Here is the multiple choice question: When does a person technically become "in Christ"?
A) Before the foundation of the world, certain "elect" people are already "in Christ," not that they are chosen to become in Christ, but already are in Christ, from eternity past. As a result, when they are born, they already are "in Christ," without even knowing it, until such time as Irresistible Grace makes them aware of it.
B) Certain "elect" people are born "in Adam," but at an appointed time, are preemptively made Born Again "in Christ," regenerated with a new heart and a new spirit as the "new creture" in Christ, and thus are efficaciously drawn to Christ.
C) A person is born "in Adam," and does not become "in Christ" until he hears and believes in the Gospel, and then is "sealed" in Christ, as per Ephesians 1:13.
I believe that Calvinist, James White, taught (B):
James White: “When the time comes in God’s sovereign providence to bring to spiritual life each of those for whom Christ died, the Spirit of God will not only effectively accomplish that work of regeneration but that new creature in Christ will, unfailingly, believe in Jesus Christ (‘all that the Father gives Me will come to Me’). Hence, we are not saved ‘without’ faith, but at the same time, Christ’s atonement is not rendered useless and vain without the addition of libertarian free will.” (Debating Calvinism, p.191)
Jacob Arminius taught (C):
Arminius: “God regards no one in Christ unless they are engrafted in him by faith.”
I personally believe that Paul taught (C) as well:
Paul: “In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation--having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise.” (Ephesians 1:13)
However, I couldn't find a single major Calvinist who was willing to espouse (A), until now.
In his commentary on 2nd Timothy 1:9, John Gill states: "which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began; it is a gift, and a free gift, not at all depending upon any conditions in the creature, and entirely proceeding from the sovereign will of God; and it was a gift from eternity; there was not only a purpose of grace in God's heart, and a promise of it so early, but there was a real donation of it in eternity: and though those to whom it was given did not then personally exist, yet Christ did, and he existed as a covenant head and representative of his people; and they were in him, as members of him, as represented by him, being united to him; and this grace was given to him for them, and to them in him; in whom they were chosen, and in whom they were blessed with all spiritual blessings. The Ethiopic version reads, "in Christ Jesus, who before the world [was]"; but without any foundation." (http://www.studylight.org/com/geb/view.cgi?book=2ti&chapter=1&verse=9)
Now the interesting thing is, if they were "in him," that is, Christ, from eternity past, "as members of him," then compare with 1st John 2:23-24: "Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also. As for you, let that abide in you which you heard from the beginning. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, you also will abide in the Son and in the Father."
So if a person could be "in the Son" from before the foundation of the world, doesn't it stand to reason that they were "in the Father" from before the foundation of the world, also?
12 comments:
Dear Richard:
I did not get your explanation of the passage in II Tim. 1:9. How do YOU believe people were "given grace in Christ" before the world began?
Blessings,
Stephen
Hello Stephen,
In the same way that my grandfather gave me Savings Bonds when I was just a kid. He put it in a safe deposit box, and I didn't get it until I became 18.
Similarly, when I became a Christian, I received what God had eterally laid up for me in Christ.
As an illustration, Stephen Curtis Chapman was once interviewed at the Dove Awards, and a reporter asked him what he would say to someone like Howard Stern. Chapman responded that he would try to persuade him to ask Jesus into his heart, and that "Jesus has a wonderful plan for your life."
Stern responded that he doesn't believe in "fairy tales" and that the plan for his life is to "make millions of people laugh."
Nevertheless, I do believe that if he ever became a Christian, he would get what God eternally laid up for him in Christ, which includes a purpose and a calling for his life, just like Chapman stated, and someday, God will reveal to Stern, how God had intended to use him, and how different his life could have been, just like, how different the life of the rich younger ruler would have been, had he accepted Jesus' offer.
>So if a person could be "in the Son" from before the foundation of the world, doesn't it stand to reason that they were "in the Father" from before the foundation of the world, also?
Richard, you're slipping all over the place now. Originally you were proposing that the elect were, according to decontextualized quotes by Calvinists, 'in the Father' in some kind of covenantal way not taught by Scripture. Now you are proposing the same thing though you are putting it in the context of the Covenant of Redemption, i.e. the elect are in Christ - the Mediator between God and man - and hence by that route in the Father.
Gill was a covenant theologian, by the way, Richard. Learn Covenant Theology and you will have an understanding of Reformed Theology you currently don't possess.
Here is a good, basic intro on Covenant Theology. It's an article that stands as the Introduction to an edition of Witsius' Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man:
http://www.gospelpedlar.com/articles/Bible/cov_theo.html
You wrote: "Richard, you're slipping all over the place now. Originally you were proposing that the elect were, according to decontextualized quotes by Calvinists, 'in the Father' in some kind of covenantal way not taught by Scripture. Now you are proposing the same thing though you are putting it in the context of the Covenant of Redemption, i.e. the elect are in Christ - the Mediator between God and man - and hence by that route in the Father."
I'm not slipping. The problem is that you are not grasping the matter, so I'll be as clear as possible:
As a refresher, Arminian principles echo John 14:6, in that no one comes to the Father but through Christ (i.e. faith in Him), and when a person has Christ, He thus has the Father also, and hence, when a person is "in Christ," he is thus simultaneously "in the Father" also, as per 1st John 2:23-24. Fairly simple.
In contrast to Arminian principles, Calvinist John Gill, places the elect "in Christ" before the foundation of the world, which is before a person ever receives Christ. Therefore, if a person could be in Christ from eternity past, then what does that say about their status with the Father from eternity past? In other words, if a person who has Christ, has the Father also (as per 1st John 2:23-24), and if, as Gill proposes, that a person is in Christ from all eternity, then that must also require that they be in the Father from all eternity. That's my point. There's no "slipping." If a person is eternally “in Christ” because the Father eternally gave them to the Christ, then that implies what Calvin stated, which is that they were eternally the Father’s secret possession, and hence, a new Federal Headship, which is completely different than what Arminians state about people being “in the Father.” If Calvinists are going to propose that there exists an eternal flock of the Father, then it is inevitable that these are eternally “in the Father.”
I never took Calvin out of context. You failed to demonstrate that. Instead, you made up your own comments and then used that as a basis to say that I had taken him out of context. Obviously, then, you don’t understand what it means to take someone “out of context.” Nonetheless, there is little fruit in endlessly arguing these points with you. I’ve stated my case, and you have nothing to offer in return except your own bitterness.
Richard, for the umpteenth time, when Calvinists - Reformed Theologians, etc. - speak of anyone being 'in' Christ (and when the Bible does, it goes without saying) it is a statement involving 'covenant.' The elect are 'in covenant' with the Father in only one of TWO ways: via the Covenant of Works with Adam (not a good route anymore, Richard) and via the Covenant of Grace (a better choice, having the Second Person of the Godhead as your Mediator between you and the Father).
There IS NO covenantal relationship between God the Father and the elect directly.
Calvin knew this, Gill knew this. When you quote them and you have no understanding of basic Reformed covenant theology you are just being inane and empty (vain).
You originally were posing a 'third' covenantal relationship between God the Father and the elect that neither Calvinism (including Gill) nor the Bible pose itself.
I say you are slipping all over the place because once you were disabused of this regarding the Calvin quote you are now going off another quote you've found, and even then you've shifted your focus while pretending that you are just saying the same thing.
I no longer care to untangle your tangled web. What you need to do is make an effort to get some understanding of that which you are attempting to refute. Arminians read a Tulip manual here and a Calvinist article there and get crazy refuting one or all of the five points, but one thing Arminians have never understood is classical covenant theology (let alone Federal Theology which is covenant theology systematized).
You wrote: "There IS NO covenantal relationship between God the Father and the elect directly."
Then how did the "elect" become the Father’s elect in the first place? How did they become the Father's eternal, secret possession, as John Calvin states? How did they become God's "people" as James White states? The result of this "relationship" is that they are then "given" to the Son:
Calvinist, James White, states: “I just also believe the undisputed and unrefuted fact that I come to Christ daily because the Father, on the sole basis of His mercy and grace, gave me to the Son in eternity past.” (Debating Calvinism, p.306)
You can quote all of the Covenant Theology in the world, and you can insist that the "elect" are not in covenant with the Father directly, but only through the Son, but that fails to explain how the "elect" obtained the aforementioned relationship with the Father, whereupon they are thus given to the Son. All of your answers thus far have been nothing more than a cop-out of Special Pleading. And besides this, I don't recall you having answered the essential question of the initial post: A, B or C. Certain Calvinists presented their answer, but we have not heard yours.
>You wrote: "There IS NO covenantal relationship between God the Father and the elect directly." Then how did the "elect" become the Father’s elect in the first place? How did they become the Father's eternal, secret possession, as John Calvin states? How did they become God's "people" as James White states? The result of this "relationship" is that they are then "given" to the Son:
The Covenant of Grace is the Covenant of Redemption as it plays out in time, Richard. The Covenant of Redemption is the covenant between God the Father (representing the Trinity) and the Second Person of the Trinity Jesus Christ. This covenant was made before the foundation of the world, i.e. from eternity. Part of the stipulations of the Covenant of Redemption is God would give the elect to the Son if the Son pays the price on the cross (etc., etc.)
Again, basic Reformed Theology 101 (Reformed Theology IS covenant theology).
Again, God deals with man via covenant.
And Stephan Garrett, in the previous thread, explained to you your confusion regarding predetermined events, etc.:
* * *
Dear Richard:
Let me add a couple thoughts.
First, God calls predetermined events, acts that are intended, versus acts actually accomplished.
"God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were." (Rom. 4: 17)
The chosen were in the Father only by a predetermined choice to, in time, actually place them within himself.
To be "in" the Son is to be in the Father. (Col. 3: 3) To be in the "bosom" of Christ is to be in the "bosom" of the Father.
Blessings,
Stephen
* * *
You wrote: “The Covenant of Grace is the Covenant of Redemption as it plays out in time, Richard. The Covenant of Redemption is the covenant between God the Father (representing the Trinity) and the Second Person of the Trinity Jesus Christ.”
By saying that the covenant was made with the Son, does not answer the question of how they became the Father’s elect.
By saying that the covenant was made before the foundation of the world, does not answer the question of how they became the Father’s elect.
You wrote: “Part of the stipulations of the Covenant of Redemption is God would give the elect to the Son if the Son pays the price on the cross (etc., etc.)”
By saying that the covenant was conditional upon the Son’s fulfillment of the Son's role, does not answer the question of how they became the Father’s elect. Moreover, the conditional election is further rendered problematic for Calvinism, since Determinists teach an "immutable decree," through which any and all such "conditions," were eternally "fixed and determined" by the Father.
You wrote: “The chosen were in the Father only by a predetermined choice to, in time, actually place them within himself.”
Stephen’s point, which you quoted, is thus far, the only useful statement to emerge. What he's saying is that the sense in which the "elect" are eternally "in the Father," is NOT the same sense in which they become "in the Father" in time, which is perfectly logical. Nevertheless, that still doesn’t answer the question of how they became the Father's elect in the first place, and once this question is fairly addressed, it will be seen as the most meaningful sense of being "in the Father, because it is the sense in which all of the elect's blessings emerge.
Richard, (Richard, Richard, Richard...) you really - really - have to just entertain the possibility that you don't know what you are talking about regarding Reformed doctrine.
Asking how the elect became the Fathers is like asking how the Sun became part of God's creation.
My goodness, this is not even entertaining sophistry. For that I'll go to self-identified Calvinists pushing bad doctrine.
You should entertain the thought of actually answering the question.
Good post. You are correct in your observation about who is more in line with the Bible. It is obviously Arminius.
Post a Comment