David Weiner, ever the gentleman, has requested that we pick up a conversation from a while ago: link.
The salient question was, Does salvation run in families?
I argue:
click to toggleIn the OT, what percentage of the saved were from the biological line of Abraham? Probably 99.99% or higher.
In the NT era in which we live, what percentage of the saved come from a Christian lineage? Harder to say, but greater than 50%.
So now consider again your statement, “For, I can not find any rationale for God choosing anybody other than His good pleasure and glory.”
Yet, He does give a partial rationale: “I will be a God to you and your descendants.” God’s kindness to Abraham is extended to Abe’s family *for the sake of Abraham.*
If God gave no consideration to families at all, then election would be equally distributed around the globe. Empirically, that’s not the case!
David responds:
click to toggleKindness, as in to Abraham and his family, and election have to be considered synonymous for the argument to hold, it seems to me. And, Scripture does not link the two in any explicit way. So, each of us is ‘free’ to interpret loosely. Not exactly what you would accept in your science classes, I assume.
I don’t want to proof text this discussion; but, Jeremiah 7:23 makes it very clear (probably only to me!) that the idea of God being a God to Israel was not about salvation. It was about blessing. That is unless one can actually earn salvation by works and I know we agree on that one.
I read Barna reports and so I know there are lots of statistics. But, do we really know the geographical distribution of election? I think we are dealing with a lot of anecdotal data here. Certainly not double blind sort of stuff.
This led to a new question: was the covenant with Abraham a covenant of salvation, or of something else?
I argue:
click to toggleIt seems to me, then, that this forces us to conclude that belief is a requirement to properly belong to the covenant. This is made explicit in Romans [2.28ff]. If we see belief as a requirement, unstated but implied in Gen. 17, then several different features come into focus:
(1) Why did God reject so many Israelites along the way, even though they were physically descended from Abraham? Unbelief. They didn’t meet the requirement of belonging to the covenant.
(2) Why did Jesus have to die on the cross for Jews? Because justification is necessary to be a child of God — and Jews as much as Gentiles need justification. One might be tempted to separate the issue of being a child of God and being a child of Abraham, but notice how closely Paul links them in Galatians [3.6-8, 26-29] and also Ezekiel [36.18ff]. Notice how closely Ezekiel links “being righteous” with “being God’s people.” For Ezekiel, salvation is necessary in order to be God’s people.
Even the promise to the physical descendants of Abe in Romans 11 is still conditioned on faith: “And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.”
And David responds
click to toggleIt seems to me that Gen 17 describes a group of people who are called God’s people. And, God says that they will get a bunch of blessings if they only circumcise, an activity that did not require any faith. I know, a statistically invalid single data point, that when I was circumcised my parents were simply following a tradition. As I have said, they were reprobate. I don’t know how to describe what is Gen 17 other than temporal blessings in response to a ‘work.’ I simply don’t see any reference to eternal things or faith, for example. On the other hand, it seems offensive to talk about God’s people being reprobate. And, we know that Abraham’s offspring included a fair share of reprobates.
For me, the solution is to see that there are different covenants. And, the definition of ‘God’s people’ is used to identify the group in question and not to give an absolute definition. The Abrahamic Covenant is not the same as the New Covenant; the people referenced in each covenant are not the same people, although there is some overlap in a Venn diagram sense.
And this led then to a discussion of whether there are many covenants or one.
I argue that a "multiple covenants" view has to clear four hurdles to stand:
click to toggleOn the other, if we say “multiple covenants”, then we have to ask several important questions:
(MCov 1) Why does the Scripture appear to mingle the covenants so freely?
* Believers in Christ are said to be “Children of Abraham and heirs according to the promise.”
* Recipients of the Mosaic Covenant are told that they are being given the land “for the sake of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.”
* The sign of the Mosaic Covenant is the same as the sign of the Abrahamic Covenant.
and so on.
(MCov 2) Why are the Gentiles, who formerly were excluded from Israel, now included into Israel:
Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called “uncircumcised” by those who call themselves “the circumcision” (that done in the body by the hands of men)— remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ. — Eph. 2.11-13
(MCov 3) What is “the promise” that Paul speaks of in multiple places?
(MCov 4) Why do we see no hint in the New Testament of separate covenants each running their course throughout history?
And David responds with regard to MCov 2:
click to toggleWhat I see here is first a description of the status of a group of people identified as gentiles. What then follows is a description of the status of the individual gentile who has received Christ. It is initially not about individuals; but, rather the group, in contrast to the group of people who were called Israelites (who were just a segment of those who came from Abraham; which is, of course, where the separation began.)
So what do we learn about the gentiles (before the cross):
1) you were at that time separate from Christ,
2) excluded from the commonwealth of Israel,
3) strangers to the covenants of promise,
4) having no hope
5) without God in the world
And these 5 items are summarized in the passage as their being “formerly far off.” Up to the cross, God had given the nation of Israel lots of promises and information (e.g., the Mosaic Law). He had not given this to all humanity equally. That does not mean that an individual gentile might not have known about the Mosaic Law or may have even tried to keep part of it. It just means that as a group, God had not given these things to them. Of course, each of the 5 items deserves about a book’s worth of explanation (particularly the word ‘covenant’ which as you can see is plural!); but, fortunately for you, I won’t subject you to that pain. (insert smiley face here) But, one thing I have to say about the description: it is not primarily about Israel. Israel is only mentioned as part of the description of the gentile’s pre-cross situation.
What does the passage say about their current status? Well, first of all it does not say anything about the status of the group. It only addresses the status of the individual saved gentile. And that is that they:
1) have been brought near by the blood of Christ.
Brought near to what? What does one get when they are saved? Jesus. Not, a part of Israel, the nation. Does saved Israelites also have Jesus. Of course. That is a similarity; but, it does not erase the differences.
and again After much thought about how to address your questions here, it seems to me that starting with ‘membership’ is the best approach. So, here goes.
According to my reading of Galatians 3:16, the promises were spoken to (made to) Abraham and Jesus. Another way of saying this is that God made the AC with Abraham and Jesus. God, for example, did not make the covenant with the nation of Israel. At this point in the discussion, I don’t see how I could add clarity to the role of God, Abraham, or Jesus by adding a term like ‘membership.’
As to the content of the covenant, some applied to individuals and some to groups of people. I would say that these individuals/groups were ‘recipients’ of the promises included in the covenant. I can see how the term ‘membership’ could be applied to these recipients; but, again, I don’t see how that clarifies the term recipients (of the covenant promises).
Another term that enters the discussion is ‘covenant people’ or ‘people of the covenant.’ Again, it seems to me that discussing covenants with regard to a) the people with whom the covenant was made and b) the people who are the recipients of the covenant promises would foster more clarity.
So, how does one become a type a) or type b) person or group? Only by God specifying their role in a specific covenant. And, that He has done quite well with regard to all of the covenants which He specifically makes in Scripture. Thus, I would have to respectfully disagree with the statement that ‘membership in one covenant granted membership in another.’ That is not to in any way take away from the fact that national Israel was made promises in both the AC and the MC. However, in the AC God made the covenant with Abraham and not national Israel and in the MC God made the covenant with national Israel and not Abraham. Similarities and differences existing without any conflicts.
You asked about Ruth, I misunderstood the question, and you responded with:
“By what means?” Faith is the means of inclusion into the New Covenant, circumcision into the Abrahamic (in your understanding). So by what means was Ruth included into the Abrahamic Covenant?
Ruth became part of a group (national Israel) identified as a recipient of promises in the AC by marrying a member of the group (actually, she did this twice). She also may have been a recipient of the AC blessings promised to ‘all families’ by God giving her saving faith. (Ruth 1:16 may show this; but, I don’t see it specifically spelled out in Scripture.)
I’d also like to clear up any misunderstanding that I gave you as to how one gains inclusion in the AC. Your statement above shows that I gave the impression that it was circumcision. That would have been an error on my part; circumcision did not gain one entrance to the AC. It was simply a sign of who was included in national Israel (e.g., it was not a sign of the promises involving ‘all the families’). National Israel was, of course, one of the recipients of promises in the AC. I’d like to just point out that circumcision came many years after the institution and a few reaffirmations of the covenant itself.
Now we get to the real question:
where do we see in the Scripture a positive affirmation that the New Covenant is separate from the Abrahamic?
First, I would not say that the NC is ’separate’ from the AC. What I would say is:
a) The covenant that we call the NC is specified in Jeremiah 31:31-34. (I certainly don’ t expect any disagreement on this? I do expect disagreement with what follows. (insert sad smiley face))
b) The NC is made with national Israel. The recipients of the promises of the NC are national Israel.
c)The foundation of the NC promises is the death (blood) of the Savior. The covenant could not be instituted (even though it was described long before) until Christ died and paid for sin.
d) Sorry for what I have to say next; but, the church is not now receiving the blessings of the NC. The church is receiving the blessings of the AC (in Abraham, all the families of the earth shall be blessed).
e) To enable these blessings to flow to all people while Israel still awaits the blessings of the NC, God made a new creation, the church, Jew and Gentile in one body. This body receives those salvific blessings, because of the self same cross as was required to institute the NC, through faith in Jesus. Or, as Ephesians 3:6 says: “that the Gentiles are fellow heirs and fellow members (with the Jew) of the body (the church), and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus (AC promise to all the families of the earth [which would include the Israelites also!]) through the gospel.
So, my specific answer to your question is ‘no.’ There is no reason to expect a ’specific affirmation’ of separation. And, the reasons given above explain why that would not be required. Furthermore, the definitions of each covenant make it clear that they are not the same covenants.
The church is receiving the blessings of the AC because Jesus has paid the price of sin for ‘all the families of the earth’ and God created a new group, the church, a mystery, to receive these blessings. The new covenant only relates to Israel, although the death was also required for the enactment of that covenant. The fulfillment of the NC will have to wait for the second coming.
I’ll bet that there are just a few things in the above that you would like to point out as being not Scriptural. I am anxious to see what you have to say.
And I think this is more or less where we are: hashing through the four questions, and raising various issues in the process.
David, over to you.
JRC
Saturday, May 16, 2009
God's Covenant(s?)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
465 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 401 – 465 of 465CONTINUING:
JC: So if Paul's language was *in fact* intended to be conditionally true, then insisting that it be unconditionally true is not upholding the truth of Scripture, but rather upholding the truth of a certain interpretation.
DW: Yes, and we both wish to avoid that.
I'd like to make sure I have understood your point about something being 'conditionally true?'
a) Paul says 'I am writing to you who are believers.'
b) We just started the book, so we don't know exactly what he means by the terms in 1:6-7.
c) Now we come upon a passage which only makes sense to us if the ones to whom he is writing are not all believers.
d) Thus, a clearer version of 1:6-7 would have the implied term 'actual' replaced by the term 'professing.'
For example, "to all who are beloved of God in Rome" is more accurately stated by "to all who believe they are beloved of God in Rome."
Have I finally gotten it? I do hope you know I have not been trying to be a pain about this.
JC: Ananias and Sapphira were a part of the church in Acts 5
DW: Given the context, I assume they were part of the people of 4:32. (Although possibly they only professed belief? I really don't see how we can read Scripture that way.) Joseph (4:36) is an example of one of them who did well. Ananias and Sapphira are two examples of ones who did not do well. Nevertheless, what tells us that they were only professing faith?
Regarding Pergamum: John is told to write to the messenger of the church at Pergamum. Might this be the pastor there? I think so.
Again we have the dreaded 2nd singular! I take this to be John complaining against the pastor and not the whole congregation. How do you interpret the message?
At any rate, he seems to have two problems:
a) "you have there some who hold the teaching of Balaam," and
b) "Thus you also have some who in the same way hold the teaching of the Nicolaitans."
Now, does this prove that these people who had false beliefs were not believers? Could it be that they were just immature and causing strife in the church? I would be comfortable seeing it either way.
When the church is defined by Scripture, it is pure. When it is told to clean up its act, Scripture certainly acknowledges that the group that is masquerading as the church ought to be cleaned up. It is not saying that that false entity, calling itself the church, is the church of Scripture.
JRC: First, as we agreed, the letter itself was addressed to and written to and read by the visible Church in Rome.
DW: Please don't take this question wrongly; but, how do we know that this is true? For, what Paul does is identify the recipients individually as 'to all who . . . .' and these are not 'the visible church.'
JRC: On the one hand, each letter is definitely addressed to a real, physical, visible church.
DW: The letter never says this. It has to be inferred.
JRC: When Paul "remembers you in my prayers", he is remembering specific people by name in his prayers. Not "to whom it applies", but Alice, Bob, and Charlie.
DW: How do we know this? You mean he couldn't pray for God's children in Rome and let God figure out who is specifically meant? He has to know them personally by name to pray for them???
JRC: Now, if "you" in 1.9 and 1.10 refers to specific people, then either . . .
DW: The 'you' and 'your' of verses 7-10 are those who are beloved of God in Rome, called [as] saints. There is no 'apparent faith' in view. He is writing to saints and he has heard about their faith, not somebody else's faith. At least that is what he says.
Fair objections. Let me explain the reasoning and you tell me where it's mistaken.
(1) Paul does not merely pray for them, but says, "I long to see you." It's clear here that he is speaking of people that he can *see*, right? Seems crazy to mention it, but bear with me.
(2) If Paul were speaking only to genuine believers as "you", then he would either (a) have knowledge of who those were, or (b) not have knowledge of who those were.
If (a), then the implication is that Paul has a salvation-o-meter, which we regard as unlikely (since he never mentions such an ability).
If (b), then "you" in 1.7 would have to refer to a generic class of people, which would therefore be unseeable (that is, the Invisible Church).
(3) Proposition (2b) directly contradicts (1): that Paul is speaking of people whom he can see.
So either (1) is false, or else, (1) and (2a) together are true, or else (2) is false.
The additional evidence of 1.13 - 15 appears to decide in favor of the last case: that (2) is false.
Additionally, the fact that Paul says that he has "heard of their faith" further falsifies (2) and suggests that Paul is speaking of apparent faith (remember that "apparent faith" is not *false faith*, but *faith as far as we see*).
Genuine faith cannot be reported on unless the reporter has a salvation-o-meter. So (2a) would have to be expanded to include not only Paul, but also those who are reporting the Romans' faith.
Fire away! :)
DW: ...And, one must take Paul as writing as one of us instead of as God's messenger.
JC: Here Paul ascribes the "calling of eternal life" to Timothy. On what basis? On the basis of his *profession* of faith. His apparent faith.
DW: Are these only Paul's words or are these the Words of God asserting a truth? VERY serious question!
The comment and the question are predicated on a false dichotomy. Scripture is not God's Word *as opposed to* man's word, but rather the words of man as inspired by the Holy Spirit, so as to be without error.
Thus, the letters of Paul bear witness to Paul's personality and are written with Paul's knowledge base.
We see, for example, Paul's perplexity about the Galatians (Gal 4.20). We see his expressions of confidence couched in conditional terms (Phil 2.23 - 24). We also, significantly, see him speaking conditionally about the salvation of church members in 2 Cor 13.5 (I accidentally said 12.5 above ... it's 13.5 in both places).
2 Cor 13.5: Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves. Do you not realize that Christ Jesus is in you—unless, of course, you fail the test?
Clearly, a conditional statement. Now compare:
2 Cor 1.1-2: Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and Timothy our brother,
To the church of God in Corinth, together with all the saints throughout Achaia:
Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
---
This is NOT to say that Paul's words are incorrect at any point. I am not, for example, casting any doubt on whether Timothy was actually a man of God.
Rather, I'm saying that Paul was not speaking from a divine perspective when he spoke to the church in Rome. He was *not* saying,
"To the Roman church, who is certainly saved."
NOR
"To the ones in Rome, whoever they are, who happen to be certainly saved."
BUT
"To the ones in Rome who have shown every evidence that they are saints, whom I pray for and long to see, including Priscilla and Aquilla, Mary, Andronicus, etc."
And the statements that he then makes towards them are conditionally true: that is, they apply correctly only to those who in reality possess what they seem to possess.
Nevertheless, they are completely true for that set of people.
However, a couple of statements (8.13, 11.17-20) are specifically directed to a different crowd: to those whose faith is not genuine. To them, Paul goes back to the beginning: if you do not have the Spirit, you do not have Christ. Repent and believe the gospel. Do not be arrogant but fear.
Notice that my reading approaches yours at this point. Paul's words are indeed true only for "those to whom they properly apply."
JRC
Hi David,
I hope the parallel with Luther was not offensive? I had misgivings after I hit "Post."
DW: Regarding Pergamum: John is told to write to the messenger of the church at Pergamum. Might this be the pastor there? I think so.
Again we have the dreaded 2nd singular! I take this to be John complaining against the pastor and not the whole congregation. How do you interpret the message?
I could go for the pastor. But the wording is key: "to the angel of the Church ... you have some among you..."
These are some among the church of whom he is speaking.
And their shame is that they permit these people to be among them; they ought to not be among them.
So we reach the conclusion that "The Church" as the term is used (here, by Christ Himself!) includes people who should not belong; indeed, apparently, those who believe heretical doctrines.
DW: I'd like to make sure I have understood your point about something being 'conditionally true?'
a) Paul says 'I am writing to you who are believers.'
b) We just started the book, so we don't know exactly what he means by the terms in 1:6-7.
c) Now we come upon a passage which only makes sense to us if the ones to whom he is writing are not all believers.
d) Thus, a clearer version of 1:6-7 would have the implied term 'actual' replaced by the term 'professing.'
Just about. Perhaps
"d) Thus, a clearer version of 1:6-7 would have the implied term 'actual' replaced by 'the ones who, according to the evidence, are...'"
DW: For example, "to all who are beloved of God in Rome" is more accurately stated by "to all who believe they are beloved of God in Rome."
"To those whom I know, who give every evidence of being believers."
DW: Have I finally gotten it? I do hope you know I have not been trying to be a pain about this.
Getting very close. I *know* you are not trying to be a pain. This issue of "defining the church" has been going on since at least the 3rd century!
JRC
Hi Jeff,
Just a brief follow up on the 11/27 thread.
JC: I hope the parallel with Luther was not offensive? I had misgivings after I hit "Post."
DW: Jeff, please relax. After what we have both put into this, (and what I have gotten out of it!) I don't think you need have any concerns about offending me. True, I wouldn't recognize you in a crowd; nevertheless, I consider you a friend, not to mention a brother in Christ. Of course, since I don't have a salvation-o-meter . . . . well you understand. :)
JC: But the wording is key: "to the angel of the Church ... you have some among you..."
DW: I don't find this phrase in the NASB. The only place in this passage where I find 'among you' is in verse 13 and that is the only place where the 'you' is not the 2nd singular. Nevertheless, I believe that the bad guys/gals are 'in the church.' Not, Christ's church; but, rather, the corrupted church of man. So, what is the message, well, remove the corruption.
JC: These are some among the church of whom he is speaking.
DW: Well, yes. However, he is writing to the pastor and not to the church. He never addresses the Church. The pastor has failed to guard his flock, the Church. The shame belongs to the pastor, not the church, at least in the case of Pergamum.
JC: So we reach the conclusion that "The Church" as the term is used (here, by Christ Himself!) includes people who should not belong;
DW: How can you tell how Christ uses the term here except to identify the pastor? Yes, some in this pastor's care don't belong. That doesn't tell us what Christ means by 'Church' other than possibly that His Church doesn't include these people.
JC1: "d) Thus, a clearer version of 1:6-7 would have the implied term 'actual' replaced by 'the ones who, according to the evidence, are...'"
JC2: "To those whom I know, who give every evidence of being believers."
DW: OK, maybe the fog has lifted (or maybe not!). Let's see:
Paul has some level of information about a collection of people in Rome. They consider themselves a church, part of the body of Christ. Others do also and talk about them as such.
Paul may know some personally; but also, many are strangers to him. Nevertheless, based on the evidence at his disposal he believes at least some of them are truly believers.
So, he writes to this group, not calling it a church, but rather by addressing the members (not by name; but by characteristics) in chapter 1 AS IF they are all believers.
However, if asked, he would say that he is really writing to both believers and non-believers, since he has reason to believe that there are some non-believers in the group. Later on in the letter he will make his real opinion of their composition known when he addresses their situation.
Does that capture your view?
Yes, that's fair. He may not, indeed, even suspect that there are no non-believers among them; he might merely be making the situation clear just in case.
(By contrast, with the church in Corinth, he *does* suspect that there are unbelievers among them; not least, the "superapostle" teachers that have been received as teachers.)
JRC
On further reflection, I think 1.13-15 probably indicates that there's some evangelizing left to do among them.
Hi Jeff,
I am not quite sure I understand the context of your last two brief posts. So, I might be way off in the following. If so, just ignore me.
From Romans 1, I can not tell if Paul thinks there are non-believers in the church of Rome. As far as I can tell, he is not writing to a pastor or any organizational structure in Rome. My guess is that he gave the letter to his trusted cohorts to deliver to the persons believed to be leading Christians in Rome.
In his letter he says he is intending to speak to believers. There is nothing in the letter that changes this or leads me to believe that he doesn't mean exactly what he says. The ones to whom he is writing are saved.
Now, the church may have both saved and unsaved. That in no way that I am able to determine changes the 'to whom . . .'
Among them may mean a number of things. It doesn't mean that the particular addressees are in need of evangelization. For, they are all saved by definition. Otherwise, they shouldn't think that they are the ones to whom Paul is writing.
Let me just stress (like you don't already know this :) ) that the condition of the church in Rome has nothing to do with defining the people to whom Paul is addressing his letter. Likewise, his knowledge or lack thereof of any individual(s) at Rome does not change the 'to whom . . .'
Same with Corinth. The fact that there are false believers on the role does not change the intended recipients of the letter. He simply couldn't be clearer in 1 Cor 1 as to whom he is writing. It is not the body which calls itself 'the church at Corinth.' It is the body at Corinth that IS the 'Church of God.' And, then he clearly identifies the characteristics of the members of that body. He is absolutely not addressing the visible church at Corinth or Rome. He is addressing the part of that group that really is the Church.
Sounds pedantic and I am sorry. I just have become as convinced as I can be as to whom Paul is writing. If I have to figure out what Paul means by "to those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus" then I would be hopelessly lost when I get to "His people" or any such less concrete phrase.
Hi David,
My comment count has been fluctuating wildly. At the moment, Blogger tells me I'm posting comment #211. Wonder what happened to the other 200. :)
DW: In his letter he says he is intending to speak to believers. There is nothing in the letter that changes this or leads me to believe that he doesn't mean exactly what he says. The ones to whom he is writing are saved.
Now, the church may have both saved and unsaved. That in no way that I am able to determine changes the 'to whom . . .'
This is in interesting and fair point: Since Paul does not say, "to the Church in Rome", it might not be the case that he is writing to the entire church.
Does this indicate a shift in your view as to the nature of the Church, though?
DW: Likewise, his knowledge or lack thereof of any individual(s) at Rome does not change the 'to whom . . .'
I wonder whether a more mathematical approach might be helpful here.
Weiner's Theorem: Let P be the set to whom Paul is writing. Let S be {x : x is in Rome and x is loved by God and x is called to be a saint}. Then P is a subset of S.
Proof (reconstructed): Suppose x belongs to P but not S. Then Paul would have to be saying of x that x is "loved by God and called to be a saint", when in fact x is not. Thus, Paul's words would be false. But since they are Scripture, they cannot be false. Therefore, there can be no such x; all x belonging to P must belong to S. Q.E.D.
Cagle's Objection 1: The Problem of Knowledge.
S is an abstract set. If x belongs to S, this cannot be known (with mathematical certainty) except by special revelation from God. Paul cannot point to any individual x and say that "x belongs to S." That is, Paul does not know any member of S.
However, we know from 1.6, 1.8, and 1.11-13, that P contains people whom Paul knows.
Therefore, there are at least some x in P who are not in S. P cannot be a subset of S.
Furthermore, it is impossible that when Paul writes to P, that he is intending S, since he cannot know whether any particular member of P is in S.
(cont.)
Cagle's Objection 2: The Warnings Problem
Paul issues two warnings to the Romans. The first is in Rom 8.12 – 14: "Therefore, brothers, we have an obligation—but it is not to the sinful nature, to live according to it. For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live, because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you received the Spirit of sonship."
The second is in Rom 11.17 – 24, to not be arrogant lest "you" be broken off. We have disagreed on the meaning of "you", but both of our proposed meanings would include the members of P. Thus, the members of P are being warned against arrogance and the possibility of being broken off.
What can we say about these warnings? If P must be S, then for all x to whom Paul is writing, the warnings cannot apply. Thus, “if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die” is empty; it is impossible that x will die; therefore, it is impossible that he could live according to the sinful nature (to the extent required in the warning). Likewise, it is impossible that x could be broken off; therefore, it is impossible that x could be arrogant (to the extent required by the warning). Thus, these two passages fail to apply to any x, and have no purpose for being written.
This is ludicrous; it must be the case that the warnings are written because there are some members of P to whom they apply.
But there are no members of S to whom they apply.
We conclude once again that there are some x belonging to P that do not belong to S, and P is not a subset of S.
(cont.)
Ah, back up to 412 comments.
Anyways, where are we? We have a seeming unassailable proof that P is a subset of S; and two slightly more complicated proofs that P cannot be a subset of S.
Something has to be wrong somewhere.
My proposed solution:
Paul's language in 1.7 is not analytic, but empirical. It can be phrased thus:
"You have given every evidence that you are loved by God and called to be saints."
The exegetical benefit of this reading is that it makes it possible for P to refer to real people whom Paul knows, instead of being an abstract set.
It also allows for Paul's language about them to be true, but conditionally true: "You are justified by faith, on the condition that your faith is genuine."
It also allows for the warnings to function as real warnings -- they are addressed to those in P who are not in S, because their evidence is false.
In nerdspeak, I would call P the "projection of S on to empirical experience": it looks like S empirically (which is why Paul uses S-language about P), but it might not in fact be identical to S, except coincidentally.
Objection: No condition is stated in 1.7; therefore, no condition is implied.
Response: Conditions need not be stated in order to be present. It is a mistake to believe that all language is spoken unconditionally, unless a condition is explicitly stated. In fact, unstated conditions are frequently present.
For example: If I promise to read to my girls tomorrow night, but lose my voice, then no-one would accuse me of welshing. The unstated condition: "assuming I am able."
If I tell you that I'm typing at a Dell laptop, there are unstated conditions: "Assuming that what I'm doing is properly called typing, and that I can read the label on this thing correctly, and that it wasn't secretly mislabeled at the factory, yada yada." We don't state these conditions because human language is not math language, and "being true" need not mean "being mathematically true."
Weiner's Theorem, therefore, fails to prove because it overlooks the possibility that P could be conditional:
P: {x: x gives empirical evidence of being in Rome and being loved by God and being called to be a saint}
In this case, P would substantially overlap with S but not be a subset of S.
Or put another way, Weiner's Theorem fails because it requires mathematical truth for 1.7 without recognizing that Paul may not be speaking mathematically.
JRC
A cleanup of The Warnings Problem:
For a warning to apply to x, it must be the case that x could hypothetically meet the conditions of the warning. That is, if x cannot possibly meet the conditions of warning W, then W does not apply to x.
If Paul is thinking S when he writes 1.7, then the conclusions of 8.13-15 and 11.17-24 ("you will die"; "you will be broken off") cannot possibly occur to any x in S. Therefore, the conditions cannot possibly be met by any x. Therefore, the warnings in each passage do not apply to any x in S.
And therefore, Paul could not be writing these warnings to members of S. He must be writing them to x not in S. Therefore, 1.7 cannot mean S.
JRC
---
The bottom line is that Paul is not writing to an abstract set: neither "to those who are true believers", nor is he writing "to an organizational structure."
He is writing to people, people with names and whom he knows (at least in part).
Because of that, he is writing to the saints visible, not the invisible church.
The same kind of objection applies to your analysis of Corinth. On the one hand, you say that the addressees could not be any clearer: they are members of the church, sanctified and called to be holy.
But on the other, Paul tells them to examine themselves: "do you not know that Christ is in you, unless you fail the test?" (2 Cor 13.5).
If Paul is speaking mathematically in 1 Cor 1.2, then it is impossible that he could think of the Corinthians failing the test. In that case, 2 Cor 13.5 has no point; it is not even written to them.
The solution has to be that 1 Cor 1.2 is not written as a mathematical proposition:
{x: x is sanctified and called by God}
but rather means something else. I've proposed an "empirical" solution; there might be others.
JRC
Hi Jeff,
I am still thinking through (and preparing a response) to your 11/28 package. But, I want to get to your latest 'proof' package first.
Oh, and I have the same type of Blogger responses! But, I don't know how to write bug free software either.
You seem to raise the issue that we can not fully know what anybody means by any statement since they can not possibly insert all assumptions in each statement or surrounding context. So, we are all left to 'infer.' Kind of like feeling around in the dark! Unsettling at best.
JC: Does this indicate a shift in your view as to the nature of the Church, though?
DW: I guess you are referring to my statement "Now, the church may have both saved and unsaved." I should have used VC; my mistake.
JC: I wonder whether a more mathematical approach might be helpful here.
DW: Only if I can remove the cobwebs. It's been just a few years since my set theory days!
JC: Then P is a subset of S.
DW: Yes, and the proof is perfect so let's agree and move on! :)
JC: However, we know from 1.6, 1.8, and 1.11-13, that P contains people whom Paul knows.
DW: What can we assume without overstepping? Paul BELIEVES (but, really doesn't KNOW) that there are living people in Rome. He himself is not there while writing the letter and, in fact, never had been there. He has never actually touched a living person in Rome while in Rome. So, at best, all his knowledge is second hand. He, personally, knows nothing about who is at Rome at the time he writes the letter. Have I gone too far into crazy land?
He has not identified his audience in 1:6. All that I can get out of 1:1-6 is that he believes the ones who are reading (hearing) the letter are living, saved Gentiles. At this point, I have no idea what gives him the justification to assume this. He may have a perfectly good reason. I am just not aware of what it is so far.
Now, I add 1:7 to my knowledge base. At this point, I relax. For, I see that Paul's knowledge is not determinative. Only the self knowledge of the recipients (if there actually happen to be living people in Rome at that time :) ) is important. For, the audience (from what Paul says - we don't know what he has not said) is self identifying. Nothing depends on what Paul KNOWS about them (or if there really are any of 'them' there). Rome might be a black hole and yet his letter stands.
Now we add 1:8 to our base. Well, we learn that Paul has heard something about the faith of those supposedly now in Rome. Again, all second hand knowledge which he seems to believe to be true. But, nobody in the chain has a salvation-o-meter. So, what he believes may in fact not be true at all. Yes, he might be writing to and praying for a null set; but, his message remains unscathed.
TO BE CONTINUED:
CONTINUING:
I could babble on similarly about 1:11-13; but, I have compassion on you and won't. Bottom line for me; I have no idea if Paul actually knows the truth about anybody in Rome and it doesn't seem to matter. For, he never says anything other than 'to whom it may concern.' And, if he is hiding a big assumption somewhere, then he deserves to have me confused!!! ;) But, I seem to remember reading somewhere that God is not a God of confusion.
JC: The first (warning) is in Rom 8.12 – 14
DW: Please note that I am not trying to be argumentative. Really. What I see in 8:12 is a statement of fact (aimed at 'P') and not a warning about possible lack of eternal life. Verse 13 explains what happens if one (who is saved) chooses to either live by the flesh or by the spirit. Sounds like what Paul learned about himself before writing chapter 7. Finally in v14 Paul tells them who we (saved people) are. Also, I am pretty sure that dying in this passage has nothing to do with loosing one's salvation. It is about fellowship with God for the believer. The unsaved person is already dead and can not possibly choose to live by the spirit.
The meaning of 11:17-24 depends so much on the referent to the 2nd singular that I hesitate to consider it here as a warning to 'P.'
JC: If P must be S, then for all x to whom Paul is writing, the warnings cannot apply.
DW: Isn't this true only if 'die' means 'lose salvation?' From Chapter 7 I don't think that is a possible meaning.
JC: If Paul is speaking mathematically in 1 Cor 1.2, then it is impossible that he could think of the Corinthians failing the test.
DW: I believe I sense a level of exasperation in Paul's voice as he begins chapter 13. They are not acting as he believes that they should. He has tried to straighten them out and it isn't really working. Seem this way to you?
So, in v5 he asks them to examine themselves. Now, can a non-believers do this? I say no. Thus, this is not a test of salvation for the non-believer. Paul knows that they can do it and that they are going to come to the conclusion that they are indeed Christ's and therefore ought to be acting accordingly. Isn't that what v6 says?
DW: Only the self knowledge of the recipients (if there actually happen to be living people in Rome at that time :) ) is important.
Actually, it's not self-knowledge either! It's God-knowledge. The recipients are not saved iff. they know themselves to be saved, but rather whether they are saved in reality -- that is, if God knows them.
This is not a trivial nit-pick; think about Jesus' warning to those who say, "Lord, Lord" but whom He disowns in the end.
So in the end, no-one can know with mathematical certainty that he or she belongs to S.
(This is not to deny assurance of salvation; just to say that assurance is a matter of inductive knowledge rather than mathematical certainty. Since you have taken the approach that P is a subset of S, you require that each member of P actually be saved, not believe himself to be saved.)
DW: You seem to raise the issue that we can not fully know what anybody means by any statement since they can not possibly insert all assumptions in each statement or surrounding context. So, we are all left to 'infer.' Kind of like feeling around in the dark! Unsettling at best.
If you place great weight on "fully", then I agree with you: we cannot fully reach inside someone else's brain and know their meaning with mathematical certainty.
If, however, you relax the condition of mathematical certainty to "high probability" (6 σ confidence interval, or whatever), then I would say that we can indeed know what someone else means.
So if you are placing great weight on "can not know", then I would disagree: we can indeed know what other people mean; it's just hard and never mathematically guaranteed. That's actually OK; it doesn't cripple us in life nor even in matters of faith. Scripture is perspicuous in the matters essential for salvation.
JRC: However, we know from 1.6, 1.8, and 1.11-13, that P contains people whom Paul knows.
DW: What can we assume without overstepping? Paul BELIEVES (but, really doesn't KNOW) that there are living people in Rome. He himself is not there while writing the letter and, in fact, never had been there. He has never actually touched a living person in Rome while in Rome. So, at best, all his knowledge is second hand. He, personally, knows nothing about who is at Rome at the time he writes the letter. Have I gone too far into crazy land?
Well, you've overlooked chapter 16. He clearly knows some of the Romans by name.
And even if he did not, he anticipates meeting them face-to-face. One cannot meet members of an abstract, unknown set face-to-face.
So I think you may have missed the thrust of the Problem-of-Knowledge objection. Paul is thinking of his recipients as people, not members of an abstract set.
The question, we remember, is "What was Paul's intent?" Was he thinking of S when he wrote "you"? The Problem-of-Knowledge objection shows that Paul's intent could not possibly be S.
P contains people whom Paul can see; S contains no such people.
JRC
DW: Now, I add 1:7 to my knowledge base. At this point, I relax. For, I see that Paul's knowledge is not determinative. Only the self knowledge of the recipients (if there actually happen to be living people in Rome at that time :) ) is important. For, the audience (from what Paul says - we don't know what he has not said) is self identifying. Nothing depends on what Paul KNOWS about them (or if there really are any of 'them' there). Rome might be a black hole and yet his letter stands.
Now we add 1:8 to our base. Well, we learn that Paul has heard something about the faith of those supposedly now in Rome. Again, all second hand knowledge which he seems to believe to be true. But, nobody in the chain has a salvation-o-meter. So, what he believes may in fact not be true at all. Yes, he might be writing to and praying for a null set; but, his message remains unscathed.
The problem, though, is your pronouns keep changing meaning.
In 1.7, you want "you" to mean "his audience who is self-identifying." Now in 1.8, you want "you" to mean "those supposedly in Rome."
This kind of pronoun-switching is grammatically unsound. There's no limit to it, either: we could go through and make each pronoun mean something completely different for whatever reason we chose.
Whoever "you" is, it will be consistent throughout (unless obviously narrowed, as in 11.13).
With regard to the warnings:
Ch. 8: Would you not say that the "life" in ch 8 refers to eternal life?
Ch. 11: My argument is robust regardless of the meaning of "you."
If "you" is a personification of all Gentiles, then the Roman Gentiles are included in it. The warning to them is then, "do not be arrogant, lest you be broken off."
If OTOH "you" is a representative member of the Roman Gentiles to whom he is writing, then the warning is, "do not be arrogant, lest you be broken off."
Either way, it is a warning that includes the Gentile Romans.
JRC: If Paul is speaking mathematically in 1 Cor 1.2, then it is impossible that he could think of the Corinthians failing the test.
DW: I believe I sense a level of exasperation in Paul's voice as he begins chapter 13. They are not acting as he believes that they should. He has tried to straighten them out and it isn't really working. Seem this way to you?
Absolutely.
DW: So, in v5 he asks them to examine themselves. Now, can a non-believers do this? I say no. Thus, this is not a test of salvation for the non-believer.
What kind of a test is it, then? What's the point of "examining oneself to see whether one is in the faith"? What's the point of saying, "Unless you fail the test"?
It seems to me that it is a test for people who may or may not be believers, to determine whether or not they are believers.
You say that non-believers could not examine themselves. If so, then would not their inability be equal to a "Fail"?
DW: Paul knows that they can do it and that they are going to come to the conclusion that they are indeed Christ's and therefore ought to be acting accordingly. Isn't that what v6 says?
I'm lost. v. 6 says, "I trust that you will discover that we have not failed the test." Paul is confident of his and Timothy's passage, not theirs, right?
JRC: Then P is a subset of S.
DW: Yes, and the proof is perfect so let's agree and move on! :)
Clearly, though, the proof is not perfect since it proves something that is impossible (unless, of course, my objections fail in some way ... I recognize that we're still working on that).
So there must be a flaw that you haven't seen. I've suggested the flaw: you've assumed a way of reading Paul's language that doesn't reflect his intent; and by assuming that way of reading, you've locked yourself into a single interpretation when several might be possible.
But for fun, let's take a look at another flawed proof. :)
Theorem: 2 = 1
Proof: Let a = b.
Then ...
1. a*a = a*b (mult. prop. of equality).
2. a*a - b*b = a*b - b*b (sub. prop. of eq.)
3. (a - b)(a + b) = (a - b)*b (factoring)
4. a + b = b (div. prop. of eq.)
5. b + b = b (substitution since a = b)
6. 2b = b (addition)
7. 2 = 1 (div. prop. of eq.)
QED.
Clearly this proof is wrong, since it proves an impossible result.
But which step is the faulty step? (Non-trivial!)
If you like these kinds of puzzles and haven't seen this one before, it will help to choose a specific value for a and b.
Whimsically but with purpose,
JRC
Hi Jeff,
I really do want to finish responding to your 11/27 posts; but, each new set is so interesting that I don't want to put it off. With the result that 11/27 still waits for attention.
JC: Since you have taken the approach that P is a subset of S, you require that each member of P actually be saved, not believe himself to be saved.
DW: I believe the following statement to be true: "Paul wrote to saved people in Rome."
There are; however, no restrictions on who may read/hear the letter or think that it was or was not written to them. The ones who get it wrong; well . . . , they simply get it wrong. Paul's message remains true, regardless.
JC: This is not a trivial nit-pick; think about Jesus' warning to those who say, "Lord, Lord" but whom He disowns in the end.
DW: Indeed it isn't. (aside: this quote is not about the Church; but, I'll spare you, for now) I believe 1 John tells me that "I can KNOW." As you say, this is inductive knowledge.
JC: you require that each member of P actually be saved, not believe himself to be saved.
DW: True. 'P' are those to whom Paul is writing (not necessarily those who happen to be in the building when the letter arrives). They are saved by definition. Whether or not a particular person in Rome who is a member of 'P' recognizes that or not does not change anything in Paul's letter. Moreover, Paul's imperfect knowledge about anybody in Rome does not change his letter.
In Rome there will be several types of people:
a) unsaved who think they are unsaved
b) unsaved who think they are saved
c) unsaved who are unsure regarding their salvation
d) saved who think they are saved
e) saved who think they are unsaved
f) saved who are unsure regarding their salvation
Paul is writing to d), e) & f) (according to me, of course) who are all members of 'P'. I do not say all members recognize that they are members. Nor do I say that some non-members will not believe that they actually are members. Paul's message is not contingent on the fallible opinions of man.
JC: we can indeed know what other people mean; it's just hard and never mathematically guaranteed.
DW: Amen! I was pushing against the stops to try to make a point. No, this communications stuff is not mathematical.
JC: The Problem-of-Knowledge objection shows that Paul's intent could not possibly be S.
DW: Given our agreed definition of the members of 'S' I don't understand. Why is it that Paul can not write to them without knowing for certain who they are? How does that in any way negate his intent to write to 'S'? And, to speak as if his intent would be achieved, even if in reality there were some mismatches?
JC: He clearly knows some of the Romans by name.
DW: Given all of his travels I have no doubt that Paul had real, flesh and blood people living in Rome in mind and who he had good reason (6 sigma ?) to believe were saved. That does not change verse 7. He may have been right about the ones he thought he knew; he may have been wrong. No matter. For, Paul never says "I am writing this to you, Jack Jones, and I know you are in 'S'.
TO BE CONTINUED:
CONTINUING:
JC: In 1.7, you want "you" to mean "his audience who is self-identifying." Now in 1.8, you want "you" to mean "those supposedly in Rome."
DW: From Paul's perspective (and mine too) the "you" of both verses are the same people, but not necessarily mathematically. The 1:7 "you" are self identifying Romans who are in fact saved. They have to do this; for no matter what Paul may think about them, he can not (i.e., the no meter problem).
In 1:8 he talks about what he has heard about "them." Surely, there is no question that Paul expects "them" are still in Rome. But, he doesn't KNOW that precisely; one of them may be on vacation in Venice or have died. Mathematically speaking we have no way of knowing if each and every self identifying person will have been mentioned to him and be part of "you" in 1:8. Does this level of uncertainty really keep him from writing to the saved there and saying that he has heard about their faith?
JC: Whoever "you" is, it will be consistent throughout (unless obviously narrowed, as in 11.13).
DW: "You" as used by Paul in any particular verse will have a specific meaning for Paul. Our job is to figure that out from the context and grammatical rules. So, I don't think there is a requirement that in the letter the word "you" always refer to the same person(s). Paul's job is to make it possible for us to figure that out. OOOOPs, I guess he blew it! ;)
JC: Ch. 8: Would you not say that the "life" in ch 8 refers to eternal life?
DW: 8:2 - yes, 8:6 - yes, 8:11 - no, 8:38 - no.
Romans 7:10 "and this commandment, which was to result in life, proved to result in death for me;"
This is the life about which Paul is talking in the warning; it is not eternal life because Paul got death; and this happened after he already had eternal life!! I read Paul as saying that a Christian choosing to live according to the flesh (a real possibility?) will experience 'death.' But, this is not loss of eternal life.
Likewise, life for a mortal body can not be 'eternal life.'
JC: Ch. 11: My argument is robust regardless of the meaning of "you."
DW: We agree that Paul can not be warning members of 'S' that they might be broken off. We further agree that Paul is speaking about Gentiles. Thus, he must be referring to what can happen to unsaved Gentiles, whether in Rome or not.
But, we are still left with a mathematics problem. Is it 'each and every' Gentile that is in view or only the ones who happen to be arrogant, unsaved, and at Rome?
I say not only the individual arrogant Gentiles. However,if a breaking off occurs of the Gentile race, as happened to the Israelites, then most likely the unsaved Roman Gentiles will be involved at least to some degree.
JC: What's the point of saying (in 2 Cor 13:5), "Unless you fail the test"?
DW: Paul has no doubt about how they will do on the test. After all, he is only writing to saved people (have I said that yet??? ;) ).
Part of his problem in dealing with these people is that they aren't really sure he has the right to tell them what to do (v13:3). So, he talks about tests and makes sure they realize that he, of course, passes the test.
So, the direct answer to your question is 'sarcasm.' Paul may be human after all. But, finally, without specific knowledge about all of them, he can write v13:11 and mean it. I just don't think he would write that to non-believers or to those who just apparently have faith.
JC: It seems to me that it is a test for people who may or may not be believers, to determine whether or not they are believers.
DW: Does a non-believer even have the ability to take the test? Let alone pass it. I say no.
TO BE CONTINUED:
CONTINUING:
JC: If so, then would not their inability be equal to a "Fail"?
DW: Passing for me means coming to the truth about one's standing with Jesus. The non-believer may conclude that they pass; they are wrong. That is not the point. The grade on the test only has meaning for the believer in Corinth who will then take the right actions in response to a passing grade. A non-believer can't do this.
JC: I'm lost. v. 6 says, "I . . .
DW: You are exactly right. Lost my mind.
JC: you've assumed a way of reading Paul's language that doesn't reflect his intent
DW: I've been vague again. Paul's intent is to speak to real, live, Gentile, Roman believers. He believes they are there. But, even though he has no mathematical proof (just human opinion), he launches his letter to them ('S'). Paul trusts that God will use his efforts for His glory. But, that doesn't mean the each and every saved Gentile in Rome will read the letter. Nevertheless, Paul is only talking to saved Gentiles in the letter. OTOH, I am reading it and I have never been to Rome. Go figure!
JC: Theorem: 2 = 1
DW: Well, my first question is 'Is a or b saved?'
Also, I have a cobweb problem; but, . . .
3. (a - b)(a + b) = (a - b)*b (factoring)
4. a + b = b (div. prop. of eq.)
If I remember correctly, my teachers used to frown on dividing by zero. Isn't that the only way to get from 3. to 4. with a = b and wouldn't that be a problem?
Spot on with the math proof. :)
DW: Given our agreed definition of the members of 'S' I don't understand. Why is it that Paul can not write to them without knowing for certain who they are?
This isn't exactly the problem. Of course I can write to a group without knowing its exact membership.
The problem is that S is a set whose membership is not merely unknown, but unknowable.
It is impossible to say to S, "I long to see you."
DW: For, Paul never says "I am writing this to you, Jack Jones, and I know you are in 'S'.
He does, however, address several Jack Jones's by name in chapter 16. Is it reasonable to think that what is in Paul's mind is, "Greet Priscilla and Aquila for me, just in case I'm writing to them?"
JRC: In 1.7, you want "you" to mean "his audience who is self-identifying." Now in 1.8, you want "you" to mean "those supposedly in Rome."
DW: From Paul's perspective (and mine too) the "you" of both verses are the same people, but not necessarily mathematically.
You undermine the framework of your argument concerning 1.7! If v. 8 can be interpreted non-mathematically, then there is no reason to require v. 7 to be interpreted mathematically. If "you" in v. 8 can represent those whom he believes to be in Rome and be saved, then so can the "you" in v. 7.
JRC: Whoever "you" is, it will be consistent throughout (unless obviously narrowed, as in 11.13).
DW: "You" as used by Paul in any particular verse will have a specific meaning for Paul. Our job is to figure that out from the context and grammatical rules. So, I don't think there is a requirement that in the letter the word "you" always refer to the same person(s).
It's the rules of grammar to which I'm referring. E.g. here.
Yes, Paul can be flexible with his "you"s. But he nor any other sane writer would not use "you" in 1.7 to mean one group of people and then "you" in 1.8 to mean a different group of people.
DW: Paul's job is to make it possible for us to figure that out. OOOOPs, I guess he blew it! ;)
Well that's the thing. Since at least the early 5th century (Augustine) and likely before, the Church thought it had a fairly clear understanding of this: that there is the Church as we see it (VC), and the Church as God sees it (IC). Paul writes to the VC, speaking as if they were the IC; his words are actually true only for the IC.
It's not (AFAIK) until the advent of anabaptist arguments denying the validity of the visible church that this reading was in question.
The view that I've represented to you is not original, but is mainstream Calvin, and mainstream Protestantism, with one exception: rather than speaking of the Visible Church and Invisible Church per se, I prefer to speak of the visible and invisible aspects of (or perspectives on) the Church. That last bit is from Murray. Other than that, I'm presenting boilerplate Reformed stuff, including Calvin's readings of Rom 8 and 11.
So it seems to me that your reading of 1.7 bears a really high burden of proof, in addition to the textual difficulties I've mentioned.
JRC
Hi Jeff,
JC: It is impossible to say to S, "I long to see you."
DW: Agreed. I can't find any statement of mine which might lead you to think that I see Paul doing this. What am I saying that you are interpreting as my wanting Paul to be writing to phantom people? He is writing to living, flesh and blood people, saved people in Rome; he just doesn't happen to know who they all are by name, rank, and serial number.
JC: Is it reasonable to think that what is in Paul's mind is, "Greet Priscilla and Aquila for me, just in case I'm writing to them?"
DW: Of course it is not reasonable. Again, what am I saying that might lead to this question?
Paul had spent enough time with these two to teach them anything he might include in the letter. The letter was not written to them in that sense. Further, even though Paul had no doubt as to their salvation; the intent of the letter does not depend on their membership in 'S'.
By the way, how can you tell if they are living in Rome at the time the letter arrives or if they are the ones bringing it to Rome?
Also, Romans 16 has no bearing on the position either of us is putting forth as far as I can see. Paul 'knew' people and had opinions, so what?
JC: If "you" in v. 8 can represent those whom he believes to be in Rome and be saved, then so can the "you" in v. 7.
DW: Why do you keep bringing Paul's beliefs into this discussion?
'You' in v7 are "all those loved by God in Rome, called to be saints"
'You' in v8 are all whose "faith is proclaimed throughout the whole world"
This is just simple English (Greek)! The 'you' in both verses are the same. Different information is provided in each verse; but, the 'you' is the same group.
Where do Paul's opinions come into any of this? Where is there any problem of mathematics? Paul does not possess a listing of the members of this 'you' group. He never says who they are or if he has heard of the faith of each and every one of them. He never even says that Aquila is part of this group.
But, from these two verses, he is writing to 'S'. And, for this to be true, Paul does not have to provide a comprehensive list of those in 'S'.
Note also that the term 'Church' does not appear in either of these verses. Bringing in terms like VC or IC does not add clarity here. There may be an ongoing debate as to what the church is; but, bringing that into these verses is not going to clarify the letter to the Romans.
JC: Paul writes to the VC, speaking as if they were the IC; his words are actually true only for the IC.
DW: Try as I may, I can not fit Romans 11:22 into this paradigm. The IC may not continue in His kindness???? HELP! please.
JC: So it seems to me that your reading of 1.7 bears a really high burden of proof, in addition to the textual difficulties I've mentioned.
DW: 1:7 is not the problem. We both know what it means (and meant to Paul). It is referencing the IC, the set 'S' in Rome at that time. Whether the letter originally landed on the doorstep of the Mormon Church in Rome is not really the point. It is the other verses that don't fit our views that are protected by focusing on 1:7.
JC: It is impossible to say to S, "I long to see you."
DW: Agreed. I can't find any statement of mine which might lead you to think that I see Paul doing this. What am I saying that you are interpreting as my wanting Paul to be writing to phantom people?
Oh. Well, please straighten me out here, since I thought you were quite definite:
DW: I believe the following statement to be true: "Paul wrote to saved people in Rome."
(Note: The saved people in Rome aren't phantom people, but they are unknowable people. They are real flesh and blood; it's just that Paul cannot long to see them, since he doesn't and cannot know who they are)
DW: 'P' are those to whom Paul is writing (not necessarily those who happen to be in the building when the letter arrives). They are saved by definition.
So I'm confused: You've said that
* Paul is writing to S
* Paul cannot long to see S.
* The "you" in v. 8 is the same as "you" in v. 7.
* "you" in v. 7 refers to a subset of S.
And Paul says in v. 8 that he longs to see "you",
So we're looking at a self-contradictory set of propositions: Paul longs to see a subset of S, but he cannot long to see any member of S. (And we assume that he's not longing to see the empty set!!)
(Notice I'm *not* arguing that "Paul can't write to S since he cannot enumerate S." That would be a spurious objection.)
Sorry to be like the little dog gnawing at the ankles.
DW: DW: Why do you keep bringing Paul's beliefs into this discussion?
I keep bringing Paul's intent into this because his intent is the meaning of the text. He might have had additional beliefs outside the intent, but we care about what Paul was trying to say.
We're on the same page with this, right?
I think you may have interpreted my objection as "Paul doesn't comprehensively know the boundaries of S, so he can't write to S."
That is *not* the problem I'm addressing.
Clearly, I can write to the Rotary Club in Topeka without knowing even one member's name.
The problem is the invisibility of S; Paul cannot long to see (in this life) what cannot be seen (in this life). Therefore, he is not thinking about S when he writes 1.8, that he longs to see them and impart some spiritual gift to them.
Hi Jeff,
You should be working with those young minds and not wasting your time with the likes of me.
JC: Sorry to be like the little dog gnawing at the ankles.
DW: I truly appreciate your patience. I know you have a very clear idea of what you are saying here and I just haven't gotten it.
You believe I have said:
a) Paul is writing to S
b) Paul cannot long to see S.
c) The "you" in v. 8 is the same as "you" in v. 7.
d) "you" in v. 7 refers to a subset of S.
e) Paul says in v. 8 that he longs to see "you"
Now, I am working from memory here; but, my take is:
a) yes
b) no
c) yes
d) no
e) yes
Explanation of the no's:
b) Paul can indeed long to see S (i.e., each and every saved person in Rome). He will never know when or if he has accomplished this feat; but, that does not prevent him from desiring it.
d) v 1:7 begins with πασιν τοις. Clearly not a subset. In v 1:8 he refers to them as περι παντων υμων. Clearly not a subset. Although also not necessarily 'each and every' either.
Crossed wires?:
DW: Why do you keep bringing Paul's beliefs into this discussion?
JC: I keep bringing Paul's intent into this because his intent is the meaning of the text.
DW: Yes; Paul's intent is indeed crucial. My comment here was triggered by: JC: If "you" in v. 8 can represent those whom he believes to be in Rome and be saved, then so can the "you" in v. 7.
More importantly though, Paul says "to all who . ." NOT "to all who I believe . . ." His intent is there; his belief is not. Although of course if he did not believe they were there, then I would surely wonder why he is writing to them????
JC: Therefore, he is not thinking about S when he writes 1.8, that he longs to see them and impart some spiritual gift to them.
DW: Doesn't this bring mathematics to the fore? You are saying (I think) 'Paul can't possibly know S therefore he can't possibly be thinking about each and every member and thus he is not thinking about S.' Mathematically, this is true.
However, it is not what Paul is saying or intending. He is not a computer; he is a person desiring to see saved people in Rome. As many as possible. His trip is not a failure if one of them never crosses his path. Nor is it a failure if he ends up spending time with a lost member of the local church. Even though that person won't have a clue as to what the letter means (sort of like me? ;) ).
Hi David,
It's not a waste of time! But I would suggest that we set a close date -- perhaps Dec. 23? -- for final statements.
---
I tried to post from school and was stymied by Blogger errors. Take 2:
---
DW: v 1:7 begins with πασιν τοις. Clearly not a subset. In v 1:8 he refers to them as περι παντων υμων. Clearly not a subset. Although also not necessarily 'each and every' either.
I my first draft of Weiner's Theorem, I had P = S. Then I realized that there's no way to prove that every member of S is in P (as you say, not necessarily 'each and every'), so I left it as P ⊆ S. All that means is that
Every person whom Paul is addressing ("if x in P") is certainly saved ("then x in S").
That doesn't preclude P = S; it just doesn't require it, either.
That's your intent, correct?
DW: b) Paul can indeed long to see S (i.e., each and every saved person in Rome). He will never know when or if he has accomplished this feat; but, that does not prevent him from desiring it.
That's quite a feat! For not only does he *long* to do so, but he has repeatedly *planned* to do so (1.13) and impart to them a spiritual gift.
How exactly would he plan to see people whom he cannot see?
Back to Topeka. I know no-one in Topeka. But I could easily write to the Rotary Club in Topeka saying, "I long to see you and impart a gift to you."
Moreover, I could do it, too. I could fly into Topeka on the appointed day and deliver a plaque or some such to a representative of the Rotary Club (to the best of my knowledge...let's gloss over that question!).
Of course, I am able to do this because I can show up in Topeka and point to someone and say, "Behold! A member of the Rotary Club!"
Even though I don't know anyone right now in Topeka, I can make plans to interact with the Rotaries in the future because membership in the Rotaries is a knowable thing.
But now, suppose you wrote to the True Dora the Explorer Fan Club in Topeka, "All those who truly love Dora the Explorer in their hearts."
You could not write to them saying, "I long to see you and give you a gift." For in fact, you could never see any of them to know that they belong to your Club. It would be impossible to give any person a gift and be sure that it was given to a True Dora Fan (for how would you say that the person before you is a True Dora Fan?). You might as well just give out gifts randomly.
And longing to see them would be futile, since any trip to Topeka would leave you with the longing unfulfilled: you would have experienced zero sightings of True Dora Fans.
Because being a True Dora Fan is an invisible quality, it becomes impossible to ever have interactions with True Dora Fans (except coincidentally).
So the problem here is not that Paul is ignorant of the specific membership (Rotary Club), but that you have defined his audience in such a way that he cannot possibly interact with them (True Dora Fan Club). It is futile to long to see the invisible. He cannot make plans to see them. He cannot make plans to impart spiritual gifts to them
... unless he hopes to impart spiritual gifts to some visible entity ... I think you see where this line of reasoning would go. Just as it would make sense to give gifts to those who give evidence of being True Dora Fans, it would also make sense to give gifts to those who give evidence of being saved.
Does this make sense?
If so, then I think you can see that I'm not saying
'Paul can't possibly know S therefore he can't possibly be thinking about each and every member and thus he is not thinking about S.'
The problem is not speaking to a group with unknown membership; the problem is that the Invisible Church is always, well, invisible. Thus:
DW: [Paul] is a person desiring to see saved people in Rome. As many as possible.
... which would be exactly zero.
That's the problem.
JRC
Hi Jeff,
JC: How exactly would he plan to see people whom he cannot see?
DW: Insanity comes to mind. But, then I am reminded of who I am calling crazy and see that that doesn't work.
So, a question: Why can Paul not see even a single saved person in Rome when he visits the city? My guess he that he is more than resourceful enough to accomplish this simple task. Now, seeing all of them might be more taxing.
I don't know what happens to a person when they become a true dora fan; but, I do know what happens to lost people when God saves them. Given time, I can identify them with a high degree of assurance. Am I just being arrogant?
Back to my money-bank analogy. Is everything in a bank money? No. Would a robber have trouble finding the money in the bank? No.
Starting with the VC might be a reasonable strategy for Paul. Not required; but, reasonable. In any case, he knows what 'money' looks like. But, you are the one who is bringing in this idea of the VC/IC to the letter which only addresses the individuals and not either of these groups. Paul never says he wants to visit the IC. In fact, we have no idea how the letter was delivered nor to whom it was delivered.
As to 12/23/09
I am sort of like the bull who can not resist the red cape. So, when your comments arrive I just can't wait to study them. That part of me is not happy about the end. OTOH, enough is enough! So, thanks for making the wise suggestion to bring this to a close.
DW: I don't know what happens to a person when they become a true dora fan; but, I do know what happens to lost people when God saves them. Given time, I can identify them with a high degree of assurance...
Back to my money-bank analogy. Is everything in a bank money? No. Would a robber have trouble finding the money in the bank? No.
Fantastic! We're moving in the same direction.
So when Paul makes plans to see saved people, he reasons like any sane person would, that the best place to find saved people is among people who show the evidence of being saved. Just like the bank robber knows where the money is.
So his plan, then, is to visit the people who show evidence of being saved, in the hopes of ministering to those who actually are saved. He is writing to those whom he has a high degree of assurance of being saved. It is these whom he is planning to visit; it is these to whom he wants to impart a spiritual gift.
Yes? No?
---
We're getting the first snow-fall of the year. :)
Hi Jeff,
Happy snow day!
We're over it now but got about 1 1/2". Just enough to make the trees look beautiful. After being in NJ for over 20 years, this is more than enough for the whole year!
JC: Fantastic! We're moving in the same direction.
DW: We've always been moving in the same direction. It's just these pesky side streets that have been time consuming.
JC: So his plan, then, is to visit the people who show evidence of being saved, in the hopes of ministering to those who actually are saved.
DW: Sounds like a good plan to me. Of course, when the saved in Rome hear that he is there, they may help him by coming to him.
JC: He is writing to those whom he has a high degree of assurance of being saved.
DW: Oh no! A side street. Paul is writing to those who ARE saved. No degree of assurance, no uncertainty involved in this at all.
OTOH, He longs to see them (whoever they may be) and hopes to find them when he gets there. But, as he dictates, he has no need of worrying if he will find them. He trusts that God will see to it that letter gets to the right people. That part is really not Paul's problem.
The snow took down the power as I was writing a second missive and you responded in between. So I'll go in reverse order:
JRC: So his plan, then, is to visit the people who show evidence of being saved, in the hopes of ministering to those who actually are saved.
DW: Sounds like a good plan to me. Of course, when the saved in Rome hear that he is there, they may help him by coming to him.
JRC: He is writing to those whom he has a high degree of assurance of being saved.
DW: Oh no! A side street. Paul is writing to those who ARE saved. No degree of assurance, no uncertainty involved in this at all.
You can't have it both ways here!
If Paul's plan is to visit "you" and give "you" some spiritual gift, and "you" is ONLY allowed to be those who are saved, then Paul's plan is doomed.
The problem is that when you consider v. 7, you place a tight restriction on who can belong to "you." No unbelievers allowed!
But when you read v. 8, you relax that restriction, so that Paul's plan is to visit those whom he *thinks* are saved.
If I'm understanding, you want v. 8 to still refer to just the believers: Paul's plan is more broad, but his aim is still to visit the believers.
The problem is, he cannot visit *only* the believers. The tight restriction that you've placed on v. 7 cannot possibly apply to his plans.
So there's two elements to the logic here.
(1) Can the "you" of v. 8 include all the believers? Yes, possibly. Paul might not visit all of them, but he'll have a good shot at visiting most of them.
(2) Can the "you" of v. 8 restrict out unbelievers? No, not possibly. Paul cannot plan to visit only believers.
JRC
Here was the original...
---
So to examine it from the other side:
DW: So, a question: Why can Paul not see even a single saved person in Rome when he visits the city? My guess he that he is more than resourceful enough to accomplish this simple task. Now, seeing all of them might be more taxing.
Let's say that Alice, Bob, Charlie, and Darryn live in Rome. Alice is saved and shows evidence of it. Bob is saved but doesn't show much evidence of it. Charlie is unsaved but talks a really good talk. And Darryn is a devout worshipper of Dionysus. We know the state of their hearts because we are taking "God's point of view" here.
Now Paul tells Timothy, "I'm off to visit Rome; I'm longing to see the true believers there."
During the visit, he encounters all four of our folk (the first three in Church, the fourth on the streets selling meat sacrificed to idols). Upon return, Timothy asks him, "How many genuinely saved people did you see?"
Paul answers, "I have no idea."
Timothy asks, "Did you fulfill your longing?"
Paul says, "No clue."
Exasperated, Timothy asks, "Well, don't you have some idea?"
"Well, sure," replies Paul, "I saw several people whom I think are saved. Let me tell you about them... But you didn't ask me about people that I thought were saved; you asked me about people that definitely were saved. And there, I can't say for sure."
---
You see the problem. You have created a very narrow restriction on Paul's audience in 1.7. In your read, he is *only* allowed to be writing to those who actually are saved, which is an invisible quality. You have explicitly excluded the possibility that he might be writing to people that he thinks are saved, no matter the degree of certainty.
Carrying that over into v. 8, he is therefore not allowed (on your read) to make plans to see and impart gifts to those whom he thinks are saved. No, he must only make plans and impart gifts to those who actually are saved.
But of course, this is ludicrous.
So you fudge a little bit ( :) ) and say that Paul's real plan is to see those whom he thinks are likely saved, so that he will cover the set of those who actually are saved. I agree with this read.
But in so doing, you've just modified the meaning of "you" in 1.8.
And re-invented the doctrine of the visible church in the process!
The VC is not a "human authority structure" or a "human organization." Such terms were never used by the Reformers to describe the VC (to my knowledge).
Rather, VC is the collection of those who are visibly saints. It is the "empirical projection" of the invisible church. It is the Church that we actually interact with. If you ask me, "show me the Church", then I point to the VC and say, "there, more or less." (Sometimes more, sometimes less!).
And that's Paul's situation. As he makes plans for a trip to Rome, he plans to go see those who call themselves saints and give evidence thereof. Of *course*, his intent is to minister to the true believers in this way; but he does not ever "reach behind the veil" and interact with *only* true believers. He can't.
So he writes to the visible church, with the knowledge that his teachings about justification and such are conditionally true: If you are in fact saved, then ...
At the same time, he recognizes the limitations of his own knowledge *and the limitations of the self-knowledge of his readers* and delivers warnings (8.12ff, 11.17ff) that serve, possibly, to bring some of them to repentance.
He thinks they are saved; he does not presume that they therefore actually are.
---
Or put another way: if Paul can plan to visit those whom he thinks are saved, so as to cover those who are actually saved -- why can he not *write* to those whom he thinks are saved, so as to cover those who are actually saved?
Hi Jeff,
Just in case my 'objections' have left you uncertain, I do believe that I have heard and understood your point. You've made it in so many ways and so skillfully that I would have to be a dolt to have missed it.
JC: If you ask me, "show me the Church", then I point to the VC and say, "there, more or less."
DW: I understand; but, I don't think that that is what you would really do. If seriously asked, neither one of us would give such a one sentence answer.
JC: So he writes to the visible church, . . .
DW: This is factually not the case. There is not a verse that supports this in the entire letter. He writes to people who are truly saved; maybe they are on a church role and maybe they are not.
JC: So he writes to the visible church, with the knowledge that his teachings about justification and such are conditionally true
DW: His teachings about justification are not dependant on the reader; they are statements of truth. Whether a particular reader is justified or not is a completely different issue.
JC: At the same time, he recognizes the limitations of his own knowledge
DW: Exactly. That is why he never says here that he is writing to the church. Nevertheless, Paul says 'you are' and not 'you appear to be.'
When Jesus says about Herrod that he was a 'fox' that is obviously figurative speach. Paul is not using figurative language here.
JC: (Paul) delivers warnings (8.12ff, 11.17ff) that serve, possibly, to bring some of them to repentance.
DW: God can, of course, use anything to bring a person to faith. But, all it takes to be saved is faith in Jesus and nothing else. Paul never asks anybody to repent (repent of what?) to be saved. Peter (the Apostle to the Jews) does this; Paul (the Apostle to the Gentiles) does not.
JC: The problem is, he cannot visit *only* the believers. The tight restriction that you've placed on v. 7 cannot possibly apply to his plans.
DW: Please, I am not placing any restrictions on v7. This verse should not be read as wooden literalism nor as fanciful figurativeness. It begs to be read as a normal human expression. Who is he describing? The answer is right there.
What is wrong with Paul's plan to come to Rome to see believers and to share his faith with them while they do likewise? What could be simpler? Oh, he doesn't have a salvation-o-meter; so obviously he can't do this because he might actually spend some time talking to a non-believer and not pick up on that. What???
He never says that his plan is to *only* see believers. That's an unwarranted addition to his actual plans.
TO BE CONTINUED:
CONTINUING:
JC: Upon return, Timothy asks him, "How many genuinely saved people did you see?" Paul answers, "I have no idea."
DW: I see. If Paul does not have a specific count of the number of saved people he actually saw in Rome, his trip was a failure.
JC: Timothy asks, "Did you fulfill your longing?" Paul says, "No clue."
DW: You must be assuming an unstated metric here. The value of the trip to Paul will be determined by him if it is his fallible opinion that He blessed some, he was blessed by some, and he shared the gospel with some (other than the ones to whom he wrote the letter, of course).
You keep coming back to his lack of a meter as a clear indication that 'you' can't be who Paul actually says they are. So, you conclude he must mean somebody else.
JC: You have explicitly excluded the possibility that he might be writing to people that he thinks are saved, no matter the degree of certainty.
DW: I know you believe this is clear and can not understand why I am refusing to see it. There is of course another possibility (i.e., lack of the required mental capacity to recognize this).
I, OTOH, see you adding a stipulation that is not in the text. Paul never tells us he means 'apparent' faith. Something as basic as that would have deserved a word or two, don't you think? (I am not arguing from silence.)
JC: Paul's real plan is to see those whom he thinks are likely saved
DW: It is in verses 10-12 that we hear of his plans. Just so we have the facts before us:
10 always in my prayers making request, if perhaps now at last by the will of God I may succeed in coming to you.
11 For I long to see you in order that I may impart some spiritual gift to you, that you may be established;
12 that is, that I may be encouraged together with you [while] among you, each of us by the other's faith, both yours and mine.
Paul does not say here that his plan is to see people.
His plan is to accomplish a few objectives:
a) impart some spiritual gift to Romans Gentile believers
b) establish these believers through this spiritual gift
c) be encouraged himself by their faith
Oh, yes, he plans to do this on a face-to-face basis, thus the idea of seeing them has to be mentioned. But, that is not really the key point. These objectives can not be met with non-believers. So, Paul does not spend any time pointing out to us that he is *only* going to talk to believers or his trip will be a failure.
JC: why can he not *write* to those whom he thinks are saved, so as to cover those who are actually saved?
DW: A perfectly reasonable hypothetical question. My answer is that nothing prevented this.
So, we are left with the question of why that is not what he actually did?
DW: Just in case my 'objections' have left you uncertain, I do believe that I have heard and understood your point. You've made it in so many ways and so skillfully that I would have to be a dolt to have missed it.
I'm very sorry to have insulted your intelligence. That was not my intent; I don't view you as a dolt. Please forgive my impertinence.
DW: Nevertheless, Paul says 'you are' and not 'you appear to be.'
When Jesus says about Herrod that he was a 'fox' that is obviously figurative speach. Paul is not using figurative language here.
DW: So, we are left with the question of why that is not what he actually did?
I realized (a little slow ...) what the problem is.
In Scripture and in common speech, the word "is" is used in at least three different ways: mathematical, phenomenological, and metaphorical (or figurative).
What I've been arguing, without full self-consciousness, is that Paul is using the word "is" in a phenomenological sense.
And (again without full self-consciousness), I've been relying heavily on the fact that he speaks phenomenologically elsewhere in the book. The most obvious example is in chapter 16:
Rom 16.3ff: Greet Priscilla and Aquila, my fellow workers in Christ Jesus. They risked their lives for me. Not only I but all the churches of the Gentiles are grateful to them. Greet also the church that meets at their house. Greet my dear friend Epenetus, who was the first convert to Christ in the province of Asia. Greet Mary, who worked very hard for you. Greet Andronicus and Junias, my relatives who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was. Greet Ampliatus, whom I love in the Lord. Greet Urbanus, our fellow worker in Christ, and my dear friend Stachys. Greet Apelles, tested and approved in Christ. Greet those who belong to the household of Aristobulus. Greet Herodion, my relative. Greet those in the household of Narcissus who are in the Lord. Greet Tryphena and Tryphosa, those women who work hard in the Lord. Greet my dear friend Persis, another woman who has worked very hard in the Lord. Greet Rufus, chosen in the Lord, and his mother, who has been a mother to me, too. Greet Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermes, Patrobas, Hermas and the brothers with them. Greet Philologus, Julia, Nereus and his sister, and Olympas and all the saints with them. Greet one another with a holy kiss. All the churches of Christ send greetings.
Here we have this language that we know is phenomenological because Paul is speaking of specific people being a convert to Christ, being in Christ, being grateful -- all things that he does not have mathematical knowledge of, but *does* have phenomenological evidence for.
He even speaks of a couple of churches who send their greetings: if we required that "church" as used by Paul was only "those who are saved", then he could not say this as a statement of absolute truth.
(cont.)
So given that Paul is using phenomenological language in ch. 16, I ask: How do you know that he isn't doing so in 1.7?
To be specific, Weiner's Theorem relies on a proof-by-contradiction. To work, that proof must eliminate all possibilities other than the one you want.
But you have not yet eliminated the possibility that Paul is using "is" in a phenomenological sense.
(We agree that he is not speaking metaphorically.)
Now, I have presented various evidences that Paul is in fact speaking phenomenologically; those evidences fail to convince, which is fine -- my skill may lack!
But my lack of skill does not help your proof along. That is, failure to prove that Paul is speaking phenomenologically is not equivalent to successfully proving that he is not. (sounds convoluted, but I can't make it simpler...)
Until you've successfully eliminated that possibility, Weiner's Theorem is incomplete. Remember Luther with "THIS IS MY BODY!"
For my part, I think the various evidences are very persuasive. You don't. So may I ask: why not? What evidence do you have that overwhelms the evidences I've presented?
JRC
JC: I'm very sorry to have insulted your intelligence. That was not my intent; I don't view you as a dolt. Please forgive my impertinence.
DW: JEFF!!! You did nothing of the sort! I only read this much of your last response and just had to let you know that this is ABSOLUTELY NOT something I thought you said or implied.
OTOH, please forgive me for trying to insert some levity into our discussion.
Hi Jeff,
Chapter 16 is indeed phenomenological. It is also the only section of Romans that really has no teaching. So, it seems to be 'unique' with regard to the rest of the letter. Thus, to take the style here and fold it back on the rest of the letter (not that you are suggesting we do that) doesn't feel quite right to me.
I believe Phoebe delivered the letter to somebody in Rome. There can be no doubt that based on his personal experience Paul had definite, strong opinions in her regard. But, of course, I don't know if she was saved based on Paul's witness.
In chapter 1, Paul does not give us any witness of the Romans other than what he has heard about their faith. Can we tell from this how their faith stacks up against any other people or how much credence Paul gives to the information? I don't think so. Yet, Paul is anxious to visit Rome and deal with both the saved and the unsaved there. At a minimum, the desire may spring from its being a new missionary field for him.
I believe the 'you' in chapter 16 (and 15) is the same 'you' as in chapter 1. And, he speaks in 16 as if 'you' is separate from the ones that he names. At least some of them are in Rome, no? But, he keeps them separate. Doesn't he believe that some of those named are believers? My guess is yes. But, he doesn't cloud the 'you' with his views.
JC: How do you know that he isn't doing so in 1.7?
DW: You and I came to agreement immediately on what is going on in chapter 16. Somehow, it is 'obviously' phenomenological. The fact that he names people he knows, certainly helps. But,the point is that somehow we sense his message, his fallible message based on his experience.
Not so for chapter 1. For whatever reason, we don't both come to the same sense. But, we can not deny that there is nothing personal in the chapter with regard to his knowledge or experience with any individuals or groups there. He simply says 'to you who . . ' His opinion does not count in any of that. He is not identifying a single member of his audience based on his experience.
JC: What evidence do you have that overwhelms the evidences I've presented?
DW: Absolutely none. (By the way, we would need an objective third party to evaluate our evidence.) If any of us could 'prove' what the Bible says then discussions like ours would have stopped long, long ago. None of this is mathematical. Moreover, there are a very large number of variables and multiple possible values for each of them in this problem.
I have probably said this already; but, I have concluded that God set it up this way so that His children would not ever tire of acting like Bereans. I for one would lose interest if I ever thought I had it all figured out. Knowing that this is impossible keeps me digging.
And, yes, I do try to keep Luther and his error in mind. It is a very helpful story.
I'm glad I just missed the joke. In real life, sometimes "teacher mode" comes out and I accidentally talk to adults as if they were sophomores. :) One of my good friends occasionally calls me on it.
DW: You and I came to agreement immediately on what is going on in chapter 16. Somehow, it is 'obviously' phenomenological. The fact that he names people he knows, certainly helps.
Yes, it leads to a "good and necessary inference":
(1) Salvation cannot be known about any given person mathmatically.
(2) Paul attributes salvation to these people.
(3) Therefore, Paul is not speaking mathematically (and clearly not metaphorically), so therefore phenomenologically.
This inference fails only if we undermine (1) by granting Paul special revelatory knowledge of salvation.
DW: Not so for chapter 1. For whatever reason, we don't both come to the same sense. But, we can not deny that there is nothing personal in the chapter with regard to his knowledge or experience with any individuals or groups there. He simply says 'to you who . . ' His opinion does not count in any of that. He is not identifying a single member of his audience based on his experience.
I've attempted to apply the same kind of "good and necessary inference" to 1.7, as follows:
(1) The "you" in 1.8 are people located in time and space, the people whom he plans and longs to see; whose faith he has heard of; and whom he plans to give a spiritual gift to.
(2) Since they are located in time and space, he cannot be speaking mathematically about their salvation, so
(3) He must be speaking phenomenologically.
(4) (So that his lack of language like "apparently" is merely a coincidence or gloss on Paul's part, not an indication of mathematical intent).
I think that you've pointed out an interesting possible flaw in the inference: While it is true that the people he is *planning* to see are in fact located in time and space, the people he actually *wants* to see are the truly saved. Thus, his plans in reality are broader than the plans he is mentioning here. Or put another way, the "you" in 1.8 is a subset of the people he's actually planning to see. What he's saying in 1.8 is true, but not the full picture.
Therefore, you have argued, 1.8 - 14 are not actually phenomenological.
So the questions are,
(1) Is your proposed flaw a real flaw?
(2) If so, is phenomenological language in 1.8 - 1.14 impossible, unlikely, or likely but unproven?
(3) And then corresponding to this, is mathematical language in 1.7 certain, likely, unlikely, or impossible?
I'll think more on this. What do you think?
JRC
Hi David,
Hope you are well. We're galloping towards Christmas vacation at school, which means midterm exams for some of my classes.
---
I've been thinking about the qualities of "definite and visible" and how that relates to Paul's epistles, and especially to Rom 1.7.
One passage that has stuck in my mind several times is 1 Cor 11.
In 1 Cor, as in Romans, we have the hotly debated "you" (υμεις) that is defined in 1 Cor 1 in this way:
1 Cor 1.2ff. -- To the church of God in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be holy, together with all those everywhere who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ—their Lord and ours:
... I always thank God for you because of his grace given you in Christ Jesus. For in him you have been enriched in every way—in all your speaking and in all your knowledge— because our testimony about Christ was confirmed in you. Therefore you do not lack any spiritual gift as you eagerly wait for our Lord Jesus Christ to be revealed. He will keep you strong to the end, so that you will be blameless on the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.
So here, even more than in Romans, Paul is attributing strong salvific qualities to his readers.
Does he also say things that would give his listeners the qualities of "definite and visible"? Well, yes. Concerning communion, he says,
1 Cor 11.17ff -- In the following directives I have no praise for you, for your meetings do more harm than good. In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God's approval. When you come together, it is not the Lord's Supper you eat, for as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else. One remains hungry, another gets drunk. Don't you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you for this? Certainly not!
... [A]nyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep...
So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for each other. If anyone is hungry, he should eat at home, so that when you meet together it may not result in judgment.
(cont.)
Three things about the passage indicate that Paul is thinking about the church in Corinth in a visible manner here:
(1) He speaks about their behavior.
If he were speaking only to the invisible saints, the "to whom it may concern" set S, then he would have no way of knowing whether his words actually applied to any of S. Maybe the true Christians in the church are not engaging in this bad behavior?
No, by speaking about their behavior, he is speaking to those who are behaving in this way. The identity of his targets is outward and visible.
(2) He gives commands to "you" that are to be obeyed by all the visible church.
The readers in Corinth are not going to parse Paul's commands and say that "they only really apply to the truly saved." In giving commands of this nature (wait until everyone is present; take care of your hunger at home), Paul is expecting all within the church to obey him.
(3) Most importantly, Paul is upholding the visible church as the proper object of the Corinthian's care for each other.
The core of Paul's commands is in v. 29: "For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself."
The word "body" here has a double meaning; it goes back to Jesus' words at the last supper (cf. 11.24,25), but it also makes reference to the church as the body of Christ (cf. 10.16 - 17: "Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf.").
And in particular, the sins of the Corinthians at communion are the sins of failing to honor one another as fellow members of one body (consider where Paul goes in ch. 12, 13).
How are they to remedy this?
By looking around at their fellow church members -- visibly -- and resolving to honor them by refraining from divisions (v. 18), refraining from humiliating one another (v. 22), by waiting for one another (v. 32).
For whom are they to wait? For the "true believers" only? Rather is it not for all who are members of the church?
And so we see that this passage is rich in its emphasis on the visible church. Not only is Paul thinking visibly about the Corinthians, in identifying them by outward behavior and by giving them commands to be followed church-wide, but he is also directing the Corinthians' attention to the visible church and saying, "This is the body of Christ. Treat it with respect."
We're very much in a "on the one hand, on the other" situation with the Corinthians. On the one hand, Paul uses robust salvation language in ch. 1. On the other, he speaks quite visibly about them in ch. 11.
To my mind, this provides strong evidentiary support for the notion that Paul thinks of the *same* church in both visible and invisible ways (rather than thinking of two different sets of people entirely).
It seems certainly plausible that he is doing the same in Romans.
More can be said about Rom 1.
You've put forward the possibility that Paul plans to visit the visible church, in hopes of covering much of the invisible church. (I agree.) And you've hypothesized that perhaps Paul is speaking of his plans in this way: while he is planning to visit the VC in Rome, he speaks in chapter 1 only of the impact of his plans on the IC, the truly saved, the set S.
Hence, the "you" in 1.8 consists only of saved folk, even though his plans are broader.
The difficulty is whether people really talk like this. Suppose I wrote a letter home where my mother, father, and sisters are. Suppose I said, "Dear Mom and dearest family, I'm looking forward to coming home and seeing y'all at Christmas."
But in my mind, the "y'all" refers only to the "dearest family": my mother and my second sister.
Is this a defensible way of writing? Would the Romans have understood, based on Paul's greeting, that he is speaking of an abstract set?
For these reasons, I would answer my own questions like this: it is quite unlikely (not perhaps impossible?) that Paul is thinking mathematically; and quite likely that he is thinking visibly.
JRC
Hi Jeff,
All is well; sort of. I have been felling awful that I can't find the time to think about what you have sent. Then today I finally got to turn on my PC and I see 3 more posts. So, I am going to really try to spend some time considering your inputs if at all possible.
By way of excuse. . . I was out walking the other day (my wife, Carol, usually is with me but her knee is bothering her) and when I was about a mile from home, I saw two little fur balls. Well, stupid me, I knelt down and they came running. Two (8 week old, according to the vet) puppies.
They followed me home!!! This happened once before with a big dog and we just left him outside and he eventually went on his way. These guys were too cute and cold to do that. So, we decided to at least let them stay in the garage for the night. They were starving and dehydrated. Also, it was very cold outside.
We have a cat. An old cat who hates anything that is not my wife or me. She actually has title to our house and just lets us stay here if we keep feeding her. The garage is part of her territory; but, she gave it up very quickly and reluctantly. She wants nothing to do with the new visitors. She is not too pleased with us for letting them in either.
We took the two pups to the vet who was only too happy to start them on shots etc. For, $200 we are on our way to having two dogs. We are experiencing a cold snap and getting up early and going to bed late now that we are walking and training two puppies all day long is keeping us fully occupied.
Oh, the cat is sick and so another $200 and we are now dispensing two medicines to the cat. (OTOH, we have now bonded quite quickly with our new vet! Amazing how much friendship $400 will buy!) If you have never had the pleasure of trying to cure a sick cat then you are really missing something. I equate it with what God has to do with us when we just don't get it and keep fighting against Him.
Well, that's my excuse. It is not at all that I don't want to be immersed in Scripture. But, discussing the fine points about bowel movements has somehow come to the fore! Hopefully, it is just a passing phase. If not, we may move out and let the cat run things on her own.
Oh, my!
We had (outdoor) cats and dogs when I was growing up. Some lived long healthy lives; some did not. We had to contend with mange, worms, ticks, and an ear infection.
So full sympathy here. No worries about the responses, for sure ...
JRC
Hi Jeff,
Well I have a few minutes between feedings and . . . well, the opposite.
Some thoughts on 1 Corinthians:
a) From ch 1, I say that Paul is writing to saved individuals. Also, he is writing to the church of God. I find that a collective term for the saved; not, a way of addressing the VC.
Based on 1 Cor 10:32, I see Paul dividing humanity up into three segments. The church of God being one of them and not possibly the VC for a non-believer in the VC is still a member of one of the other two segments.
Paul is also pragmatic. And, like the bank robber, he knows how to find his treasure. So, yes, he writes to the VC. But, he is only addressing the saved in that group, if there are any. If there are none there, then no harm is done.
b) Whoever he is writing to, according to 11:1 he commands them to imitate him. That is simply impossible for a non-believer. So, is Paul consciously misdirecting some of them? I say no. He is only speaking to the believers; the non-believers in the VC are left to understand whatever they want to. It matters not in the slightest as far as the purpose of the letter is concerned.
Further, I am quite sure that he does not know all of them. Although I am also sure that he knows some of them. But, that does not require him to be specifically calling any of them out as 'true' believers. For, he is addressing them as the church of God, and not as individuals who may in fact not be saved.
c) I agree with you that he is addressing them as 'visible' people. He has heard about real people doing bad things there. He is assuming (under the guidance of the HS) that there is at least some overlap between the VC and the church of God.
Somehow, I am not as disturbed as you seem to be that he is addressing the church of God (all saved) and at the same time addressing the group of whom he has heard and yet is not able to actually link them one for one.
My take on this is that he is not that concerned about the behavior of the lost. He is writing to the saved and it is up to them to get their act together. (Part of that would be to remove the lost from the body.) He is indeed making the assumption that the way to address the church of God is to write to the VC. That's all he can do, after all. But, his only concern for the lost is to witness to them and not to correct their actions. The lost can not possibly participate in the Lord's supper in a worthy manner. Paul can not be trying to encourage them to do the impossible?
d) You say that Paul is expecting all within the church to obey him. How could he expect this? The lost can't do this except as hypocrites. Do you think that that is what Paul is trying to get them to do? I say absolutely not.
Just because he is writing to the VC does not mean that he expects all in that body to understand or respond to his commands in the same manner. His expectations seem only to make sense for the saved.
e) You say that he is directing their attention to the VC and saying, "This is the body of Christ. Treat it with respect." First of all, the VC is not the body of Christ. It is an organization masquerading as the body of Christ. It may be the best we can manage (although I don't believe that) but it is not the body of Christ.
I just do not believe that Paul would think that a non-believer would have a clue as to what the body of Christ is, let alone have respect for it. Yes, some are just 'members' of the VC, an organization and could have respect for the organization (e.g., like for the local chamber of commerce). But, that is not what Paul is exhorting them to do. The unity he is talking about is not human unity as expressed in a men's club.
TO BE CONTINUED:
CONTINUING:
f) Finally, the way you propose addressing 'your' family does not ring true. Paul does not know these people (at least not all of them). You, on the other hand, would be deceptive if you hid the fact from your family as to which ones you really did not look forward to seeing in a vague group address.
Bottom line: Paul is addressing a visible group about which he has heard. There are problems in the VC at Corinth. Paul believes there are saved people in that group; he does not know which are which and does not address any of them specifically. To correct the problems, he addresses the church of God in their midst with directions that only the saved can either understand or follow. He leaves the lost to themselves; that is not the problem that is on his mind as he writes the letter.
Hi David,
Could we agree to this, based on 1 Cor 5: that Paul's desire for non-believers in the church is that they either repent or else admit their lost state and leave?
---
At this point, the distance between us seems to be narrowing a bit.
For you, Paul's proper addressees are the believers only; but you also admit that his letters are "to" the visible church, in the sense that Paul is being pragmatic.
For me, Paul's words are "to" the visible church, but are properly true only for the saved therein (generally speaking; the warnings are to all).
I see hope here for a possible bridge.
---
DW: You say that he is directing their attention to the VC and saying, "This is the body of Christ. Treat it with respect." First of all, the VC is not the body of Christ. It is an organization masquerading as the body of Christ. It may be the best we can manage (although I don't believe that) but it is not the body of Christ.
I think this paragraph gets to a core point.
Consider the proposition, "The visible church is an organization masquerading as the body of Christ."
Where does this proposition come from? Certainly not from Scripture!
For one thing, the "visible church" as such is not a Scriptural term.
The Scripture uses only the term "church." Often, the term refers to the invisible aspect (all true believers).
But sometimes, "church" refers to the visible fellowship of those who call themselves believers. This is certainly the case in Rom 16.16; it is likely also in Rev 2-3.
The Scripture, in God's wisdom, does not place a clear distinguishing label on these two uses. The only reason that we have these terms, "visible church" and "invisible church", are that the Church fathers, and later the Reformers, found it necessary to distinguish between the church as we see it and the church as God sees it.
So now, you tell me that the church as we see it is a masquerade? A merely human organization?
Where does that idea come from? Does the Scripture encourage us to walk into "church" (for surely we should put scare-quotes around a masquerade!) and look around at our fellow "church" members and think, This is all a merely human organization? The church elders may or may not really have authority over me, because they may or may not be saved? The communion I receive may not really be fellowship because I don't *know*, mathematically speaking, whether anyone here is truly saved?
Does Paul treat the "churches" of Rom. 16.16 as merely human institutions and masquerades?
I know you don't treat your church like that.
And that's because even though you say the words, "The real church is only the saved, and the visible church is only a human organization", you like Paul are pragmatic. You recognize that the church you actually interact with is the one that you see. You have already agreed with me that in our obedience to commands like 1 Cor 11 and Eph 4, we are supposed to treat all (visible) church members as proper objects of our one-anothering. You know that the visible church is something *more* than a masquerade; it is instead the locus where God congregates his (true) people, for the purposes of fellowship, shepherding, and worship.
Your words imply and require a mathematical perfection that cannot be lived. It places the church entirely in the heavenly realm, unable to be interacted with here and now. That's not how God designed the church. If He wanted that, then we'd be raptured the instant we converted.
JRC
DW: Somehow, I am not as disturbed as you seem to be that he is addressing the church of God (all saved) and at the same time addressing the group of whom he has heard and yet is not able to actually link them one for one.
If this statement reflects your view, then far from being disturbed, I'm relieved.
It's what I've been arguing all this time! :) For the first group is simply the IC, and the second is the VC. Paul addresses the group of whom he has heard (1.8), knowing that it has substantial overlap with the truly saved (1.7).
His desired target for most of his letter (saving the warnings) is the IC; he speaks to the VC as its proxy, the projection of the IC in time and space.
But I would think *you* would be disturbed, in that you have forcefully denied that Paul could be addressing anyone at all who is unsaved. Your argument about Rom 11, for example, rests on the impossibility that there could be any unbelievers in the "you" (υμεις) whom Paul could be warning.
But clearly, "the group of whom he has heard" could possibly contain unbelievers.
So somehow, you've got Paul simultaneously addressing two groups, one of whom might contain people that you've previously denied that he's addressing. On the one hand, in your account, Paul is careful to exclude all non-believers (even professing non-believers). On the other hand, he includes those whose faith he has heard of.
This is a real inconsistency in your view!
(cont.)
Perhaps what you've perceived as my being disturbed is rather an (over-?)energetic attempt at bringing out this inconsistency so that it is clearly visible.
On the one hand, you want "the church" to be absolute and pure. Paul cannot write to unbelievers, for they cannot respond to his words and the things he says are not true about them anyway.
On this hand, the visible church is a merely human organization, of no account.
On the other, you admit Paul's pragmatism. You agree that he sends this letter to the visible church in Rome (where it will be read), because that's where the believers are.
On this other hand, the visible church is a proxy for the invisible church.
(Of course, the whole church in Rome will read the "you" and *think* that he's talking about them. But we know better. ;) )
The reason I recognize this inconsistency is that I had to confront it in myself in the Fall of 2000.
There may be more than one solution, but the solution that seemed to fit the Biblical data to me is this: give up on the idea that the church in Scripture is *always*, *only* the invisible church.
That idea is certainly not a positive teaching of Scripture. It is rather an inference from Scripture, but an incomplete one.
It forces us into exegetical gymnastics when explaining passages like Rom 1.8, Rom 11, 1 Cor 10, 1 Cor 11, Col. 1.15, Rev. 2 - 3, and Matt. 18.15 - 17. We have to invent subtle distinctions between "writing a letter to" and "addressing."
Granted: the Scripture *does* teach, in many places, the invisible aspect of the Church. But in so doing, it does not deny the visible aspect also. Just because the church is viewed from God's point of view over *here* (say, in Eph 2), does not mean that the church cannot be viewed from man's point of view over *there* (say, in Rom 16.16).
Why not read the letters more plainly, and recognize that Paul is addressing the letters to the churches to whom he sends the letters?! He sends the letter to the visible church in Rome, he's addressing the letter to the visible church in Rome.
Perhaps some of what disturbs you about the notion of "visible church" is that you think of it as a random collection of people who play at being believers.
But this is not what Scripture presents to us. Our actual fellowship with flesh-and-blood, professing believers is supposed to be reflective of the true spiritual reality underneath. As Scripture teaches it, there is supposed to be an organic unity between the invisible and the visible, so that what we claim is both true on the inside (cf. Jesus' teachings), but also reflected in our behavior towards, among other things, the visible church (James 5).
That's why I steer away from the IC/VC language and towards the "aspect" language. The IC and VC are not two separate groups, but substantially the same group. When the two begin to diverge, as Rome did in the 16th century, then it's time to call a spade a spade.
JRC
DW: Whoever he is writing to, according to 11:1 he commands them to imitate him. That is simply impossible for a non-believer. So, is Paul consciously misdirecting some of them? I say no. He is only speaking to the believers; the non-believers in the VC are left to understand whatever they want to. It matters not in the slightest as far as the purpose of the letter is concerned.
This argument is flawed. God commands all men everywhere to repent and believe the Gospel; but many are unable. This is not a misdirection on God's part. Rather, it is the nature of commands: "ought" does not imply "can." (Kant was wrong about that)
Likewise, to say that Paul ends up commanding some (professing) non-believers to imitate him is no problem. Yes, they are secondary; yes, his target audience is the believers; yes, the unbelievers will be unable to give more than outward obedience to Paul's command.
None of this, however, proves that Paul is not writing to them. His audience is defined here in the passage: it is those who are disgracing the table of the Lord.
DW: Further, I am quite sure that he does not know all of them. Although I am also sure that he knows some of them. But, that does not require him to be specifically calling any of them out as 'true' believers. For, he is addressing them as the church of God, and not as individuals who may in fact not be saved.
The problem is that he isn't speaking to individuals at all. He's speaking to the whole group: all of you, wait for each other. Stop getting drunk at the Table.
There's nothing here that separates the badly-behaving true believers from the badly-behaving false professors. He is commanding all of them to cut it out.
Think about the threat Paul delivers in 2 Cor 13.2-3. Is Paul threatening only the true believers? Or is he rather threatening any within the church who have challenged his authority?
JRC
Hi Jeff,
You said that based on 1 Cor 5: Paul's desire for non-believers in the church is that they either repent or else admit their lost state and leave?
I can't find this at all. Where do you see it?
You also say: (generally speaking; the warnings are to all).
If you were so inclined, I would be interested in trying to deal with a specific warning to see how it might in fact apply to 'all.'
Back to the VC/IC discussion, you say: "You know that the visible church is something *more* than a masquerade; it is instead the locus where God congregates his (true) people, for the purposes of fellowship, shepherding, and worship. Your words imply and require a mathematical perfection that cannot be lived."
'Masquerade' most likely had a level of flourish to it. But, When Paul speaks to it, he speaks to the ones who are actually members of the body and not the ones who are there because of the sin of the ones who are actually in the body. That is, the ones who were winking at immorality. He does not speak to the one who was engaging in the immorality; although I see Paul accepting that one as a saved member of the body.
I basically agree with your points here. OTOH, I see nothing that implies that believers and unbelievers are encouraged to worship together anywhere in Scripture. Certainly not fellowship in the sense you mean here. And, what kind of shepherding is the believing part of the church supposed to do with the unbelievers in their midst? No, the church, the one we see, is supposed to be as pure as we can possibly make it. Having spirit filled leaders focused on that is not something that I have had the privilege to see in action. That is the role Paul seems to continually take on in his letters. And, that role encourages the believers to take the right actions; not the un-believers.
So, does Paul treat the churches as "merely human institutions and masquerades?" No, he really doesn't. But, he does treat them as groups that are not functioning rightly. As groups that at the least have allowed sin to creep in and go unattended. And, of course, an inquisition is not the answer. It really isn't that hard to recognize the actions / words or spirit filled people.
Hi again,
You said: "So somehow, you've got Paul simultaneously addressing two groups, one of whom might contain people that you've previously denied that he's addressing. On the one hand, in your account, Paul is careful to exclude all non-believers (even professing non-believers). On the other hand, he includes those whose faith he has heard of.
This is a real inconsistency in your view!"
Do you think that Paul is referring to the faith of those who are unsaved? He has heard about 'faith' of possibly individuals or, in fact, the 'church' as a whole. Whether this report is accurate or not is impossible for us to determine. Paul doesn't judge it either. He simply encourages the 'group' with this feedback. The believers and the unbelievers in the group will hear whatever they hear. But, Paul is not talking to the unbelievers about their faith. He is addressing the group (pragmatism) but only speaking to the ones who can hear.
You state my view as: "On this hand, the visible church is a merely human organization, of no account."
DW: No, not even I would not say that. Also, I have a very, very limited experience with 'church.' So, my conclusions are not statistically valid in any sense whatsoever.
But, what I have seen is not close to what it is described as in the NT. Paul is dealing with what he had seen or heard about. The point is that the IC is to rid itself of what is hanging on in the form of the VC that doesn't belong as a part of the visible witness of the body to the world. It is not about making the VC look better and yet still be the VC. It is about the IC being the VC.
No, that will never happen by man. But, that is the task that the IC is to be dealing with. Just my babbling.
Hi David,
The snow's coming in, so I might lose power this weekend. Yipee!
(Both girls enjoy sledding)
---
Since we're heading towards our mutually agreed stop-date, I'd like to put forward the major issues still on the table for me.
(1) I feel that the issues in Rom 11 are still very significant.
In particular, I cannot find any confirmation in Scripture the idea that Gentiles as a group "have stood by faith", or even that Gentiles as a group stand in a position of blessing with God, except as they are made "sons of Abraham" by faith.
Further, as I've previously mentioned, "faith" in Romans is the instrument of salvation, not of other things (though elsewhere in Scripture it is).
And finally, the complete lack of antecedent support for "συ" referring to the Gentiles as a group, makes your reading quite problematic.
You may have already touched on them here and there, but if you could summarize, that would be great.
(2) The core driver of your reading of Rom 11 is your reading of Rom 1.7: that Paul is speaking only to those who are actually saved (rather than to a group, whom be believes to be saved, but recognizes that some might not be).
I would like to understand what evidence confirms this reading, especially since it goes against the combined testimony of the Church over the centuries.
(3) Have we made any progress in terms of further understanding?
---
What issues are still on the table for you?
Grace and peace,
Jeff
Hi Jeff,
Hope the snow fairy has not caused you to lose power. We just got about an inch and it is already mostly gone.
I don't really have any issues on the table. I've tried to support my readings and don't really see how my repeating them would in any way help you to have a more blessed day.
JC: I cannot find any confirmation in Scripture (for) the idea that Gentiles as a group "have stood by faith"
DW: There are about 1.2 billion Muslims that have faith in God. There are countless Catholics and Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses who all have faith in God. Needless to say, their faith is not saving faith.
For my part, I have no confirmation in Scripture that one with saving faith is ever going to be 'broken off.' Gentiles have their very own Apostle, Paul. That sounds to me like they have standing of at least a sort that they didn't have before they were grafted in. I know of no Apostle to the Gentiles before Paul. But today, there are people bringing the gospel to millions and millions of lost Gentiles. Indeed,they have been grafted in.
By the way, if one separates Peter's message to the Jews from Paul's message to the Gentiles, a lot of confusion on stuff like baptism and repentance, not to mention the warnings, would go away.
JC: (Re: Romans 1:7) I would like to understand what evidence confirms this reading, especially since it goes against the combined testimony of the Church over the centuries.
DW: As I look at Paul's letters, I see him making it very clear to whom he is writing. With the possible exception of Galatians, he never just says that he is writing to the 'church at . . ' He always defines the characteristics of the recipients as saved. I just take him at his word.
As to the testimony of the church you are much better informed than I am. At this point, I have no specific discussion of church Fathers that I can refer to which in fact explains the meaning of Romans 1:7 any differently.
JC: Have we made any progress in terms of further understanding?
DW: This (extended) exchange has been of immense value to me. Alas, I don't know if either of us has moved one iota closer to the other. No problem. I will always remember this exchange (and you) very fondly.
My Final Statement
I've really enjoyed our conversation! I have tremendous respect for your personal integrity in engaging with me according to the commands of Scripture: with gentleness, and prepared to give a defense of the faith. Your zeal for Scripture is refreshing, and your demeanor inspires imitation.
The overarching view that I've tried to put forward is that salvation in space and time is concentrated in families and in the visible body of Christ. Not that all children of Christians are saved; nor that all members of a church are saved. Rather, God has (for his own reasons) chosen to propagate the Gospel in families and by means of the Church.
With regard to families, I see the affirmation of Rom 4 and Gal 3, "You are all sons of Abraham through faith in Christ Jesus", as proof positive that Christians are a continuation of the covenant God made with Abraham (but not a continuation of OT Israel per se, in that the Law they labored under is fulfilled by Christ).
Likewise, with regard to the church, I see Rom 11 as proof that those within the church have been grafted into God's people.
Since, however, the threat of breaking off remains (as indeed the unbelieving Jews were broken off because of their unbelief), I see the ingrafting not as certainly salvific, viewed from God's point of view, but rather provisional, viewed from man's point of view. Just as Col 1.15 is provisional, so also the ingrafting is provisional: if indeed you have genuine faith, then the ingrafting will be a genuine ingrafting. If not, then breaking off awaits you.
So you and I agree on this point: nothing in Scripture supports the idea that someone can be broken off from genuine salvation.
Likewise, I see Paul's greetings and commands as written to the visible church; the leadership that God has ordained is likewise operating at the visible level.
Our great discussion centered ultimately on Rom 1.7: Is Paul speaking to the saved only, or to the visible church, to those whom he believes to be saved based on a credible outward profession?
In the end, we disagreed here. However, I would like to address the question you asked:
DW: Do you think that Paul is referring to the faith of those who are unsaved?
Absolutely not. Quite the opposite, in fact. The reports that he has heard give him great reason to believe that they are saved (which is why he addresses them as such in 1.7).
The view of 1.7 and the view of the visible church that I want to convey is that these are individuals that we have reason to believe are in fact saved. We're just not mathematically certain of it.
So it seems like there ought to be some way to bridge Paul's pragmatism, as you call it, and the view of the church that I'm offering up.
Additionally, you put forward a strong view of reforming the visible church so that it approaches the invisible. Within limits, I would encourage you to pursue this vision. The visible church is in fact the locus that God has ordained for us to worship together, to practice "one-anothering" as in Eph. 4, and to be sharpened by one another.
That's it for me. The final final word belongs to you.
Grace and peace,
Jeff Cagle
Hi Jeff,
OK, my final statement too.
We agree on what the church we see is and how we should treat the individuals who have signed on. My guess is that Paul knew as much, if not much more, about the church as it really exists in time and space as we think we do.
Nevertheless, the HS led Paul to address saved people in an unambiguous manner, having nothing to do with Paul's particular knowledge of any individuals. Nor, does his simply human desire to visit them require that he be mathematically sure as to who they are.
I just can't imagine how Christians are a continuation of a covenant that God made with Abraham. A covenant which already includes their blessing without their being the ones to whom the promise was made. A few metaphorical terms have really led to a view of Abraham's descendants that is foreign to covenant making.
Finally, since the in-grafting is something that God does without much guidance from man, I assume the breaking off is likewise His to determine. But, now we seem to have genuine in-graftings and provisional ones. No, there are saved people and there are unsaved people. Joining a church we see does not change one's status even in a provisional sense with regard to grafting in or breaking off. None of that grafting stuff is about church.
So, we end pretty much where we began. But, it sure was a pleasant journey.
You and your family be very well.
David
Post a Comment