Combox for:
"Work Out Your Own Salvation With Fear and Trembling" (Philippians 2:12): Does It Harmonize With Protestant Soteriology? (vs. Ken Temple)
[30 April 2008]
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...-with-
fear.html
The only problem, Ken, is that the verse does not separate sanctification and justification, as Protestants arbitrarily do. It is saying, rather, that we have the salvation and we also have to "work it out."
We do not completely separate sanctification from justification; they are intimately connected; and together (you are right on this) with glorification, they are the total picture of salvation-
Justification - we were saved. (initial point of repentance and trusting Christ, John 1:12; Romans 10:9-10; Romans 5:1)
Sanctification - we are being saved. What Philippians 2:12-13 is talking about)
Glorification - we will be saved. (Romans 8:29-30; Philippians 3:20-21; Ephesians 4:30
All those other verses in your blue box are talking about sanctification and we agree that that is a process and we have to choose and cooperate and persevere.
Sorry Ken, but Dave's beat you here
Here is one thing that has really boggled my mind.
If Calvinists say we cant have free will because that opens the possibility that God wouldnt end up saving who He came to save, then why do they allow for free will during sanctification (but not justification)? If someone has free will during sanctification then logically they could fail to become fully sanctified, and thus not able to enter Heaven.
Another VERY important point to bring up regarding Philippians is in chapter 3, especially v9, because Calvinist look to that as a justification passage when the context is clearly inner sanctification. In fact Phil 2:12f actually is a summary of Phil 3.
I think this Phil 3:9 issue would make a great blog entry for BEC.
Nick,
If Calvinists say we cant have free will because that opens the possibility that God wouldnt end up saving who He came to save, then why do they allow for free will during sanctification (but not justification)? If someone has free will during sanctification then logically they could fail to become fully sanctified, and thus not able to enter Heaven.
GREAT question! As a Calvinist, questions of free will have boggled my mind for years, as well. However, as Dave pointed out in another combox (on Mary, I believe), anything dealing with God will naturally boggle the mind; we can't get our heads around it.
Here is how I understand the issue. The reason we are unable to be "free" agents with regards to justification has to do with our inherent nature. We are sinners to the core, having inherited a sinful nature from Adam. We are dead in sins and transgressions. Thus, as Augustine put it; it is not possible for us not to sin (non posse non peccare). Hence, there is no way we could contribute to our initial justification, since it is impossible for us to do anything, except sin (cf. Heb 11:6).
However, after regeneration, which takes place in close relation to justification (the difference is more in logical progression than chronologically), we are indwelt with the Holy Spirit. Thus, it is now possible for us not to sin (Augstine: posse non peccare). Our nature is now changed. We are born of the Spirit and not of the flesh. We are now of God, not of the world. This is a HUGE difference.
An analogy I have often heard is that of a dead man. He is, by nature, unable to eat food. It's just not possible. However, if someone else admits CPR, his nature is now changed from death to life. He is now able to eat the food put before him.
Because we are given a new nature (2 Cor 5:17), new things are possible. God has done a supernatural work, given us faith, and it is now, for the first time, possible to please him (again, Heb 11:6).
I hope you find this helpful in explaining, and I look forward to you tearing it apart.
In Christ,
BJ
Stupid Scholar
BJ did a pretty good job of describing the free will issue.
But also remember that when Calvinsits say that the unregenerate man does not have free will we do not mean by that that you don't make your own choices and that you have no will or that you don't choice what you want to do.
We always choose what we want to do; and those wants are at the bottom root tainted by sin. So there is free will in the sense that we chose according to our nature and desires and motives. So lack of free will does not mean lack of choice or will, but rather lack of moral power to choose good over evil. The unregenerate makes free choices, but they are always tainted in some way by sin. The will is in bondage to sin. (John 8:34)
that is why Philippians 3:12-13 teaches that now that you are believers and God is in you both to will (motivate and move) and to do (power to act and choose good); then you can obey God now and work out your salvation, making it manifest that is real and giving glory to God, with fear and trembling.
But when the will is freed by regeneration and the holy Spirit, that person has the gift of faith and immediately is able to beleive and chose and only then, by the power of the Holy Spirit, can he make choices that are truly good. (not that Christians always do that; there is a battle and war of desires; Gal. 5:16-17; Romans 7:13-8:9)
Before conversion:
You are free to do whatever you want. (and those wants and desires are tainted by sin. Genesis 6:5; Ephesians 2:1-3; Jer. 17:9; John 8:34)
conversion: and true freedom
The power to choose good over evil.
You are free to chose to do what you ought.
John 8:31-36; Romans 6:1-7; Galatians 5:1-26
Ken,
Good clarifications and additions. Thanks!
BJ
Stupid Scholar
BJ,
we are indwelt with the Holy Spirit and Our nature is now changed. We are born of the Spirit and not of the flesh. We are now of God, not of the world.
Since God, in all three persons (including the Holy Spirit) is truly righteous, these statements seem more aligned with the Catholic position of infused righteousnes, not the Protestant position of imputation. How do you reconcile this difference from an important part of your own doctrine?
Ken,
Justification - we were saved. (initial point of repentance and trusting Christ...)
Sanctification - we are being saved.
Glorification - we will be saved.
The three together are the total picture of salvation (Ken's words, my emphasis) and we agree that sanctification is a process and we have to choose and cooperate and persevere.
You sound dangerously close to a "works-based" theology (choice, cooperation, and perseverence) as a part of "being saved" (sanctification), leading to the future tense "will be saved" (glorification) for the eternal salvation. Maybe we're rubbing off on you? [obviously tongue in cheek]
In His Name,
Jamie,
Since God, in all three persons (including the Holy Spirit) is truly righteous, these statements seem more aligned with the Catholic position of infused righteousnes, not the Protestant position of imputation. How do you reconcile this difference from an important part of your own doctrine?
I fail to see how this deviates from Reformed thinking. We have never denied the ongoing and regenerative work of the Holy Spirit. I have no problems saying that we are infused with righteousness through sanctification; any righteousness didn't come from me. Having been declared righteous, the Spirit works within us to make us so. What's the problem?
Blessings,
BJ
Stupid Scholar
Daily Bible Reflections
The reason we are unable to be "free" agents with regards to justification has to do with our inherent nature. We are sinners to the core, having inherited a sinful nature from Adam. We are dead in sins and transgressions. Thus, as Augustine put it; it is not possible for us not to sin (non posse non peccare).
Unfortunately for your advocacy of this position, Augustine never said we inherited a sinful nature and never said we were "sinners to the core." Indeed, he said quite the opposite in his last works against Julian of Eclanum, which can hardly be accused of capitulating the Pelagian position. You should read why Augustine actually says that it is not possible not to sin; it has nothing to do with corruption of the human nature but rather lack of grace to assist us. Those two statements aren't equivalent.
We always choose what we want to do; and those wants are at the bottom root tainted by sin.
No Bible verse and no Father ever taught this, including St. Augustine. Our wants are not "at the bottom root tainted by sin," nor could they be, because God is the author of our nature, even fallen nature. This is not Christian doctrine; it was a creation of late-medieval nominalist philosophy, adopted by both Luther and Calvin.
Jamie,
Classical Protestantism has always taught these things. It is you who are coming closer to understand our position.
We believe in "infused righteousness" (growth in holiness and real internal change into increasing goodness; ie, being conformed to the image of Christ) in sanctification, but not as the ground or basis of justification; and there is no merit to earn or gain heaven in that; it only confirms what was already there; that is the great difference. The basis or ground of justification is faith alone; but the evidence that it really happened is sanctification and glorification; being conformed to the image of Christ and glorified when we die or when He returns. ( I John 3:2-3)
BJ -- You are welcome!
Correction:
I should have written that the only basis or ground of justification is the perfect righteousness of Christ, imputed to us by faith alone; faith, trusting, receiving Christ as the only instrument or means or manner or channel by which that perfect righteousness of Chris is imputed to us.
BJ
Your comment that we cannot do anything but sin is not Catholic theology. There is sin, there is naturally good works and there are supernaturally good works. The first of these displeases God, the second does not displease Him but apart from grace they dont become supernaturally pleasing.
My justification article on my homepage goes into this a bit better.
Also, I dont think you understood my question. The idea that a Christian could fail to be saved is unthinkable in the Calvinist system...but if free will exists with that Christian then it is possible to fall away (cf Heb 10:26-29).
The fact we see Christians turning to lives of sin in the New Testament clearly proves they have free will.
BJ and Ken,
Thanks for your responses. First, I'm going to say that I am still extremely busy in my schedule (Ken knows I used to comment here regularly, but as late, have only written infrequently). So I may be unable to see this through to the end. If that is the case, please be assured that it is due to constraints of time and not because of a desire to disengage. I will read your responses even if I am unable to come up with the time to answer them.
Ken said (6.4.07) you accept Geisler's statement that imputed righteousness or forensic justification was "scarcely" taught after the apostles to the Reformation (p. 502, Agreements and Disagreements); even though Geisler himself believes that imputed justification is true and Biblical. Then you went on to defend Geisler. From my vantage point, it appears that on 5.1.08 you are now claiming infused righteousness. I dare say that your own words, less than a year apart, show your movement toward the Catholic position, contrary to your claim that we are coming to your understanding.
BJ, I do not know you (but have read several things you have written here and at other locations - thank you for the honest attempt to understand with the RCC position rather than a straw man). If I have made the error of a hasty generalization and applied something to you which should not be applied, I offer my sincere apology.
I understand Protestants to believe in imputed, not infused righteousness. This comes from comments such as Geisler along with folks like Ken echoing them. Under this thought process, it is claimed that when God looks at Christians, he sees the righteousness of His Son covering or masking our unrighteousness. The way it is described, we retain this unrighteousness. If this is the case, then where is the "new creation in Christ?" Catholics believe, as you have described above, that if God makes us righteous through His Son, then we are truly righteous - a changed being or new creation. Since you say that you agree with the Catholic Church on at least this one point, I will take your word for it and rejoice that we are closer in thought than I had originally believed.
One last note on the concept of imputed righteousness. It seems to me that this idea is a corallary or reflection of the concept of penal substitution. Under penal substitution, Jesus was not sinful, but was imputed with the sins of mankind. Under imputed righteousness, we are not truly righteous (even as Christians), but are imputed with Christ's righteousness. So it seems natural to me that this concept would be broadly accepted in Protestant circles while being rejected in Catholic thought.
Thank you for your time.
In His Name,
Ken,
I wrote the above before I read your correction where you seem to go back to imputation rather than infusion. I don't really see exactly which part of the post you are correcting. I can see one case where you would be claiming both imputation and infusion at the same time. Color me confused at your own personal thoughts.
Nick,
Your comment that we cannot do anything but sin is not Catholic theology.
I know that. One of the reasons I'm not Catholic 
here is sin, there is naturally good works and there are supernaturally good works.
This seems to fall into the arbitrary distinctions Dave talked about. Where is the difference between natural and supernatural works spelled out in Scripture?
The idea that a Christian could fail to be saved is unthinkable in the Calvinist system...but if free will exists with that Christian then it is possible to fall away (cf Heb 10:26-29).
First, one can be a "Christian" and not be justified or saved. This is the parable of the good seed and the weeds (Matt. 13:24-30). Calvinists do not deny this.
Second, 1 John 2:18-19 shows that people who depart from the truth faith never had it to begin with.
Third, where in the Hebrews passage does it call the people described there as true Christians, believers, justified ones, or saved?
Fourth, the fact that Jesus says in John 10:28-29, and Paul says in Rom 8:37-39, nothing can remove "us" from God's hand or love. The "us" is clearly the true saints (Rom. 1:7). Nothing means nothing, as Paul's "hyperbole" indicates.
I know the common argument is that nothing external can remove us from God's hand, but we can decide to remove ourselves. That would have to be supported from something else, because it's not obvious in the texts I cited. Plus, Jesus explicitly states, "I give them eternal life, and they will never perish." Once the gift has been given, it will not be taken away.
Thus, while we do retain aspects of free will both before and after our justification, it is not completely "free" in the sense that we can do anything. There are clear bounds to our will (I can't fly for instance), and losing one's salvation once it has truly been given is one of those bounds.
Once God has given life to a believer, He will not then take it away. "He who began a good work in you, will be faithful to complete it" (Phil 1:6). If one could truly be justified one day and then not justified the next, then it is clear that the Spirit did not finish the work once begun.
This has been written about extensively by Calvinists, and I'm sure a quick google search or visit to Monergism.com will give you some good resources.
Jonathan, Thomas Boston, the great Scottish Puritan, worked on the four-fold state of man, as well. Many Reformed thinkers follow suit. I'm not fluent enough in Augustine's work to address his works, nor I do have the time presently to do the research. Feel free to address this again in a month's time. I should be freer then (no pun intended).
Our wants are not "at the bottom root tainted by sin," nor could they be, because God is the author of our nature, even fallen nature.
I think this proves too much. Since we are born with Original Sin, are you putting the b
To keep it simple:
imputed righteousness has to do with justification
infused righteousness has to do with sanctification
They are linked in that sanctification is the process which confirms, manifests, works out, proves that there was real saving faith in the first place. This is what James 2:14-26 means, it means that good works prove or vindicate the claim of faith; the profession of faith.
the ground of our justification is when Christ's perfection (righteousness) is accounted to us
through
the instrumentality/means/manner/channel that is our responsibility of faith/repentance.
I hope that clears it up better.
Got to go for a while. Busy
Ken,
I understand being busy (as I've used that same reason for going on a year now!)
Thank you for keeping it simple.
I shall try to be equally simple and shall attempt to use your own terms (as you full know that we don't break up Justification into the justification-sanctification-glorification parts that you do).
The original audience of the NT epistles may have been justified, but they were not yet sanctified (even if somewhere along the process) and they were not glorified. Since imputation is a covering up and not a change, the justified - those who are told they are "new creations" - could not be new creations yet. Imputation is still wrong.
I will be on the road in the coming weeks - to include Pentecost. I wish you a blessed day both today and then.
Plus, Jesus explicitly states, "I give them eternal life, and they will never perish."
And so they won't, but you're forgetting that most of Jesus's statements in this context were in response to people who denied that He had the power to resurrect people bodily and to save them from death. He is simply affirming that He has the power to resurrect them bodily, which He certainly does, and that there is no greater power that can prevent him from fulfilling this promise.
In that respect, it is absolutely true that there is no power who can snatch anyone from the power of God; He will resurrect all of creation. But God retains His freedom to deal with individuals as He will. He hasn't promised that He won't resurrect individuals to the resurrection of condemnation.
There's a tendency to equate "eternal life" with "eternal salvation" (they aren't the same thing) and being "raised up at the last day" (which is not the same thing as either one of those). It's entirely true that they are currently given eternal life (zoe aionios), the state of living in Christ, but that can be lost. It's also true that they won't be destroyed; they can be confident that they will be bodily resurrected on the last day. But whether they are resurrected to the resurrection of glorification or the resurrection of condemnation depends on whether they remain in Christ.
Once God has given life to a believer, He will not then take it away. "He who began a good work in you, will be faithful to complete it" (Phil 1:6). If one could truly be justified one day and then not justified the next, then it is clear that the Spirit did not finish the work once begun.
And it is also clear that it wasn't the Spirit's infidelity that caused it. The Spirit was faithful to continuing the work, but the person who denies Him wasn't. Since the Spirit has no obligation to continue the work in a person who breaches the faith, this isn't a case of the Spirit failing to be faithful to complete the work.
These are typical examples of God being read to have promised something that He never actually promised. To paraphrase a jurist's remark on the Constitution, the Bible is not a suicide pact. God has never promised unconditionally that He will save anyone; He has only promised that He has the power and the faithfulness to save those who are faithful to Him.
Follow up to Jonathan’s comments.
“For the doing of good works can secure the enjoyment of eternal life.”
– St. John Chrysostom , Homily 18 on First Timothy http://www.newadvent.org/fathers...hers/
230618.htm
“However, my very dear friends, I can hear the apostle himself confessing that he had not yet arrived at such a perfection of justice as we believe the angels enjoy; the angels whom we are looking forward to being the equals of, if we finally reach what we desire. What else, after all, is the Lord promising us in the resurrection, when he says, In the resurrection of the dead they do not marry either husbands or wives; for they are not going to die any more, but will be equal to the angels of God.” (Lk 20:35-36).
- Augustine, sermon 154:3:2. “ON THE WORDS OF THE APOSTLE, ROMANS 7:14-25: WE KNOW THAT THE LAW IS SPIRITUAL; BUT I AM OF THE FLESH, ETC.; AGAINST THE PELAGIANS WHO SAY THAT ONE CAN BE WITHOUT SIN IN THIS LIFE: PREACHED AT THE SHRINE OF THE HOLY MARTYR CYPRIAN”
“And in this warfare [against lust and covetousness] consists the whole life of holy people. Now what am I to say about the impure, who don't even put up a fight? They are subjugated and dragged around; no, they are not even dragged around, because they follow willingly of their own accord. This, I repeat, is the battle of the saints; and in this warfare you are always at risk, until you die.”
– Augustine, sermon 151:7:2. “ON THE WORDS OF THE APOSTLE, ROMANS 7:15-25: FOR IT IS NOT THE GOOD I WANT TO THAT I DO, BUT THE EVIL I DO NOT WANT TO, THAT IS WHAT I DO, ETC.”
“Wipe out your sins by daily good works….Don’t shrug your tiny sins aside, or they may form a heap and crush you.” – Augustine, sermon 77B:7:1 http://thumbsnap.com/v/HW07cO3o.jpg
Here is a good sermon by John Piper on sanctification /walking by the Spirit and he mentions Phil. 2:12-13 towards the end of the message.
To get the full Protestant approach, one should listen to all of these sermons on Galatians and you can see that we do not completely separate justification from sanctification; but they are distinquished as point in time vs. process; and the promise of assurance (I John 5:13, Phil. 1:6; John 10:27-30, Romans 8:28-39, etc.) help us grow more holy and so confirm that justification was a reality.
http://www.desiringgod.org/Resou..._by_the_Spirit/
Jonathan,
First, sorry for the lack of response. I had an exam to study for and several other things going on here. I think I have a bit more time to discuss this now, if you're still interested.
And so they won't, but you're forgetting that most of Jesus's statements in this context were in response to people who denied that He had the power to resurrect people bodily and to save them from death. He is simply affirming that He has the power to resurrect them bodily, which He certainly does, and that there is no greater power that can prevent him from fulfilling this promise.
You are right that this is true in many instances. However, it is not the case in John 10:28-29. This was his response to the Jews asking Him if He was the Messiah. There is nothing in this context about the bodily resurrection.
There's a tendency to equate "eternal life" with "eternal salvation" (they aren't the same thing) and being "raised up at the last day" (which is not the same thing as either one of those). It's entirely true that they are currently given eternal life (zoe aionios), the state of living in Christ, but that can be lost. It's also true that they won't be destroyed; they can be confident that they will be bodily resurrected on the last day. But whether they are resurrected to the resurrection of glorification or the resurrection of condemnation depends on whether they remain in Christ.
Are you saying that zoe aionios means just a bodily resurrection? If so, can you support this with something? I don't buy this at all.
Was the rich young man simply asking about a bodily resurrection in Matt. 19:16? Did Jesus mean that only the righteous will be bodily resurrected in Matt 25:46? Is Jesus teaching that He came only to give a bodily resurrection in John 3? What about Jesus' teaching on zoe aionios in John 6?
Your definition doesn't fit these contexts, but if "Eternal Life" means eternal salvation, then these make sense. Please clarify or support your definition.
Also, if "eternal life" can be lost, then how was it eternal to start with? That makes no sense.
The Spirit was faithful to continuing the work, but the person who denies Him wasn't. Since the Spirit has no obligation to continue the work in a person who breaches the faith, this isn't a case of the Spirit failing to be faithful to complete the work.
I understand what you're saying, but if the Spirit has begun the work, and the work is not finished, then the Spirit would not have finished His work. It looks to me like Phil 1:6 would then mean nothing. There are no caveats or nuances in the text. How do you support that Paul allows for the exception that you suggest? It's just not there, that I can tell.
These are typical examples of God being read to have promised something that He never actually promised.
So show me how these texts don't promise what they appear to be pr
Are you saying that zoe aionios means just a bodily resurrection? If so, can you support this with something? I don't buy this at all.
Quite the opposite. It is a present living of one's life in Christ, sharing Christ's own eternal life, which produces the resurrection of glorification at the end of time IF one still has eternal life. The same eternal life produces the effect of being resurrected to glorification, but this does not imply that eternal life is the same as its effect.
Was the rich young man simply asking about a bodily resurrection in Matt. 19:16?
...
Did Jesus mean that only the righteous will be bodily resurrected in Matt 25:46?
You're assuming that Matthew has the same technical, philosophical usage as John, which fits with John's emphasis on realized eschatology. This is not the case. Matthew is simply speaking of the resurrection of glorification at the last judgment.
Is Jesus teaching that He came only to give a bodily resurrection in John 3?
No, He's saying He came to give the changed state of life that will, if one persists to the end, result in being resurrected to the resurrection of glory.
What about Jesus' teaching on zoe aionios in John 6?
John 6:54 is an excellent example of exactly what I mean (cf. John 10). Jesus isn't just being redunant; He is affirming both that He has the power to give eternal life now (pointedly, through the Sacraments) and that He has the power to resurrect people bodily. It's the same pairing made in John 6:36-40. In explaining the reason for faithfulness to those who come to Him (John 6:37), Jesus first affirms His mission to raise up ALL that the Father has given Him (and this is all of creation, John 6:38-39) and then points out that He thus has the power to both give eternal life and resurrect them bodily at the last day (John 6:40).
Your definition doesn't fit these contexts, but if "Eternal Life" means eternal salvation, then these make sense. Please clarify or support your definition.
Done. I hope that clears up the misunderstanding.
Also, if "eternal life" can be lost, then how was it eternal to start with? That makes no sense.
"Eternal" means that it is the eternal divine life of the Son. It isn't eternal with respect to us because we don't have it by nature. We only share in the life of the Son.
I understand what you're saying, but if the Spirit has begun the work, and the work is not finished, then the Spirit would not have finished His work. It looks to me like Phil 1:6 would then mean nothing.
With all due respect, that's your problem. Paul's point is to say the Spirit won't let the faithful down. That would, presumably, be a source of hope to those who might think that they could persist in faith and nonetheless be abandoned by God. Paul is denying that this will be the case; the Spirit will never abandon the faithful.
There are no caveats or nuances in the text. How do you support that Paul allows for the exception that you suggest? It's just not there, that I can tell.
There doesn't need to be an exception to the point Paul is making, which is that if one is faithful, the Spirit also will be faithful. Paul explains the reason for what he is saying in Php. 1:7 "It is right for me to feel thus about you all, because I hold you in my heart, for you are all partakers with me of grace, both in my imprisonment and in the defense and confirmation of the gospel." He is sure that the Spirit will not abandon them because they continue to be faithful. If the condition were not present, then by contraposition, then implication would be that Paul was NOT right to think the Spirit was working in them. In context, the text just isn't making the promise you think it is. It simply promises to faithful people that the Spirit will be faithful to them.
In neither case was God making the promise you thought He was. You read that promise into the text, but it was neither stated nor implied. In Phillippians particularly, given the logical implication of Php. 1:7, it is expressly contradicted by Paul.
P.S., for an extended meditation on John's concept of "eternal life" that I have outlined (which, again, is particular to John), see 1 John:
1 John 1:1-3 "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon and touched with our hands, concerning the word of life -- the life was made manifest, and we saw it, and testify to it, and proclaim to you the eternal life which was with the Father and was made manifest to us -- that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you may have fellowship with us; and our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ."
2:25 "And this is what he has promised us, eternal life."
3:14-15 "We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brethren. He who does not love abides in death. Any one who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him."
5:11-13 "And this is the testimony, that God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He who has the Son has life; he who has not the Son of God has not life. I write this to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life."
5:17-20 "All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal. We know that any one born of God does not sin, but He who was born of God keeps him, and the evil one does not touch him. We know that we are of God, and the whole world is in the power of the evil one. And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, to know him who is true; and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life."
That's the context of 1 John 2:19 "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out, that it might be plain that they all are not of us." It doesn't say that the people in question were NEVER reborn, but that they were not now in the state of rebirth. They had repudiated their baptismal calling and their state of eternal life. They were no longer in the Christian state of life.
". . . I never knew you . . . "
Matthew 7:23
"Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire."
Matthew 7:19
". . . I never knew you . . . "
Matthew 7:23
That's a hyperbolic rhetorical expression, just like many others in Matthew. It is meant to emphasize the degree of alienation, not to provide a chronological history of salvation.
"Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire."
Matthew 7:19
You're right about this being an excellent prooftext for Dave's position.
No. Jesus never knew Judas in a saving relationship -- John 13:10-11
Judas was not clean on the inside, although he "hung around" Jesus and the other disciples.
John 15:3 -- True disciples are cleansed, by the word, and by faith (Acts 15:9); but Judas was a false branch with no fruit, and was eventually cut off and thrown into the fire. ( John 15:2, 6)
He said, "Lord, Lord" and he even did miracles in Jesus name; but he never knew the Lord in a spiritual relationship.
Externals vs. internals. Internals is more important and the external fruit and good works prove that saving faith relationship was there at the time of justification by faith alone. James 2:14-26 is fully consistent with this.
Hey Jonathan,
Sorry for the long delay. I've had family in town and not much time for blogging. Hopefully, I can respond more swiftly in this next round.
Quite the opposite. It is a present living of one's life in Christ, sharing Christ's own eternal life, which produces the resurrection of glorification at the end of time IF one still has eternal life. The same eternal life produces the effect of being resurrected to glorification, but this does not imply that eternal life is the same as its effect.
...
You're assuming that Matthew has the same technical, philosophical usage as John, which fits with John's emphasis on realized eschatology. This is not the case. Matthew is simply speaking of the resurrection of glorification at the last judgment.
You have provided no support for these statements. You are changing the definition of 'eternal' radically and are providing no support. How do you know that's what these terms mean? I will be happy to provide lexical definitions from BDAG later this afternoon, if you so desire. I do not think your definitions hold water.
I also don't buy your exegesis of John 6:36-40. "All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out" (6:37). If "all that the Father gives to me" equals "all of creation" then all of creation will never be cast out, and will enter Heaven. This makes no sense. This seems more likely to be a select group of people, not all of creation, for Jesus will one day cast out some into Hell. Catholics certainly don't deny that.
I think your discussion of Philippians 1:6 is far stronger than your discussion of zoe aionios. I think you make excellent points there. However, 1:7 refers back to 1:3-5 no 1:6. Philippians 1:6 presents no feelings about the Philippians. In 1:3-5, Paul states his thanksgiving for the Philippians for their partnership in the Gospel. They have been faithful to the work from the beginning until now. The Paul makes a parenthetical saying the Spirit will be faithful to complete the work at the day of Christ Jesus. In verse 7, Paul continues his praise of the Philippians' faithfulness. Thus, verse 7 does not carry on the thought of verse 6, but rather of verses 3-5. I think this is significant for your argument.
I also think that the reference to the "Day of Jesus Christ" is significant. What does this mean in your interpretation? This appears to be Judgment Day from the way I see (open to correction here). If so, then Paul has added a further detail about the Spirit's faithfulness, namely that it will continue to Judgment Day. How can the Spirit be faithful to complete His work in the lives of these believers until the day of Jesus Christ, if this people fall away? That work would neither be completed nor lasting until that day.
I really appreciate the references from 1 John. However, I'd like to see some of your commentary there, because n
Apparently the end of my comment was cut. Here is what I was saying:
I really appreciate the references from 1 John. However, I'd like to see some of your commentary there, because nothing what you've given contradicts what I believe. I agree with you that eternal life does not begin at death or in Heaven. All true believers (the wheat, not the weeds) have eternal life now. This will be completed and perfected in Heaven, but eternal life does not begin then.
Thank you for the discussion. While I certainly don't buy what you're selling, you are making me think, and for that I am grateful. You also seem to be quite intelligent and providing interpretations which are new to me. This is fun to wrestle through.
Blessings in Christ,
BJ
Stupid Scholar
Daily Bible Reflections
You have provided no support for these statements. You are changing the definition of 'eternal' radically and are providing no support. How do you know that's what these terms mean? I will be happy to provide lexical definitions from BDAG later this afternoon, if you so desire. I do not think your definitions hold water.
That might be helpful, because it isn't clear to me that "eternal" is the first or even most obvious translation of aionios. It seems to mean literally "of the (coming) age," and that suggests to me a different mode rather than conveying a sense of permanent possession. And it seems relatively clear to me that Matthew speaks of this exclusively in terms of that actual age to come, suggesting a temporal connotation, while John speaks of a present possession, which seems consistent with a modal interpretation of the term. To put it another way, I'm not sure why you say that I am changing the definition of "eternal" radically when the sense of "eternal" conveyed by aionios seems more appropriate to what I am advocating.
I also don't buy your exegesis of John 6:36-40. "All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out" (6:37). If "all that the Father gives to me" equals "all of creation" then all of creation will never be cast out, and will enter Heaven. This makes no sense. This seems more likely to be a select group of people, not all of creation, for Jesus will one day cast out some into Hell. Catholics certainly don't deny that.
No, what I deny is that 6:39 and 6:37/40 are talking about the same thing. I don't think that this is mere repetition; I think 6:39 and 6:40 are two conceptually separate statements about the will of the Father in support of the same proposition (viz., the power of Jesus both to resurrect and to give eternal bliss to those who believe in Him). Collapsing those concepts seems at least unwarranted; I doubt this is mere repetition.
However, 1:7 refers back to 1:3-5 no 1:6. Philippians 1:6 presents no feelings about the Philippians. In 1:3-5, Paul states his thanksgiving for the Philippians for their partnership in the Gospel. They have been faithful to the work from the beginning until now. The Paul makes a parenthetical saying the Spirit will be faithful to complete the work at the day of Christ Jesus. In verse 7, Paul continues his praise of the Philippians' faithfulness. Thus, verse 7 does not carry on the thought of verse 6, but rather of verses 3-5. I think this is significant for your argument.
Yes, it is significant, and I find the notion that v. 6 is a parenthetical comment unconvincing. What surprises me is that you seem reluctant to accept that Jn. 6:39 reflects a separate concept in the middle of John 6:37-40 (even though it would be sheer repetition otherwise), but you are willing to take Php. 1:6 as a kind of throwaway digression in the middle of Php. 1:3-7. It seems to contr
(cont.) It seems to contradict the relatively explicit linkage in Php. 1:7 to 1:6 indicating that 1:6 refers to the way Paul is thinking about the Phillipians, with 1:7 somewhat woodenly translated as "it is right for me to feel this of you" (touto phronein hyper panton humon).
To summarize, I am not convinced either that John 6:39 is simply a repetition of the concepts in John 6:37/40, nor am I convinced that Php. 1:6 is not directly linked to Php. 1:7.
Hey Jonathan,
We might be at an impasse with Philippians. In your view, what is it that Paul "feels" about the Philippians (1:7) that is described in 1:6? 'Parenthetical' might be a bit strong; I don't deny that 1:6 and 1:7 are related, but my point was that 1:6 is about the Spirit, not about the Philippians. Thus, 1:7 does not refer to a feeling about the Philippians in 1:6, since they have not been described since 1:5. Perhaps you are seeing something that I am missing.
Here is the definition from BDAG of aionios:
1. pert. to a long period of time, long ago.
2. pert. to a period of time without beginning or end, eternal.
3. pert. to a period of unending duration, without end.
It lists John 6:27, 40, 47, 54, and 68 under the last definition. It offers no other possible definitions. These are listed, along with many other verses, for eternal life within the reign of God. For reference purposes: Danker, Frederick W., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. This is the standard scholarly lexicon of NT Greek.
I hope that is helpful.
Peace,
BJ
Stupid Scholar
Daily Bible Reflections
...but my point was that 1:6 is about the Spirit, not about the Philippians. Thus, 1:7 does not refer to a feeling about the Philippians in 1:6, since they have not been described since 1:5. Perhaps you are seeing something that I am missing.
That could be, or maybe I just haven't made myself clear. What I meant was that Php. 1:6 refers to what Paul believes about the work of the Spirit in the Phillippians in particular, and then he explains why he is justified in reaching that conclusion for the Phillippians. It doesn't appear that Paul is claiming either some sort of infallible knowledge or reasoning based on some general premise as to how the Spirit works in Christians to ensure that they will remain faithful. Rather, he is simply saying that they have been faithful, and he has every reason to think that they will remain faithful.
All I'm saying is that it is unwarranted to make the statement into anything more than that Paul thinks that these particular people will persevere to the end based on what he has seen of them. To say more than that seems to contradict his exhortations later in the letter. See, e.g., Php. 2:14-16 "Do all things without grumbling or questioning, that you may be blameless and innocent, children of God without blemish in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom you shine as lights in the world, holding fast the word of life, so that in the day of Christ I may be proud that I did not run in vain or labor in vain."
These are listed, along with many other verses, for eternal life within the reign of God.
And I don't dispute those. The question is "in what sense does the zoe pertain to this age/aeon?" I am arguing that it is participation in the same spiritual mode of life that will be had in this case.
It isn't the present possession that pertains to the age to come (viz., we don't now have eternal life in the same manner that we will have). Rather, what we have now is the same type of spiritual life that we will have in Heaven. It really is living in Christ now; we really do sit with God in the heavenly places now (Eph. 2:6), and our lives are now hid with Christ in God (Col. 3:3). So we really are living "eternally" right now, in that we have a present participation in the life of Heaven. To the extent we live in this way, we are already living the eternal life of Heaven. And that's what John is saying; he is writing to say that we are living this way even now. We have eternal life. Whether we keep it is a different matter.
Jonathan,
Rather, he is simply saying that they have been faithful, and he has every reason to think that they will remain faithful.
I agree with what you say before this. But 1:6 does not say what I have highlighted. Rather, it says that the Spirit is faithful. There is a promise given about the on going work of the Spirit. Paul says that the Spirit will complete the work He began. Again, I ask, how can the Spirit be said to complete a work, if there is the possibility it won't be finished? That doesn't make sense.
Perhaps, it might be helpful to define what we're talking about with the Spirit's work here. We may just simply be passing by each other. I see it as the sanctifying work of the Spirit. These Christians have been justified, and the Spirit is making them more and more holy. He will thus continue this work until its completion.
As far as Philippians 2 goes, there is no reason why Paul can't exhort these people to maintain peace and obedience within their midst. They aren't perfect, even if the Spirit is working within and among them. No one claims otherwise.
The question is "in what sense does the zoe pertain to this age/aeon?"
Actually, the question was what does aionios mean, and I have shown that it means eternal, which you don't seem to deny.
So we really are living "eternally" right now, in that we have a present participation in the life of Heaven.
I agree with you here. As I said previously, our eternal life exists now, and it will be perfected in Heaven. No problems at all.
We have eternal life. Whether we keep it is a different matter.
This is where I disagree. Again, we've defined eternal as, "Pertaining to a period of unending duration, without end." How can this life be unending and yet end? If it does not have an unending duration, then by definition, it is no longer eternal. Something that is temporary cannot be called eternal. Jesus' words would make no sense. This is why I said earlier that you redefined terms. Am I making sense here?
Peace,
BJ
Again, I ask, how can the Spirit be said to complete a work, if there is the possibility it won't be finished? That doesn't make sense.
But Paul doesn't say that the Spirit will complete the work. He says that he is sure that the Spirit will complete the work, and he explains why he is sure. It's a statement of Paul's personal belief about the Phillippians and what he expects the Spirit will do based on the sorts of people they are. If they are proved not to be those sorts of people, then Paul does not say that he can't be wrong. There's no question of inerrancy, because Paul is simply reporting on the state of his own belief. He is accurately stating what he thinks, but there is no assertion here that what he thinks is necessarily true. You seem to be interpreting Paul as promising that the Spirit will save them, but he is simply stating his opinion that the Spirit will save them based on their characteristic behavior.
I see it as the sanctifying work of the Spirit.
I doubt that, particularly given the implication in Php. 1:14-16 that if they fail, Paul's hope will have been in vain.
Actually, the question was what does aionios mean, and I have shown that it means eternal, which you don't seem to deny.
No, it means "pertaining to an eternal age" in this context. It's an open question as to how this life presently possessed relates to that age. My argument would be that it aionios is used to signify that it is the life of the ever-living God. Only God's life is eternal in this way, without beginning or end, so John is basically saying that we presently possess a share in God's own life. A good translation of the concept of zoe aionios that I have in mind would be "divine life." Matthew has in mind the life of an age that begins at some time and never ends; John has in mind an age with neither beginning nor end.
How can this life be unending and yet end?
Because it doesn't end in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; God has it eternally in Heaven (i.e., in an eternal age) by virtue of His divine nature in three persons. It ends in us if we cease to be in Christ, but that in no way suggests that Christ's life comes to an end, only our share in it.
I think you're confused about grace and nature. Eternal life is possessed by Christ naturally, so that is why His life is eternal, while we possess eternal life by grace alone. In fact, "eternal life" as used in John and "sanctifying grace" as used in Catholic theology refer to the same theological concept. What Christ promises is that He will share His divine immortality with us (partakers of the divine nature, as in 2 Pet. 1:4).
To put it another way, your own interpretation does not make sense of "eternal," because if we presently have eternal life, then why do we die? Why does John say we have eternal life now, rather than simply a promise of eternal life? The reason he doesn't
(cont.)
To put it another way, your own interpretation does not make sense of "eternal," because if we presently have eternal life, then why do we die? Why does John say we have eternal life now, rather than simply a promise of eternal life? The reason he doesn't say this is because he doesn't mean a mere promise of eternal life. He means that we actually, literally, have a divine life as Christians in the here and now. We are partakers of the divine nature; we are actually in Christ at present.
I don't see how your view can account for the present possession of eternal life, rather than a promise of eternal life. But John doesn't say that his audience has a promise of eternal life now. He says they have eternal life. If the suggestion is that spiritual regeneration has created that mode of life, the question then becomes "in what sense is it eternal now?" It would seem that you would have at least as much difficulty answering that question.
P.S., BJ
Another passage that might be helpful is John 5
[19]
Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing; for whatever he does, that the Son does likewise.
[20] For the Father loves the Son, and shows him all that he himself is doing; and greater works than these will he show him, that you may marvel.
[21] For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will.
[22] The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son,
[23] that all may honor the Son, even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him.
[24] Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears my word and believes him who sent me, has eternal life; he does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.
[25] "Truly, truly, I say to you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live.
[26] For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself,
[27] and has given him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of man.
[28] Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice
[29] and come forth, those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment.
[30] "I can do nothing on my own authority; as I hear, I judge; and my judgment is just, because I seek not my own will but the will of him who sent me.
It is that life that the Son is given in Himself that he gives to others that is the zoe aionios of which I am speaking.
Hey Jonathan,
Sorry again for the delay in response. I feel like we keep going around in circles here, and I'm sure we're not going to make much progress. Nevertheless, this has been interesting, and I've appreciated your thoughtful, cordial responses. Thanks for showing a heretic so much respect .
But Paul doesn't say that the Spirit will complete the work. He says that he is sure that the Spirit will complete the work, and he explains why he is sure.
This seems like splitting hairs. If the inspired writer is confident that 'x' will happen, why would we doubt that it will?
You seem to be interpreting Paul as promising that the Spirit will save them, but he is simply stating his opinion that the Spirit will save them based on their characteristic behavior.
Not exactly what I'm saying. I believe that the Spirit has started His work through justification and regeneration. I believe that this verse, along with others, shows that what the Spirit begins, He will finish. I see nothing here that even hints at the possibility that the Spirit will work for a while and then quit. There is no, 'if-then' clause. Paul could have said, "I am confident that the Spirit will complete His work, so long as you stay faithful." But he didn't.
Only God's life is eternal in this way, without beginning or end, so John is basically saying that we presently possess a share in God's own life. A good translation of the concept of zoe aionios that I have in mind would be "divine life." Matthew has in mind the life of an age that begins at some time and never ends; John has in mind an age with neither beginning nor end.
I think I need to clarify what it is that I mean. I don't think I've been very clear, and I apologize for that. I do not at all deny that 'eternal life' means participation in the divine life. I think that goes without saying. What I am saying is that this includes life without end. Eternal life does not equal never-ending life, but it includes it.
Therefore, if this life never ends - which is the definition of aionios - then it never ends. When one has eternal life, he or she will live forever. I don't see the possibility that one can be told that they will live forever and it not happen.
As far as why we die, this is still the effect of sin. There is eternal life and eternal death. We will never suffer the second. Thus, while our body dies, our soul doesn't. If we did not have eternal life now, then we would suffer eternal death. Plus, as Catholics believe, deceased Christians aren't dead. That's what I always hear when I ask about the saints' intercession.
Now, I know all of that is in the future, but again, I do believe that eternal life incorporates a lot more than just this future hope. By entering into eternal life at regeneration, we experience a lot of blessings from God now that will last for all eternity. Part of this is the fact
Now, I know all of that is in the future, but again, I do believe that eternal life incorporates a lot more than just this future hope. By entering into eternal life at regeneration, we experience a lot of blessings from God now that will last for all eternity. Part of this is the fact that our soul will live now, tomorrow, and forever. We aren't given a new soul that will never die. It is our present one that never will. Thus, even in that sense, we have eternal life right now. So I see no problem.
You say that eternal life doesn't end in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Well of course not. However, when someone is given eternal life, it can't end in them either. I still have not seen you show how it can. This is life is unending, and it is unending for God's children.
I feel like I understand what your definition of eternal life is, but I don't see why it excludes life that will literally never end.
So like I said, I think we keep rehashing the same arguments, and we're not convincing each other at all. Perhaps in the next round.
If you're tired of this, that's fine. If not, then I'll be glad to read whatever it is you write.
However, I have a question for you on a similar topic. How do you interpret 'predestined' in Ephesians 1:3-14? I've been wanting to ask a Catholic that for a while. Who is predestined, and what does that mean?
Thanks, Jonathan for the fun discussion. May God's blessings be upon you, both now and forever more!
BJ
Stupid Scholar
Daily Bible Reflections
Commenting by HaloScan
