In a rejoinder to this post I wrote, a blogger writes:
The eternally elect persevere to the end and inherit eternal life, but not all regenerate, justified, and adopted Christians are eternally elect; therefore, non-eternally-elect Christians always fall away.
But I never said that these who fall away were truly regenerate, justified, or adopted. I often use these three terms often (take regenerated as “effectually called”) in the way the Westminster Confession uses the terms. In this sense they cannot be claimed of the non-elect. It is true that I sometimes find the Bible’s language is more elastic than the way we use our terms (Does diakonos mean Minister of the Gospel, the special office of Deacon, or a more generic “servant” so that it can be applied to a woman without violating other Scriptures? Just because the Bible uses the word in these many ways does not mean that there can be no need and permission to use the word for the office of Deacon.)
In short, I don’t believe that the non-elect have received all the same benefits as the elect except that they are not upheld in perseverance. No, the only thing necessary for my post to work, is that the elect and non-elect have some identical gifts described by the author of Hebrews. This is not some new view, as I tried to point out, but is what the Westminster Assembly declared to be “common operations of the Spirit” (which I take to mean common to elect and non-elect) using Hebrews 6 as a prooftext for these common works of God’s Holy Spirit.
This doesn’t mean that the writer is wrong in declaring that we disagree. Looking at his use of Biblical texts I think there is room for some discussion. But I do not, in point of fact, believe or teach that “not all regenerate, justified, and adopted Christians are eternally elect.” They all are. On that point we agree.
Thanks for this clarification Mark. I posted the reasons for my wrong conclusions on my blog. Perhaps you can clarify further.
Blessings in Christ,
Tom
Mark,
I’m very interested in these debates, but feel like they are characterized by one side marshaling a set of verses (e.g. Hebrews 6 and 10, 2 Peter 2) in order to prove a point, while the other side marshals a different set of verses (e.g. Romans 8, John 6) in order to prove that the conclusions derived from the other set of verses cannot be true. Hence I find my opinion to be changing depending on which set of verses I read. I feel like this is not how we are supposed to be reading our bibles!! As a lay person, it is very confusing. I cannot read John 6 and Romans 8 and simply disregard the fact that Peter and the author to the Hebrews clearly use language that describes vital union with Christ and participation in God’s salvific promises.
On the one hand, everything you are saying about Hebrews seems very obvious to me. On the other hand, I find myself throwing up my hands in frustration when I get to a place where you then say that the non-elect DON’T have the same benefits the elect do, merely lacking perseverance. If they are truly in Christ, as the apostasy passages seem to teach, how can they not have the same benefits? If we say that they don’t, aren’t we falling into the trap of cutting Christ and his benefits up into little pieces and distributing as we see categorically fit? Paul says in Ephesians 1 that all the spiritual blessings are in Christ. Are those who are not elect to persevere in Christ or aren’t they? And if they aren’t, why do you say that they don’t have the same benefits that all the other members of Christ’s body have? Please remember that I do not at all say this as an opponent, but as someone who has been reading the apostasy passages forever as a modern individualistic Calvinist and feeling terrible about not being able to make sense of the bible and speak as it speaks. When I find someone who seems willing to say what I’ve only been willing to think follow it up by saying something like, “well, it’s not REALLY like that,” I just scratch my head.
Help me out here!