I have recently been engaged in a discussion of "Christological Predestination". Though this idea was not new to me yesterday, I had not given it a great deal of thought until now. I believe this will result in a brief series on the topic and its consequent beliefs. By the way, anyone else who has thought about this, doesn't it sound a bit like the teachings of Norm Shepard and the Auburn Ave. crew?
What is Christological Predestination?
As far as I can gather, it is the idea that God elected Christ, and those who believe are, as Paul so often puts it, "in Christ", but to the exclusion (or neglect) of God's election of individuals, but that persons "elect" themselves by believing.
9 comments:
That's not Federal Vision. The men you named all clearly state that they believe that God elects certain individuals to salvation. The view you're talking about is more of a Calminian or Arminian reading of Ephesians 1. People like Norman Geisler and Robert Shank would subscribe to that view.
Ok, got it. So there isn't any connection to Barth either, is there? I think I've got the Fed Vis guys confused with the "new Perspective" guys...where they emphasis the cooperate-ness of election to the near exclusion of the individual aspects of election and predestination.
If I'm not mistaken, the opposite position is the "single decree view", right? I'm still working through this.
I know almost nothing about Barth, so I couldn't tell you about him. The Federal Vision guys do emphasize corporate election, probably more so than the average Reformed theologian does. And John Barach does have an interesting take on that, and how it interacts with individual election. So I'd recommend you check out his lectures at the Auburn conferences and his writings in the two Federal Vision books to get a better idea about his view. I've never fully understood what he's getting at, I don't think. But still, he and the other FV guys would emphasize that God, before the foundation of the world, predestined some people to eternal life, and predestined others to perish in their sins. With the New Perspective guys, I don't know that I've ever heard or read them directly address the Calvinism question. I still have alot more to learn about where they're coming from. N. T. Wright and James D. G. Dunn wouldn't, as best I understand them, hold to our understanding of predestination. But I could be misunderstanding them.
When you say "the opposite position", I'm not sure I'm following. The opposite position of Calvinism?
If I'm not mistaken, the problem that many Reformed folk have with FV (aside from the confusing way they thought FV guys tried to explain what they are saying) is that they de-emphasize the importance of the legal aspects of the atonement, right?
From my brief look into it so far, I gathered that the two opposing positions have been referred to as the "single decree" view on the Reformed side, and "Christological Predestination" view on the non-Reformed side. I know what the latter term is getting at but if you google it you hit fewer than 10 sites, but one of them is an article on a puritan's mind about William Perkins and his Bible commentary but with further research into his thoughts, I doubt he would use the idea to deny the doctrines of grace as men such as Geisler and Hanegraaff do.
Well, I'll go ahead and warn you that I consider myself somewhere in the Federal Vision and/or New Perspective camp(s). But I wouldn't necessarily be able to represent any one individual's views fully other than my own. When the two controversies arose (FV and New Perspective, respectively) a few years back, I studied them quite a bit for awhile. But I burned out on it, so I haven't given much attention to it in the past couple of years. I have some gaps in my knowledge then, though I'm sure to speak only insofar as I'm sure of what I'm talking about.
If there's a debate on the atonement between the FV'ers and other Reformed people, I'm not aware of it. I fully affirm limited atonement, and I affirm that we violated God's law in Adam, and therefore satisfaction had to be made.
My assessment of the debates between the FV'ers and other Reformed people, in part, is this. It is true that the FV'ers haven't always spoken as clear as they could have, though whenever they've faced that accusation, they've gone out of their ways to clear up any confusion. They've sought repeatedly the counsel of those who disagree with them, in order to maintain unity, and to check themselves in order to make sure they are teaching according to Scripture. What I've seen from the non-FV Reformed people, generally, is an unwillingness to question their own views in the same way that the FV'ers have questioned their own. Instead, the non-FV people have often misrepresented the FV'ers, even in places that the FV'ers have clearly spoken.
I'm not sure what all is meant in the term "single decree". God, before the foundation of the world, foreordained all things that would, in time, come to pass. He decreed who would be saved, and who would be condemned. Geisler wouldn't see God as decreeing anything before the world began, at least anything that would come in conflict with man's free will. Those who are in Christ, according to his view, would be destined for salvation, but only because they chose to be in the Elect One, Jesus Christ, according to their own free will.
Kerry,
Admittedly I haven't engaged the discussion over FV and NP in a while. But I do remember the guys at the WHI talking about it a few times. It seemed like a good-natured disagreement, but disagreement nonetheless. I need to review it. What about the NP do you think is more biblical or accurate than the way Reformed folks had previously believed?
You know, it's been a while since I've studied it myself. And right now I'm in a Bible study on Judges, so that's where my brain is currently. So I'd have to go back and do some re-studying before I could satisfactorily answer that question. Also, I think the things I've learned I've taken into myself to a point that I'm having a difficult time separating them out like that. There is a lot of overlap between New Perspective, Federal Vision, Partial Preterism, and what little bit I've read from Ridderbos, so these things all go together for me. But after that round about way of responding, here are a couple of things from the New Perspective that come to mind.
Probably the most controversial area where I largely agree with Wright would be his treatment of Romans. I was in a Bible study last year on Romans, and read the majority of his commentary at that time, albeit at a rather harried pace. I also have his lectures from Regent College on Romans, which I listened to. His understanding that the larger picture of the New Testament, and specifically of Romans, has to do with the movement from Old to New Covenant, and the broader inclusion of the Gentiles into the people of God, rather than a doctrine of salvation that is abstracted from covenantal history, would be the main point. And so when Paul is talking, for instance, about the Law, as in Galatians and Romans, he is not talking about a general principle of law, as we use the term. He is talking about the Mosaic Law. How this plays out fully in the various passages of the New Testament, and how this relates to things such as a theory of Natural Law, or Biblical ethics, I haven't fully come to terms with in my own thinking. So many books, so little time.
Wright understands that Jesus came as the Final Prophet, the True King - He fulfilled the prophecies of the Old Testament. God had been patient with Israel, calling her over and over again to repentance. And so, as the parable says, the Owner of the vineyard (God the Father) finally sent His Son (Jesus) in hopes that the tenants (Israel) would reverence Him. But instead they killed the Son. So the Owner of the vineyard destroyed them. That took place in 70 AD in Jerusalem. And so Wright's understanding of how the Old Testament ties into the New Testament buttresses nicely with Partial Preterism.
That would probably be the best I answer I could give right now. There are plenty of areas where I don't agree with New Perspective people. They usually have some Liberal tendencies with which I strongly disagree. They often don't take a strong enough stand for Biblical inerrancy. And Wright, for instance, has been outspokenly in favour of women's ordination, which usually results in some fanciful exegesis on his part. He is way too supportive of Archibishop Rowan Williams, and how Wright can in good conscience be a member of the Church of England is beyond me. Nonetheless, I think the New Perspective people have some great insight into Scripture, and I try not to throw the baby out with the bath water.
I wish I could give you a better answer, but maybe after I've read some more, we can dialogue more about it in the future. You might want to check out some of the resources available on the N. T. Wright Page, or some of his books. There are others, such as James D. G. Dunn, Don Garlington, and Richard B. Hays, but Wright is the most accessible, and his books as well as his resources online are more plentiful.
So far as the White Horse Inn guys are concerned, they are always gracious to a degree, especially when they have someone on the show with whom they disagree. Nonetheless, the are very openly opposed to both the NP and FV, and they are opposed to them to the point that, if anyone in their respective denominations held to either view, it would result in church discipline. That has been the normal Reformed response, and that's why most FV guys are no longer in standard Reformed denominations, but are in the CREC.
Thanks so much for your interaction Kerry.
I suffer from a disease that renders me incapable of passing a rabbit-trail by as I am studying a certain topic, so I find myself spending endless amounts of time pondering my navel (oh I mean, pondering obscure theological nuances). Fortunately for me, I believe some pharmaceutical company has developed a drug to alleviate one of such symptoms however, the side effects include: dry mouth, introversion, encephalitis, uncontrollable arrogance, possible vomiting, sudden and uncontrollable urges to discuss thing in a group which no one else could possibly have any interest in, and in severe cases, the inability to concentrate on one topic at a time.
Regarding this topic though, was Ridderbos a partial preterist? I’m not sure I can accurately separate or categorize PP, but I think it is an eschatological sub-set of either Amil or Post-mill, right? Some of both camps are PP, believing that most of NT apocalyptic prophesies were fulfilled at the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70, right? Or do you mean that Ridderbos has heavily influenced the FV’s and NP’s of our day? I’ve read very little of him, but Hoekema seemed to agree with him on many issues.
Can’t one believe that Paul presented a doctrinal treatise in the form of an explanation of the movement from OC to NC: the mystery of the inclusion of the Gentiles, and by showing Christ as the Archetype? I guess what I’m saying is, at least the way you present it, I would disagree with Wright on those points, but I should read his stuff for further examination; I may disagree that Paul ONLY means the Mosaic Law when he mentions the term, but I see the Law in general as, all that God commands of His creatures, in opposition to the gospel, all that God does to fulfill that Law, and that the Law is really just a reflection of the holy character of God—that lying is a sin because God isn’t a liar, etc. Maybe that’s the disagreement Wright has with other Reformed folk, his NT definition of Law…? Like I said, I need to read Wright and Dunn for myself, and rely less on the commentary of those who do oppose them, like the WHI guys (with whom I do have disagreement on small issues).
Btw, how much effect has the NP and FV teachings had on the formation of the Emergent movement, and the blasphemous statements of Chalke and McLaren?
So in conclusion, I think it is safe to say that there is no intentional connection of those who promote the doctrine of “Christological Predestination” like Hanegraaff and Geisler with the teachings of the “New Perspective on Paul”, and especially not with the “Federal Vision” guys.
I understand the "navel-pondering" tendency. I do the same, for I believe therein lie all the mysteries of the universe.
So far as Ridderbos is concerned, I haven't read enough of him to know. My impression has always been that he was an amillenialist, though I may have thought that just because he was a Continental Reformed fellow. Of course, he could have been amil and a preterist. The only theologian I know of for sure that has been both is Jay Adams. Most preterists seem to be postmil. The thing about Ridderbos that is important is his understanding of the centrality of the movement from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant, and the way in which he then exegetes specific passages with this in view. I wouldn't really call Preterism a subset of amil or postmil, since one can be either and still be a preterist. I guess it's possible that one could be premil and a preterist, at least in how one interprets certain passages. Of course, the term "preterist" is used in different ways. It can be used simply to explain one's approach to interpreting the Book of the Revelation, or some other particular passage. Or it can be used to categorize an overall approach to interpreting the Scriptures. That's how I use it when identifying my view of Scripture. It isn't isolated to a few passages that we have historically delineated as "prophetic", though it does include those. It is a matter of understanding how to approach Scripture overall, specifically the New Testament. Some people will take Matthew 24 & 25 as having to do with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Some will take the first section of the two chapters, up until about 24:36, as relating to 70 AD, and the rest as relating to the Second Coming. Keith Mathison takes that position in his book on Dispensationalism. Some will take Matthew 24-25, in part or as a whole, as relating to 70 AD, but then read the Book of the Revelation in a Historicist way. And then some will be more consistent. I personally take all of Matthew 24-25 and Revelation up to ch 19 as relating to 70 AD.
I believe Ridderbos gave us great insight into how to interpret the New Testament, and that insight fits nicely with a NPP reading. Wright, in a public forum he did with James Dunn, made the comment that he was surprised at the criticism he got from American Reformed types, because he thought alot of the insights of the NPP were latent in Ridderbos. He was surprised to find that most American Reformed folks were more Lutheran in their understanding of the Law-Gospel distinction, rather than following Ridderbos in his understanding of Paul's usage of the terms "law" and "gospel". If more people had listened to Ridderbos, he said, then the NPP wouldn't have been necessary. I think he was using a little bit of hyperbole there, but that is basically what he said nonetheless. The audio of the conversation with James Dunn is available on the N. T. Wright Page website.
So far as the other things you mentioned, as I said, I'd have to go back and do a little research to respond. There's alot of free Wright stuff available online, so I'd encourage you to check that out.
With the Emergent guys, they pick and choose the teachings they like. They will like Wright's liberal tendencies, with things like women's ordination, for instance. Whenever he says or writes something that suggests support for a Socialistic political agenda, they'll pull that out and use it for their own ends. Wright has been accused of denying penal substitution, which he has specifically denied. But I'm sure the Emergent guys, those who have denied penal substitution, would pull things from Wright out with which to support this.
Post a Comment