[Actualist] I heard something about you this week on a web-board pascoe.
[pascoe] really? I feel famous.
[Nomos] wow, he's famous. Which board?
[Actualist] It was one of those James White boards.
[pascoe] ah. now I feel infamous then.
[Actualist] well, they have their place.
[Actualist] a small one mind you, but still somewhat useful on occasion
[pascoe] was it recent? I haven't been in contact with most of that group since I was permabanned.
[Actualist] i'm not sure how old the thread I was reading was.
[pascoe] I think James White is doing a great service in God's kingdom in most areas.
[pascoe] but we really do have differences of view concerning the nature of the covenant. basically, I'm not baptist.
[Actualist] I try to look at it that way too..
[Actualist] yeah, the thread was actually about hyper-covenantalism, so I guess its only natural your name would pop up :)
[pascoe] I guess that's better than being a hyper-conventalist.
[Actualist] :)
[Eskaton] what is the main disagreement?
[pascoe] Eskaton: in that context, the main disagreement was about whether the new covenant is like the old in respect to cursings, or whether the new covenant contains only blessings for its members.
[Actualist] its not very flattering..
[Eskaton] give me an example of cursings that you are referring to in the New Testament
[pascoe] baptists would deny that there are any cursings associated with membership in the new covenant. only the eternally individually elect can be members of the new covenant in their view. which causes no end of grief when trying to address passages that refer to branches being broken out and burned.
[Nomos] makes exegesis of apostasy in Hebrews a bit hokey
[Actualist] what does?
[pascoe] Nomos: and it makes all of Paul's warnings about apostasy into mere hypotheticals.
[pascoe] HEBREWS 10:29 How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace? -NASB
[pascoe] Eskaton: there is an example of a curse of the new covenant.
[Nomos] ]]heb 6 4 6
[pascoe] HEBREWS 6:4 For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, -NASB
[pascoe] HEBREWS 6:5 and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, -NASB
[pascoe] HEBREWS 6:6 and {then} have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God, and put Him to open shame. -NASB
[pascoe] JOHN 15:6 "If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch, and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned. -NASB
[Eskaton] many would say that is hypothetical example
[pascoe] there is another example of a curse of the new covenant.
[Nomos] hypothetical?
[Nomos] what does that mean?
[Eskaton] were they born again and have received eternal life and resurrected spiritually from the dead and were their names written in the Book of Life and then they fell away and then had their names sticken from the book of Life
[pascoe] Eskaton: the issue is not to attack the security of God's election. but to understand that God's absolute sovereignty operates at a level deeper than many have concluded. many speak of God's election and sovereignty only at the level of those who profess Christ, or repent of their sins, or enter the covenant union. but God's sovereignty and election operates beneath this. this is why Christ can speak of Judas as He does.
[Actualist] pascoe: but what does that *mean* exactly :) What does it entail, concretely?
[Eskaton] Did Christ Begin the work of Salvation in them but then Could not Complete that which He Started ?
[pascoe] God is not simply sovereign over those who profess Christ, or repent. God is also sovereign over those who apostatize and incur the curses of the new covenant. for example, Judas was an apostle. a chosen disciple. chosen by God. given to Christ the shepherd. and lost. how? "according to Scripture". God's sovereignty rests beneath it all.
[Actualist] pascoe: obviously. The sovereignty of God is not at issue.
[pascoe] Actualist: some define God's sovereignty only at the point of coming into the covenant.
[Actualist] eh?
[pascoe] Actualist: right. But some accuse the position of being an attack on God's sovereignty. to treat these Scriptural warnings about apostasy as anything other than "hypothetical" is perceived as an attack on God's sovereignty.
[pascoe] but God is sovereign over apostasy too.
[Actualist] pascoe: right. Which means we must give a different sense to either (a) what it means to "belong to Christ" or (b) what eternal security amounts to.
[pascoe] Actualist: exactly.
[Actualist] pascoe: The reformed have traditionally followed (a), rather than modified (b)
[pascoe] baptists have a very difficult time with option (a) because they define new covenant membership as "certain eternal glory for the individual considered". which means they have to deny apostasy is even possible once connected to the Vine. regardless of what John 15 says.
[Eskaton] mankind naturally is Cursed since he is born into sin and further covenant cursings is not needed unless the curses are used to discipline the believers
[Actualist] well, there are various ways to construe a "coventant" or its membership conditions.
[pascoe] but Judas belonged to Christ. was given to Christ by the Father. and apostatized, "according to Scripture".
[Eskaton] did not Christ become the Curse for us that we might become the Righteousnes of God IN HIM
[pascoe] Eskaton: did you miss the examples of covenant cursings I mentioned above?
[Actualist] pascoe: Well, are you denying what they are affirming?
[pascoe] Actualist: I deny that the new covenant is different than the old covenant in the sense they require it to be different. rather the new covenant is like the old covenant in regard to blessings and cursings (both are enhanced).
[Eskaton] was Judas given to Christ to receive redemption thru the Blood
[pascoe] Eskaton: Judas was given to Christ. was in the covenant, professed Christ, taught Christ, was an apostle of Christ. and apostatized. all within the sovereign control of God. "according to Scripture" it was so. but if we define such membership or try to split hairs to deny Judas as an apostle, we are simply trying to protect a notion that no one can apostatize from the new covenant, once _in_.
[Eskaton] the old was only a type until the True and New Covenant came which is the Covenant of His Shed Blood
[Eskaton] yes but even all Isreal was under the old covenant did not Mean that they would all partake of the New Covenant
[Eskaton] the Early church is an example of that
[Actualist] You haven't explained what you mean by covenant here. The use that baptists have for that term typically refers to the elect, considered as an aggregate.
[pascoe] Eskaton: exactly. but all of Israel's behavior is brought forward into the new covenant by Paul himself in his warnings to Christians.
[Actualist] pascoe: We can redefine the notion of "covenant" to suit our fancy. I think the big issue is what it means to those who think that people can be both (a) in the covenant, in a robust sense and (b) end up being condemned.
[pascoe] Actualist: that's part of the problem. what they mean by covenant is not what I mean, or, I would argue, what Scripture means. Their definition of covenant membership denies even the possibility of apostasy, which forces the concoction of new concepts to explain apostasy, such as "visible and invisible churches".
[Actualist] ok, that’s a start :)
[pascoe] Actualist: these qualifications were all raised prior to my permaban. but they can be subtle distinctions.
[Actualist] the visible/invisible distinction has a long heritage, particularly among reformed protestants.
[pascoe] Actualist: yes. the visible/invisible distinction is actually in WCF too.
[Eskaton] yes Paul was writing to Hebrew Christians that may have considered going back to the animal sacrifices and so he wrote what he did to say that all is vanity except Christ and Him being the Final Sacrifice and anything else considered would to trod under foot the Shed Blood of Christ
[pascoe] Eskaton: Paul was the apostle to the gentiles. I'm referring to his epistles to gentile churches.
[Actualist] well they can be subtle, no doubt. But are they substantial? I realize you're trying to make sense of scripture, but what does this alternative entail?
[pascoe] but it is an unscriptural way to resolve apostasy.
[Actualist] is it?
[pascoe] Actualist: yes.
[Actualist] What does it *mean* to say that those who have "tasted of the good fruit" who end up falling away? Do we need to think about election here, do we need to think that God has lead these people on in certain ways, and then abandoned them to their fate, or what?
[Eskaton] pascoe I didn't see you post any scriptures of Paul to the gentiles
[Eskaton] I only saw your post of the Hebrew verses
[pascoe] Eskaton: let me find one that I think is particularly relevant.
[Eskaton] did paul write hebrews :)
[pascoe] I think Paul most likely did. 8)
* Eskaton thinks so
[chalcedny] i don't
[pascoe] but I was actually thinking of a different letter. I'll try to find it.
[chalcedny] it's not the same voice
[pascoe] Paul is more of a tenor.
[pascoe] Hebrews is bass.
[Actualist] There are various ways to analyze apostasy as well. The most natural reading of those who ultimately fall away isn't that they are substantial "covenant members", who have tasted the affection that God has for the Son, but rather, that "they went out from us". I think this is quite in keeping with the traditional visible/invisible take on these matters.
[Eskaton] it sounds like Paul the Hebrew of Hebrews
[Eskaton] Pharisee of Pharisees
[Actualist] But at least with the traditional view, we have a pretty good idea what it means, and what it entails. Some of these newer covenant ideas seem to do justice to the letter of scripture only by then retreating to obscurity.
[pascoe] Actualist: right. one resolution of apostasy warnings is to deny that any apostate was an actual/"substantial" member of the covenant. which is basically to argue, "sure he was unfaithful to his wife, but at least he wasn't really married to her". this line of reasoning is absurd. the reason his unfaithfulness is so offensives is *because* he *is* in covenant union with her.
[pascoe] the covenant union is what makes the infidelity what it is. one can't be unfaithful to a wife that one is not really married to.
[pascoe] the reality of the covenant union can't be ignored.
[pascoe] Scripture plants itself firmly on the recognition of that covenant union.
[pascoe] HEBREWS 10:29 How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace? -NASB
[pascoe] "regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant" "by which he was sanctified".
[pascoe] this is covenant infidelity.
[Actualist] I don't think this "covenant" analogy with marriage should be pressed to far. It’s clear that not all instances of obligation and being 'bound by the law' are instances of the new covenant.
[pascoe] Actualist: Scripture uses it over and over and over and over and over and over.
[Actualist] the analogy? Sure it does. But then, it *is* an analogy.
[pascoe] Actualist: and a biblical one at that. why we would want to concoct visible and invisible brides of Christ is beyond me.
[pascoe] Christ has one bride in history, which He is sanctifying in history.
[pascoe] she has spots and wrinkles, not because she is visible and earthly, and will suddenly, one day, turn into the invisible and true bride. rather she has wrinkles because she is *early*. she will be the same visible bride of Christ on the last day, but she will have had all the corrupt and apostate branches removed, sanctification by Christ.
[Actualist] pascoe: Its important to understand the analogous language of scripture. Human marriage is a metaphor for the relation between Christ and his people. Christ doesn't have billions of wives, nor is he married to some single abstract property (or what Doug Wilson somewhat gracelessly calls an "omelet")
[pascoe] Actualist: marriage is not just a close metaphor that God picked because He thought we might understand it and relate to the concept from our experience. rather marriage is designed into creation as a picture of the reality of relationship with God.
[Actualist] Isn't that what I just said?
[Actualist] Human marriage is the derivative and analogous concept.
[Eskaton] pascoe you again quote Hebrews that knew what the old covenant sacrificial system was and also what the New Covenant Final Blood Sacrifice was and to now have this knowledge would be more severe to them even if they were not true Christians
[pascoe] Actualist: I thought you were warning us from making too much of marriage, since it is just a close approximation to what God really wants to communicate.
[pascoe] Eskaton: let me get that passage for you.
[Actualist] It’s not an 'approximation' (stretched out on some comparative continuum) it’s *analogy*.
[Actualist] It’s always interesting to see how Christians have handled this notion of Christ's "bride" in terms of their ontology.
[Eskaton] pascoe are you trying to prove that a Blood Bought and Spiritually Resurrected believer can lose his salvation
[pascoe] Eskaton: are those biblical terms or systematical concepts? I affirm election, if that's what you are asking. the number of the individually elect to glory is known by God and fixed. but this takes into account those who apostatize. like Judas, etc.
[pascoe] Actualist: my point is that we should not be trying to avoid the implications of marriage covenant precisely where Scripture uses it to make this very point about blessing and cursing in union with God.
[Actualist] pascoe: Are blessings and cursings "corporate" or individual on this reading?
[pascoe] Actualist: let me find this passage for Eskaton.
[pascoe] Eskaton: ok. I found it. first some background.
[Eskaton] hehe
[Eskaton] ok set me up
[pascoe] the issue is whether or not the old covenant is like the new covenant in respect to blessings and cursings.
[pascoe] the issue is whether Paul has any warrant to invoke the behavior of Israel, under the old covenant, as a warning to those who are in the new covenant.
[Eskaton] does the Scriptures say that Christ became the Curse for us that we might become the Righteousness of God in Him
[pascoe] Eskaton: let's stick to this first issue.
[pascoe] if the new covenant is not like the old covenant, then Paul has no such warrant. his audience may simply dismiss Paul and say, " but Paul, that was the old covenant, and we new covenant members are *in*. we don't need to hear these warnings about old covenant Israel".
[Eskaton] hearing to the warnings is one thing as an example
[pascoe] Eskaton: you mean hypothetical warning?
[Eskaton] no
[pascoe] Eskaton: again, the question is whether Paul can appeal to the old covenant as a basis for those under the new, precisely in this area.
[pascoe] in other words, can Paul connect the old and new covenants if we say that the new is not like the old precisely on the issue of apostasy?
[pascoe] anyway, let's look at the passage.
[pascoe] 1CORINTHIANS 10:1 For I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; -NASB
[pascoe] 1CORINTHIANS 10:2 and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea; -NASB
[pascoe] 1CORINTHIANS 10:3 and all ate the same spiritual food; -NASB
[pascoe] 1CORINTHIANS 10:4 and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock was Christ. -NASB
[pascoe] 1CORINTHIANS 10:5 Nevertheless, with most of them God was not well-pleased; for they were laid low in the wilderness. -NASB
[pascoe] 1CORINTHIANS 10:6 Now these things happened as examples for us, that we should not crave evil things, as they also craved. -NASB
[pascoe] notice the comparisons Paul is drawing between old and new covenants.
[Eskaton] yes and as I said they are for examples for us
[pascoe] the gentiles were boasting that they had a spiritual food, they had spiritual drink, they had a baptism. Paul says that Israel had all of these as well. they drank from Christ as well.
[Eskaton] paul constantly appeals to the New Creation man in the new testament
[pascoe] and what does Paul do with this example? after affirming the similarity of the old covenant with the new, he also brings in the same warnings against craving evil things. why? because the same consequences apply under the new covenant. the bodies of the apostate Israelites were scattered across the wilderness as a testimony.
[pascoe] Paul would have no basis or warrant, whatsoever, to bring in this old covenant example if no curses applied in the new covenant. the message is not to outsiders. it is to those who are in the new covenant. those who were boasting about having a spiritual food and spiritual drink with Christ.
[Eskaton] all those in the old covenant were not New Creatures in Christ with new natures and were not Born of God
[pascoe] Eskaton: did you miss what Paul is saying?
[Eskaton] curses on the Church
[Eskaton] curses on the Body OF Christ
[pascoe] again, these gentiles were boasting "but they didn't have Christ in the old covenant. we have spiritual food, they didn't. we have spiritual drink. they didn't"
[pascoe] what does Paul say?
[pascoe] Paul says "they drank from CHRIST!"
[pascoe] Eskaton: you are trying to make the very same distinction Paul says you cannot make. you are trying to say "but that was old covenant, they didn't have Christ, like us. they didn't have baptism. they didn't have spiritual food. they didn't have new creatures. etc. Paul says they had it all. they drank from CHRIST!
[Eskaton] did they have new natures such as the New Covenant Believers have and were they washed in the Blood of Christ under the old covenant
[pascoe] Eskaton: you are trying to make a distinction that Paul has just erased. they drank from Christ. they were baptized. they ate spiritual food.
[pascoe] Paul is equating the covenants precisely where you would differentiate them.
[Eskaton] you view old testament Israel as the same as the True Church
[pascoe] Eskaton: God identifies old testament Israel as His bride. just as in the new covenant.
[pascoe] the covenant people of God.
[pascoe] there is one olive tree of God.
[pascoe] Israel was broken out for unbelief. gentiles were grafted in. it is the same olive tree. God didn't plant a new one.
[Eskaton] Paul also said that not all or physical Israel is the True Israel of God
[Eskaton] but only those that Follow Christ
[pascoe] that was true in the old covenant as well.
[pascoe] that's why so many of Israel were scattered dead in the wilderness.
[pascoe] branches were broken out of the old covenant as well as in the new.
[pascoe] apostasy is real in the old covenant and in the new.
[pascoe] we cannot distinguish between covenants on this point.
[Eskaton] now I am referring to true Christians and not all that only attend churches but deny the faith by their actions and antibiblical beliefs
[pascoe] Eskaton: what is a true Christian then?
[pascoe] where is the term Christian used in Scripture?
[Eskaton] well Paul wrote to the Brethern
[Eskaton] dont' get picky over the word christian
[pascoe] it's used three times, and each time it is from the perspective of nonbelievers.
[Eskaton] trinity is not used either
[Eskaton] yet you believe in the Trinity
[pascoe] I'm not disputing *that* it is used, but *how*.
[Eskaton] hehe
[Eskaton] we are probably more in agreement than you think
[pascoe] Eskaton: I only mention it because we, even unconsciously, refer to "Christian" as, by definition, those who are actually in the number who will be individually eternally in glory.
[pascoe] so by this definition, we basically deny that anyone who apostatizes was even a "Christian" at all.
[pascoe] but a Christian is objective.
[pascoe] we do not have to go thru life guessing whether someone is a Christian or not. it is not a secret. one is a Christian who is baptized into Christ. just as we don't go thru life wondering whether we are really married to our wife. the covenant entry is objective. people were there. they took pictures.
[Eskaton] can an elect be apostate
[pascoe] Eskaton: biblically speaking, yes. systematically speaking, no. I agree with you that the elect (as defined in our systematics) means only those who ultimately see eternal glory. I affirm God is sovereign. the number of His redeemed is known and fixed. but the term election, as appearing biblically, is not defined this way.
[pascoe] the same with the term regenerate.
[pascoe] biblically, the elect are those who are in the covenant of election.
[Eskaton] well in your thinking can anyone know if they are In Christ
[Eskaton] it seems that there is no assurance of salvation with your view
[pascoe] the covenant is the place of the elect. all Israel is elect in this sense. they were chosen. but because Paul can write "to the elect" doesn't mean that Paul is saying each of them will see eternal glory. elect is covenant language.
[pascoe] Eskaton: great question.
[Eskaton] seems almost a hopelessness
[Eskaton] from your view
[pascoe] Eskaton: that you even ask this question means you are tracking so far.
[Eskaton] it is not a question as much as an observation of what you seem to follow in your theological world view
[pascoe] modern Christians, especially young ones, are very concerned with the question of their assurance. especially if they have really boring testimonies.
[Eskaton] hehe
[Eskaton] I think many are embellished
[pascoe] but our approach to this topic is traditionally to base assurance on a point-in-time conversion experience. such as being knocked blind on the road to Damascus. you can look back on this and find assurance that you are _in_.
[Actualist] Ic things have't gotten much clearer :)
[Eskaton] actually the boring ones are more amazing to me
[pascoe] or, lacking such a convulsive conversion experience, we describe salvation as a point-in-time event, whereby something was transferred from Christ's account into ours. and the transaction either took place or it didn't.
[Actualist] are you denying that as well?
[Eskaton] I think most would get saved if they were all like the apostle Paul
[Eskaton] well that is just what may be perceived
[Eskaton] the account was paid in full before the foundations of the world
[pascoe] the result of this kind of transaction thinking is that our assurance is found by looking back into the rearview mirror to identify when the transaction occurred which guaranteed our status. it diverts us away from thinking in terms of continued faithfulness. but biblically, our personal assurance is only found in the continuing fruit of obedience. fidelity. not working to maintain, but living obediently in faith.
[Actualist] why does it have to be one or the other?
[pascoe] we should not think that we have any assurance if our lives show no continuing fidelity.
[Eskaton] no one ever said one should feel secure without fidelity of faith and action
[pascoe] Actualist: these ideas have consequences. the consequence of thinking of salvation as a point-in-time transaction invites many to a false and unbiblical assurance, based on a point-in-time experience or event. none of which are ever given in Scripture as the basis for personal assurance.
[Actualist] pascoe: But justification is temporally indexed, according to the orthodox doctrine.
[pascoe] Eskaton: many have tried. and they reference a point-in-time experience or event, in which the 'transaction' took place.
[Actualist] And we believe that because we're aware of the consequences.
[pascoe] Actualist: you put your finger on another problem.
[pascoe] Actualist: when is justification temporally indexed in Scripture?
[Eskaton] the point in time thing only shows a beginning point to continue in Christ
[pascoe] Eskaton: but does the "point in time thing" mean that one is guaranteed to be in the number who see eternal glory? that was the question, if you recall.
[pascoe] Eskaton: so can the point in time thing give us any assurance, or not?
[Actualist] I don't have the verses handy, but I think I better dig them up for you. You've got me concerned for you now :)
[pascoe] Actualist: 8)
[Eskaton] pascoe many believe in the premill view but that does not change the reality of the truth of eschatology
* Actualist reaches for Buchanan
[pascoe] Eskaton: but does the "point in time thing" mean that one is guaranteed to be in the number who see eternal glory? that was the question, if you recall.
[Actualist] Pascoe: Have you studied any of the standard works on these doctrines?
[Eskaton] the point in time thing only gives you a starting point but assurance may take place due to the Witness of the Holy Spirit
[Actualist] pascoe: I mean, other than the bible :)
[pascoe] Eskaton: so you are saying that the "point in time thing" (pitt) is not a basis for assurance?
[Eskaton] or do you deny the actual reality of the true Working of Christ and the Holy Spirit in the believer
[pascoe] Actualist: I don't claim to be a scholar on the history of the systematics of justification.
[Eskaton] or is the work of Christ and the Holy Spirit just hypothetical
[pascoe] Eskaton: but does the "point in time thing" mean that one is guaranteed to be in the number who see eternal glory? that was the question, if you recall.
[pascoe] Eskaton: are you are saying that the "point in time thing" (pitt) is not a basis for assurance?
[Actualist] I'm just curious who you are familiar with, from the reformed side.
[Eskaton] pascoe hehe I think we all have seen many false starts
[pascoe] Actualist: assume I'm not familiar with any.
[pascoe] Eskaton: you aren't answering my question.
[Eskaton] I have never been hung-up on the point in time thing
[pascoe] Eskaton: I'm critiquing the "point in time thing" as the basis of personal assurance of salvation. and you seem to be agreeing with me that it is not the basis for assurance.
[Eskaton] of course not
[pascoe] Eskaton: if you agree that the "point in time thing" is not the basis for our personal assurance of salvation, great! we agree.
[pascoe] Eskaton: so then what is the basis for our personal assurance?
[Eskaton] there are many factors that bring true assurance
[pascoe] Eskaton: which one is the guarantee that we are in the number that will see eternal glory?
[pascoe] which factor is the one?
[Eskaton] the witness of the Word and of the Holy Spirit and your continuance of your walk and desires in pleasing the Father and your obedience to the Scriptures
[Actualist] You're questioning things I’ve taken to be so clear cut, for so long, that I just don't have the immediate biblical rebuttal in hand for you. I mean, who knows which precise verse of scripture speaks against bestiality? :)
[Eskaton] well I base my guarantee on Christ and His shed Blood and His offer of Salvation to those that believe and follow Him
[pascoe] Eskaton: amen. that's biblical. but I would submit that these are far too subjective for the modern Christian. we prefer to appeal to a "point in time" conversion experience. a temporally indexed justification, at which point we "got saved" and are guaranteed to be in.
[Actualist] ah wait, I think Berkhof has some verses for me...
[pascoe] Actualist: these things are all very new to me. I enjoy discussing them tho. they have stood up to my own critiques so far.
[pascoe] but I don't claim to be the best critic available.
[Actualist] pascoe: I think historical dogmatics stands rather strongly against these views, at least if they're interpreted in any interesting sense.
[Eskaton] and I do have a point in time for myself and I can pin it down over a period of time of about 1 year that I could look back and see the Work of the Holy Spirit in dragging me to Christ and repentance
[pascoe] Actualist: I hope that you would trust that my interest really is to find the best possible expression of what Scripture teaches.
[Eskaton] it was while reading the gospels that my mind was somewhat cleared where I acknowledged Christ as Savior and Lord
[pascoe] and then keep studying. 8)
[Actualist] pascoe: I take it that’s what historical theologians have been attempting as well. Hence, it’s usually wise to consult them on these matters.
[Eskaton] somewhere while out in the middle of the Pacific Ocean as a merchant marine engineer in 1970
[pascoe] Eskaton: I would just offer to you that most of modern Christianity bases its assurance on a "point in time" experience, contrary to the biblical basis for assurance, which is a life lived in continuing fidelity with God.
[Eskaton] and spent most of the voyage defending myself against the officers trying to talk me out of such foolishness of believing In the bible and Christ as Savior
[Eskaton] yes time usually tells you who continues in the faith
[Eskaton] I was 19 then
[Eskaton] and they gave me 6 months
[pascoe] Eskaton: most people are not interested in a "usually" criteria for assurance. they want a certificate of completion to hang on the wall, or put in the wallet.
[Eskaton] hehe really such as what
[pascoe] they want to declare that they are card carrying members of the elect. for which the biblical warnings about apostasy can be safely ignored.
[Eskaton] all my stock in assurance is in the scriptures
[Eskaton] guess I am not sure what a card carrying Christian is
[Eskaton] I never liked being a card carrier when in a union mechanical trade
[pascoe] Eskaton: I affirm that God has given us assurances of His purpose to save, and He swears by Himself concerning His purposes, because there is no greater name He can swear by. and I affirm that God also gives us personal assurances, but they are of the continuing sort, not the point in time sort.
[Eskaton] mostly because they are anti-biblical like most liberals
[Eskaton] it is easy when looking back mostly, to see the Hand of God's sovereignty
[Actualist] pascoe: In any case, it’s not difficult to find scriptural verses that index conversions to points in time, or verses that make use of tensed attitudes or judgments, or that God himself operates and makes judgments in time. If we're willing to take tensed language of scripture seriously, then it follows quite naturally that we're 'reckoned' righteous at particular points of time, or that God's attitudes to individuals changes over time.
[pascoe] Actualist: I can think of one example of a person who was actually said to have been converted at a point in time. it was Saul, in the old testament. I'm not aware of anyone else so named.
[Nomos] Saul of Tarsus?
[Eskaton] Paul
[Eskaton] I am sure he can point
[Eskaton] hehe Nomos
[pascoe] Eskaton: I mean specifically said to have converted.
[Eskaton] do you think Paul had assurance
[Actualist] pascoe: Well, justification is conditioned, both logically and temporally on the work of the holy spirit, and our attitude of faith. Obviously, these are temporal notions.
[pascoe] Actualist: do you identify justification with a conversion experience?
[Eskaton] I think on the day of Pentecost that most of them had a point of time reference of assurance
[Actualist] I don't *identify* them. Conversion and imputation are different concepts.
[Actualist] I do believe it is correct to correlate them in time, however.
[pascoe] Eskaton: but I thought you already agreed that such point in time conversion experiences were not a guarantee or basis of assurance.
[pascoe] Actualist: so you would not affirm that we were justified at the cross, for example?
[pascoe] or before the foundation of the world?
[Eskaton] true but there is many times a reference of time when one does acknowledge their following of Christ and Scripture
[Eskaton] it is only a point of beginning
[Eskaton] the continuing in Christ brings the assurance
[pascoe] Eskaton: but no point-in-time conversion experience is a guarantee of assurance that we are in the number who will be eternally glorified, right?
[Eskaton] hehe of course not
[pascoe] great, we agree.
[pascoe] Eskaton: I think Paul would agree as well, even with regard to himself.
[Eskaton] but many do have a point of repentance where they begin their walk as a believer
[pascoe] in terms of his assurance, that is. not in regard to the question of the number God ordains for redemption.
[Eskaton] I would rather say a Point of Repentance and not Point in time
[pascoe] Eskaton: right. I'm not questioning the reality of point in time conversions. but the question was about the basis of personal assurance. and we agree that point in time conversion is not the basis of such assurance.
[Actualist] pascoe: What sense are you giving the word "at", surely not a temporal one. A causal one would be appropriate. Similarly "before the foundation of the world". Of course, there's a metaphorical sense in which we might say that Jesus was slain before the foundation of the world, but most exegetes do not interpret that in an atemporalist sense.
[pascoe] Actualist: Christ's justifying death on the cross was temporally indexed, right?
[Eskaton] well at many BG Crusades all you have to do is sign the salvation card
[Actualist] Most of the minority of theologians who have held atemporalist views of justification (like Kuyper) do so for obscure reasons pertaining to a vague notion of God's timelessness.
[Actualist] pascoe: what are you asking?
[pascoe] but I'm affirming that Christ's justifying work on the cross was just as temporally indexed as any point-in-time conversion.
[Actualist] Christ’s death on the cross occurred at a point in time
[pascoe] I'm asking why we would biblically index our individual justification at a point-it-time conversion experience that we had.V
[pascoe] Actualist: do we look to the cross as the point-in-time of our justification?
[Actualist] pascoe: because the bible takes the notion of temporal tense for granted. It’s almost second nature to read tense into theology.
[Actualist] how can we, we didn't even exist?
[pascoe] Actualist: could you give an example, specifically with regard to justification?
[Actualist] of what?
[Eskaton] well Paul said plenty on the Predestination of a Believer which indicates justification of that individual before the foundations of the earth
[pascoe] Eskaton: yes, but I think Actualist was arguing that justification is temporally indexed at the point of our conversion, in our individual lifetime.
[Actualist] I don't believe in any sort of "timeless justification". Time is real.
[pascoe] Actualist: I'm looking for an example where the Bible takes for granted that justification is temporally indexed to our conversion experience in our lifetime.
[pascoe] Actualist: I'm just wondering why we would focus on one biblical temporal index of justification, when the cross is equally time-fixed as any individual conversion experience.
[Actualist] pascoe: Well, I don't know what you consider a relevant 'conversion experience'. Not everyone had a Damascus road experience scorched into their memory :) Justification is conditioned on our act of faith, initiated by the Holy Spirit working in time (obviously).
[Eskaton] the Price of His shed Blood was offered up When Christ was Sacrificed and the Sin debt was paid in full
[pascoe] Actualist: "justification is conditioned on our act of faith" are you saying that we were not actually justified at the cross?
[Eskaton] but that reached back to Adam and until the last person at His Coming
[Actualist] pascoe: I think you're conflating some issues here. Christ's work should be distinguished from the application of his work.
[pascoe] Actualist: why?
[Actualist] Because the two are not identical? :)
[pascoe] Actualist: does Scripture not index our justification to the cross event temporally?
[Actualist] no.
[Actualist] I didn't become justified 2000 years ago.
[pascoe] Actualist: so you are saying that we were not actually justified at the cross?
[Actualist] pascoe: How can I be? there is no *I* in 33 A.D. to be justified. We're justified on account of the cross, not "at" the cross (where 'at' is given a temporal reading).
[pascoe] Actualist: interesting.
[Actualist] not really.
[Actualist] Don't press biblical language further than it needs to be pushed to make sense of the concepts.
[Eskaton] you were also as good as justified before the foundations of the earth even though Christ had not Come yet
[pascoe] Actualist: it seems you are the one speaking atemporally about the cross though. was any one particularly atoned at the cross, or was it atemporal?
[Eskaton] it was the work of the Cross that was always planned and as far as God was concerned was also accomplished
[Actualist] election should likewise be understood as God *intention* for us in time (about individuals, or individual essences that He has not yet "brough about" or instantiated)
[pascoe] so the atonement was atemporal in it's application?
[pascoe] in the sense that it doens't become an actual reality until later?
[pascoe] I affirm that I was atoned particularly in the temporal event of the cross, at the very latest. 8) are you saying that the actual atonement or application didn't happen until each individual conversion experience?
[pascoe] I find the cross to be a more objective temporal index than my subjective conversion experience in my lifetime.
[pascoe] especially with regard to justification and atonement.
[Actualist] Well, we should distinguish the concept of the atonement, from that of Christ's active and passive obedience and righteousness. Christ's righteousness is "applied" to us, when the Holy Spirit moves us to take hold of it.
[Actualist] I'm not sure you understand what I mean by an 'index' there.
[pascoe] Actualist: so we have to act before it can be applied to us?
[Eskaton] the conversion repentance experience happens because you were already justified and given of the Father to Christ
[pascoe] Eskaton: Actualist seems to be saying just the opposite, that justification has not happened until such time as the conversion experience of the individual.
[Actualist] pascoe: Yes, under normal circumstances. Scripture is quite clear that God does not justify those who are not believing, or have not come to believe.
[Actualist] of course, the justification of infants and others for whom the *content* of faith can not be had may be applied somewhat differently.
[pascoe] Actualist: no doubt. 8)
[Eskaton] hehe it just took a good portion of our life to respond to the Work of the Holy Spirit in that we were already Chosen and Given to Jesus by the Father
[Actualist] pascoe: But in any case, justification is applied through the agency and efficiency of the Holy Spirit (working in time)
[Eskaton] or is my theology all goofed up
[pascoe] Actualist: but you are still saying that, under general/common circumstances, it is our belief (mental assent) which unlocks or opens a door such that justification can come to us or be applied to us?
[Actualist] Eskaton: right. Its important to distinguish God's plans for us, from our various states of being, in time.
[pascoe] Eskaton: I think Actualist is saying that our justification/atonement didn't really occur at the temporal event of the cross though. that it occurs, or is applied, at the point in time of our conversion or mental assent.
[Actualist] pascoe: Yes. You sound surprised by that, but it is the orthodox protestant view. Faith is the instrumental cause of justification.
[pascoe] Actualist: much like works are the instrumental cause of justification for Rome?
[Actualist] pascoe: I distinguish justification from atonement about as sharply as I distinguish the trinity, from the doctrine of the fall.
[pascoe] Actualist: would you say that you were atoned at the cross?
[Actualist] pascoe: No. Works are the *formal* cause of justification for Rome.
[Eskaton] Michael Horton wrote a pretty good book I think that is called "Mission Accomplished"
[Actualist] John Murray has an excellent book on the relation of the atonement to justification, not surprisingly entitled: Redemption: Accomplished and Applied.
[Deathless] Actualist: but do you conflagrate the word "salvation" with either atonement or justification 1:1?
[pascoe] Murray was the one Wilson referenced at the Auburn Ave conference. as being suspect about a visible/invisible church distinction.