Consider Colossians 1 – Paul speaks of their faith in Christ, love of the saints, the hope laid up for them in heaven which was heard in the gospel, which has come to them and brought forth fruit (specifically in them). He says they have known the grace of God in truth and that they have love in the Spirit. He exhorts them to knowledge, wisdom, and spiritual understanding, to walk worthy of the Lord, fruitful in every good work. Once again he speaks of them increasing in knowledge – as these concepts of work, fruit, and knowledge go together.
He speaks of them being strengthened with all might by His glorious power – which produces patience, longsuffering, and joyfulness. And he speaks of the Colossians as being prepared and worthy to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light.
They have been delivered from darkness and translated in the Kingdom of the Son. They have redemption through His blood and the forgiveness of sins.
And they are reconciled by and to the One who is the firstborn from the dead, through his flesh....
If they continue in the faith grounded and settled and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel.
If. It's all conditional, stipulated on whether or not the person continues in the faith – whether or not they persevere. Paul nowhere suggests that a failure to do so means that everything stated regarding their status suddenly evaporates – as if it never was. No, it was lost.
I realize this is upsetting to people but it's what the New Testament teaches over and over again. This does not mean that election is somehow less than true but it does mean that it has been misunderstood and given a theological prominence and prioritisation the New Testament did not intend. This does not mean that Justification by Faith is in error – it all depends on how the terms are defined and placed within the larger understanding of salvation. Even adding the term 'alone' is not a problem – though unwarranted in Romans 3. It can become a problem in certain situations, especially when it becomes a Centraldogma that cancels out other passages such as James 2 – or even the explicit meaning in a passage such as Colossians 1.
According to Davis, anyone in Colossae that apostatized was never a Christian, they never experienced any of those items on that rather impressive list laid out by Paul.
Again, is that how Paul presents it? Not in the least. The question is not one of reverse-engineering their soteriological status by means of eschatological reasoning. No, they failed to persevere and thus their faith was in the end something less than saving faith. They were elect until they were not. They were in the Book of Life until they were removed (Rev 3.5).
The passages he's quoting don't prove his point and yet the Colossians passage is but one of many that defy his model.
I'm not advocating a works-based soteriology along the lines of Rome nor am I arguing for an Arminian paradigm – though many would accuse me of both. I am saying that all these paradigms are defective because they rely on false methodology. This doesn't mean some of the precious truths that Calvinists treasure regarding the Sovereignty of God and election are somehow false. By no means. Rather the problem is the Calvinist paradigm is a reductionism. Biblical truth is substantially bigger that either the Calvinist system or the Arminian one.
In part 2 Davis once again employs logic to explain away the Revelation 3 passage. He tries to parse the audience in a way that Christ does not – and thus the passage is stripped of its full weight and import.
Christ doesn't speak to mere professors but covenant members flirting with functional apostasy – and the removal of their status within the Church, signified by the removal of the candlestick (Rev 2.5). This tells us that churches can apostatize and we have many such examples in our day. They profess Christ but in works deny Him. They swear falsely by His name.
And yet this does not mean they are wholly absent from the covenant or that their status was never legitimate to begin with. Is that the lesson of Old Testament Israel and the apostasy of the Northern Kingdom? They weren't pagans. They were apostates – it's not the same thing. The Baptist (and often Calvinist) read that they were never Christians to begin with means they were pagans masquerading as covenant members. Again, is that how Hebrews addresses this? Colossians? The Old Testament? The answer is a resounding 'no'.
His whole discussion surrounding the Laodicean church goes off the rails. The straightforward reading is quite simple – they were in danger of apostasy. They faced rebuke and chastening and were being called to repentance that they might be restored to communion. They are exhorted to persevere by means of overcoming. We needn't (like Davis) make this into something it's not because our theology won't accommodate it.
Likewise Davis errs in reading the deaths in 1 Corinthians 11 as those being taken home. No – if they are eating and drinking Judgment, if Christ is their judge and not their saviour, then there's no basis to think these people entered paradise. They died condemned as Ananias and Sapphira. I will not be absolute on this as God's grace and mercy are greater than we can know but one wonders why Davis doesn't simply reckon these people are pseudo-Christians as well?
His concluding point is erroneous and ironically the exact opposite of what the letter to Laodicea teaches. The whole point is they need to repent and overcome. They are being warned to persevere. If not, just as in Colossians 1, they will be rejected or as put to Laodicea – spewed out of His mouth.
The Davis reading (all too common I'm afraid) takes this warning and the dozens of others like it and reduces them to empty hypothetical threats. He takes the doctrine of election and via logic (as opposed to consistent and comprehensive exegesis) explains away these passages.
The various soteriological terms he appeals to in definitive terms are also repeatedly cast in provisional terms, as works in progress, and yet future. He is leaving out and explaining away large sections of the New Testament. His theology is not just overriding the teaching of the New Testament, it is overwhelming it. Ironically it is exactly the same rationalism that we see at work in Arminianism. The two camps simply start from different points and begin with different assumptions but both succumb to rationalist tendencies.
Davis denies being a historicist and yet takes that view of the letters to the Seven Churches. Rather than understand these models apply throughout all the Last Days (or Church Age) he falls into the chronological paradigm which itself becomes meaningless as we have no frame of reference. We may be near the Parousia – and yet what time isn't? He speaks of us being in perhaps the Laodicean or final epoch – how does he know we're not in the period of Sardis or perhaps late-stage Ephesus? There's no way to know and so this line of argument is meaningless.
I agree that the age is characterized by apostasy and it shall worsen over the course of the Last Days/Church Age. I believe we are in a period of apostasy but this is not because of the degenerate state of American politics or the downfall of the West. I would view the rise of the 'Christian' West as a state of apostasy that began seventeen centuries ago. Where would that put us under such a chronological scheme?
In some respects things are much better today than they were a thousand years ago. In other respects things are much worse. It's all a matter of perspective. I'm not disagreeing with his tally of apostasy and the decline of faith in connection with Christ's coming. I simply reject his whole method and approach to theology.
Unlike Davis I would argue that Christians need to overcome lest they be rejected as the Laodiceans.
In actuality there's a great deal I can appreciate about what Davis is trying to say but I think he has made a fundamental error in the realm of theological prolegomena – what theology is and how it is to be approached. His system is coherent to a point but unfortunately it's not Scriptural.
No comments:
Post a Comment