenant-election distinction is utilised by theologians. I can appreciate the distinction but we can't restrict Biblical language in that way as if making a universal rule. According to the New Testament, to be in the covenant is to be saved, to be elect. We can speak of those who are in the covenant and yet not in 'the' covenant – though many decry this as equivocation. It's not, and some understand this, as the standard is not earthbound logic but the internal logic of Scripture.
But how many are willing to say that we can speak of those who are elect and yet not elect? The Scriptures speak that way too. For some this effectively destroys the Calvinistic scheme of predestination. I would argue it doesn't destroy it but reveals that it's too narrow, too limited in scope – especially as it has developed over time.
Few consider that in Romans 9, Paul may also be speaking in Redemptive-Historical terms. That is (after all) the thrust of the argument in chapters 9-11. Those who were Israel are (in their rejection of Christ) no longer so. With the resurrection of Christ and the coming of the Kingdom (Acts 2), the idea of Israel had evolved, and their refusal to acknowledge this transformative revelation relegated them to membership in a defunct covenant, one disannulled and passing away. It's a very different (and non-decretal) way of understanding the passage. And yet I won't go along with those who try to eliminate the unmistakable decretal elements from the subsequent discussion later in the chapter.
The example in 2 Peter builds on the Old Testament example and the problem with Davis' argument is that in the Old Testament such error and such heretics are not treated as outside the covenant/non-elect – attempting to read the situation through an eschatological lens – but rather are considered within the category of apostasy. They deny the Lord that bought them. They sunder the relationship. The subsequent verses in 2 Peter 2 speak of those operating within the Church. These are Christians that have fallen away from grace. Failing to make their calling and election sure, they (as Peter warned) have fallen into sin and functional apostasy.
The problem is Davis and others like him cannot incorporate that term or concept into their thinking. Even if used, the term apostasy has no actual meaning. They argue that which 'fell away' never had any standing to begin with – thus negating the term and stripping it of meaning.
This also touches on fundamental issues with Baptistic thinking – always attempting to determine if someone is regenerate by examining them internally rather than viewing them covenantally and in terms of perseverance status. One can manifest the signs of salvation and yet not persevere. I've seen this on many occasions – and it's disturbing and terrible to behold.
The question is not whether that person was ever saved or not. I cannot tell, I do not have the means to tell and nowhere am I told to view the question in such terms. The problem is they were in the covenant and yet have fallen away from it. How will their story end? God knows.
This is further complicated by the fact that even apostasy has its nuances. There are people who openly apostatize (utterly denying God or Christ) and those who functionally do so – those who swear falsely by My Name, as the Scriptures often put it.
The exiled Jews were not viewed in terms of regenerate/unregenerate categories but as covenant breakers and apostates. I realize there are some who will treat this question as another covenantal-works layer placed on top or alongside actual individual salvation status and there's something to that in redemptive-historical terms or in terms of the typology of Old Covenant Israel. Saved individuals as members of the covenant community went into exile just as those who weren't. And yet in some respects that's a theological imposition. The apostate/remnant dynamic also continued in the context of the exile. But the dichotomy at work is based on covenant fidelity, not a question of regeneration/unregeneration or even election/reprobation. This is not to say these questions aren't in play but the 'means' provided by God for reckoning such questions is that of covenant faithfulness and its corollary implication – perseverance.
Even 1 John 2 does not teach the view Davis advocates. In this case the implication is that these people were never 'of' the Church. Is this validly applied (as it so often is) to defections in the Church today? The answer is 'no'.
John is speaking of these antichrist figures – not fallen away Christians as we might conventionally think but rather those who are denying the deity of Christ – perhaps out of a Judaized or Sadducee-like concept of God that refuses to embrace the developing revelation that is unfolded throughout the Old Testament and is blatant and obvious in the New. The definition of Israel changed in the context of the New Covenant. These Judaizers were never part of the New Covenant but continued to advocate for the Old – and their misperceptions of it. It's a scenario that's actually quite pertinent to our day as permutations of this error still find popular theological expression. Unless you're willing to say that John was writing to the Invisible Church, the common Calvinist argument regarding this passage has no merit.
The 2 Peter example is referring to those who are still within the covenant and yet have fallen in apostasy. Again, when Davis uses the term 'apostasy' in connection with this, it's an empty set, because how can apostasy take place when (according to him) there was nothing there to begin with? How can one revolt when one was never under the authority to begin with? The idea is that a relationship exists and yet is broken. At this point some speak of a formal/vital distinction in terms of the relationship and indeed we know there are counterfeits out there. Matthew 7 says as much. We know the brethren by their love which Scripture also indicates is by their fruits and by implication, their perseverance. The seeming-to-persevere yet false Christian is a frightening reality and yet one that should not exist if the Church is being faithful. The unregenerate will become manifest and in most cases will reject and flee the faithful preaching of the Word.
On one level Matthew 7 provides an example of those who outwardly persevered and yet were deceived. One necessarily wonders if their lives and the nature of their fruit indicated as much. Others might have seen its rotten nature, even if they could not. The passage suggests as much. Once again many contemporary examples come to mind – almost too many to count. In this case these were utterly false Christians or wolves as the passage states. The reality of such exists and yet I'm not sure it can be systematized and applied across the board to every passage in the New Testament dealing with apostasy and the threat of it.
Additionally these were 'prophets' and this adds a layer to the discussion and the nature of just who and what these men were. Further, this would be an example of eschatological vantage – a vision of the Judgment. In normative terms the New Testament does not reckon doctrine, covenant status, ecclesiology, and the functionality of means from this vantage point. At the end of the day all the dynamics, tensions, and extant dualities will be resolved but we must operate with what we're given, what has been revealed.
Regardless of the fact that the Old Testament was (on one level) a story of apostasy – the children of Abraham not following the faith of Abraham, the bottom line is that these people were still in covenant, still in possession of the sign and seal of the covenant. They were in a relationship with God. Now whether the relationship was vital or not is not something that is judged by means of elder-examination. If we speak of them as being functionally un-circumcised then it's a question of apostasy. They're not mere uncircumcised (or unbaptised) pagans – they're situation is far worse. They are covenant-breakers and apostates. This is why the cities of Galilee (let alone Jerusalem) that rejected Christ fall under greater condemnation than Nineveh or Sodom and Gomorrah. They are not mere pagans masquerading as believers – they are apostates that shared in communion with Christ and yet rejected Him. We are reminded that another Old Testament way of expressing this is referring to those who swear falsely by His name. (See Zechariah 5 and its depiction of apostasy as a woman exiled to Babylon/Shinar.)
Davis' use of passages like 1 Corinthians 12 are self-defeating. The possession of the Spirit is expressed through baptism – my point exactly. Only by redefining baptism and splitting it into water and spirit baptism by means of theological sleight-of-hand can the passage be made to say something else.
The language of John 14.17 applies to everyone who is part of the Church – now whether they continue in that status is another question.
No comments:
Post a Comment