Holy Joys Podcast
A discussion of theology and ministry practice, all for a holy, happy church. A ministry of holyjoys.org.
Holy Joys Podcast
Prevenient Grace, Part 5: Is Wesleyan Prevenient Grace Biblical?
Use Left/Right to seek, Home/End to jump to start or end. Hold shift to jump forward or backward.
In this final episode of a series on prevenient grace, Dr. David Fry and Johnathan Arnold discuss whether or not Wesleyan prevenient grace is biblical and what it means for something to be biblical.
And then you step back and you say, okay, in light of all that scripture says, especially the most plain passages, let's now reflect on that.
SPEAKER_01That God is a good God, a loving God, and a just God, and that He wouldn't expect something of someone or judge someone for something that uh they were not capable of doing in the first place.
SPEAKER_00You're listening to the Holy Joys Podcast, co-hosted by Jonathan Arnold and Dr. David Fry. Visit us at holyjoys.org and stay tuned for weekly discussions of theology and ministry practice, all for a holy, happy church.
SPEAKER_02Well, David Fry and I are back again here to discuss Provenient Grace, especially in the thought of William Burt Pope. And we've made our way through the section in Pope's compendium on provenient grace. Um, and now we're just wanting to look back across that section at the scriptures that Pope uses because one of the most common charges against Wesley and Provenient Grace is it's not biblical. And one of the things that we really are wanting to talk about is what does it mean for something to be biblical? Um, does it mean that we just throw out some proof texts, kind of string together Bible verses? That's certainly one way to do theology. And I think it's a tendency, especially for um evangelicals with a really strong commitment to scripture, which I share, uh, to kind of take this really strict biblicist approach to theology, where uh you have to show me chapter and verse, and that's what theology is about. So, where would you be, what would you say, where would you start people uh with with entering into the question of whether or not a doctrine like prevenient grace is biblical?
SPEAKER_01Right. So uh the question, what does it mean to be biblical, is one that uh we need to ask of every doctrine and recognize that there are there is there is a uh there are multiple levels of understanding how a doctrine is biblical. So for instance, you know, classically the doctrine of the trinity, uh you know, we have some key key passages that uh, for instance, in a Matthew and instruction and baptism in the name of the Father, the Son, and Holy Spirit, but it doesn't uh articulate the particulars of the doctrine of the Trinity. Uh it doesn't talk about the relationship, it doesn't talk about, you know, is this are these three persons, is this one person with three names? And, you know, so so the doctrine of the Trinity, as confessed in the early creeds, uh, is a biblical doctrine. Uh, it is a doctrine that is based on the truths, the collective truths of scripture, and are necessarily true in order for us to make sense of what scripture explicitly says. And really, the the doctrine of provenient grace falls into that same category. Uh, so there is not a single proof text that just plainly teaches the Wesleyan understanding of provenient grace. Uh, there's not even a collection of texts that just plainly lead us to conclude, oh, well, this must be true. Um, but it's it has to do with our overall understanding of who God is and our over uh overall understanding of how of what the Bible is doing. Uh, for instance, let me give you this example. Uh, when we read a command in scripture and we understand that command to be for us, uh, for all of God's people for all time, uh, the uh uh assumption that many would make is that if God commands us to do something, he also enables us to do it, that it wouldn't be just for God to hold us to a standard that we could not possibly uh live out. And and so that's that's a um a philosophical uh stance that we bring toward to scripture, to a command. But that's not one that everyone shares. Right. Uh so in his article and in this book that I just pulled off my shelf, uh, it's a a multi-authored work um by a number of reformed evangelicals uh called Sovereign Contemporary Perspectives on Election for Knowledge and Grace. Uh second edition is 2000. And in this uh there's a chapter by Tom Schreiner. Does scripture teach provenient grace in the Westland sense?
SPEAKER_02Yeah, so so maybe let me just interject here and come back to this uh the issue of the Trinity. So I think it's really helpful to start there because as evangelicals, we have this really strong commitment to uh the Bible and we want things to be biblical, and so we have this tendency towards an approach to theology that's really stringing together Bible verses. But we also, as evangelicals, are really committed to the Trinity. We're deeply uh Trinitarian. And uh Fred Sanders uh you know traces this throughout evangelical history, this really high commitment to this doctrine. And I think it's a great way to challenge our approach to theology by just pointing out that the Trinity is not given to us by stringing together Bible verses. It's this really second-order reflection. So you read the whole Bible and you know, you do your basic exegetical theology, where you're basically just understanding, okay, what does this verse mean, or what could this verse mean? What are the range of interpretations? And then you step back and you say, okay, in light of all that scripture says, especially the most plain passages, let's now reflect on that. So at the second-order reflection comes systematic theology, where how can we make sense of the whole? What are the necessary implications? And we step back from scripture and say, God must be Trinity. And we appropriate philosophical categories, you know, person and substance. Every Christian would affirm that God is uh, you know, one in his substance or essence, but yet three in his persons. Well, those are philosophical categories that we've borrowed to express a truth that is biblical. We're not adding anything, we're just finding ways to express this truth. And so, in a very similar way with provenient grace, we're stepping back from all that scripture says and we're we're reflecting on that. And at this level of second-order reflection, we're saying, in light of what scripture teaches, God must provide enabling grace for all men. Um, and that this is salvific in its direction. We're holding together these truths. So that would that'd be a good summary of kind of the the approach to this doctrine.
SPEAKER_01Right. Yes, I yes, I believe so. And that that presupposition that a command is given to those who are able to obey that command goes along with our whole concept of of God's character. That God is a good God, a loving God, and a just God, and that He wouldn't expect something of someone or judge someone for something that uh they were not capable of doing in the first place. So that's a very much a part of what we mean by by provenient grace, that uh it has a lot to do with enablement to do what God expects of us uh to do. Yeah. So did you want to add something? No, go ahead. I've there there are you know 10 different directions we go here. Yeah.
SPEAKER_02So I was just gonna say that um once we look at all that scripture says and we um we draw these conclusions, um, then we we do realize that there are verses in scripture that um it's within the range of possible interpretation. It's within the range of exegetical options to interpret this as indicating something like a Wesleyan doctrine of provenient grace. So one of the things that we wanted to do is argue that um not only is provenient grace biblical at the level like that the Trinity is biblical, uh, but also that even just looking at some of these texts, um, there there is a pretty persuasive, I think, and compelling case that can be made that Wesleyan Provenient Grace is a is really just even at the level of exegetical theology, a pretty compelling option, a possible interpretation. So what would what would some of those key passages be versus, and especially interested in what Pope's Pope uses, um, because we're specifically thinking about Pope, uh, what verses does he does he draw on to help build the case for Wesley and Pervenient Grace?
SPEAKER_01Yeah, so I you you sparked one thought in my mind, just a little story. So uh John Feinberg, who is a you know widely published, you know, reform thinker. Now I actually took the Doctrine of God uh seminar from him. And uh it was very interesting when we got actually it was we were talking about theodicy in that uh in that class, but it that touches on on grace and and how grace works and free will and so forth. And he, I was surprised, I was sitting there, you know, all semester long, you know, that we're sitting there and we we know he's coming from a reformed you know perspective, and and most of us in the class were not reformed, and so we're you know filtering through all this. And then he he gets to theodicy and he gives a free will argument. And so we're like, now wait a second, um, like how like you're we know you're reformed, so like you totally just shifted streams here. He said, Yes, because of the fact that this is a possibly true argument, it's usable, and I use it. So, and so it was it was just we were like blown away. We were blown away because um he was first of all because he admitted that uh that's possibly true. Uh that's more than Tom Schneider does. But uh, but it was like, wow, you know, that's theology by convenience. And uh, but we're glad we're glad to offer you something that you find useful uh here, even if you don't believe, uh believe it, uh that philosophically you find that it's uh it's useful, and and you you feel compelled to even use uh this this sort of of uh Wesleyan doctrine. So you know with that said, um so John Wesley's favorite verse for provenient grace, it's the one that he um in his New Testament notes, you look under uh uh John, the Gospel of John, chapter one, and verse nine, and he he talks about provenient grace and his notes there. And then throughout his sermons and his writings, uh that that's his favorite verse. Now, it's not, in my opinion, the first verse that a person should go to, but clearly it was important for uh John Wesley and continued to be important for Methodists. So uh just real quick uh for uh those if you're listening, you should have your Bibles with you and you should open it up uh to John 1.9. But it is that verse that um says that the true light which gives light to everyone is coming into the world. Now there is a little bit of a grammar-structured difference between translations, um, that last phrase coming into the world, some translations. I think the King James has it in reference to you know every every man who is coming into the world, but it's actually referring to to Christ, uh, not to every every man. But nonetheless, the point still holds that the true light came and he gave he he gives light to every person. And uh, of course, a um you know opponent to provenient grace or to universal grace has to say, well, you know, all there doesn't mean you know all people, you know, literally, but it means all kinds of people, which is what D.A. Carson does with it. It means all kinds of people, um, you know, male and female and and children and and you know, ethnic, you know, cross-ethnic boundaries and all those sorts of things. Well, uh, there's nothing in the context that would lead us to that that's that's a decision that a person makes before they come to the text, right? That it must mean this, uh, because we know it doesn't mean all like we would normally use all.
SPEAKER_02Uh can I just so can I play devil's advocate and hear, you know, because I can hear in my ear some of my reformed friends that I respect. Sure, pointing us to like first Timothy two, okay. Uh God desires all people to be saved. And so again, as a Wesleyan, we're wanting to say, hey, that's everyone, right? Very clearly. But you back up and it says uh the context is I urge that prayers are made for all people, for kings. So the point here is that all people would be not just the poor of the earth, not just the persecuted, but even at the highest levels, you know. Here it's thinking all categories of people. How would you respond to something like that?
SPEAKER_01Yeah, so I'm I I would say that he is arguing from general to specific. And it's there's no reason to reverse that. Um you know, is it possible to reverse it? Yes, you can, but I think you have to do more theological gymnastics to reverse it than you do uh to to understand it in the plain sense of from general to specific. Right. So and then obviously that's another key verse as well that is used uh by Wesleyan's and uh for this.
SPEAKER_02Yeah, very helpful. I just like to highlight that because sometimes people do, if we don't raise that the these alternative you know understandings and where they're coming from, sometimes people get taken off guard uh when they hear something like that. And I think that that's that's the point there is we're from general specific, all people is all people, including kings, um, not just all categories of people. Yeah, very helpful. What are what are some other verses that would be used to to defend the doctrine?
SPEAKER_01Yeah, so right there in that passage, of course, verse four, where where God desires all people be saved. And and so there's there has to be a discussion or consideration of is that a sincerely held desire by God? Like, does God really desire all to be saved? And then what does that mean? So if we do affirm free will, and we do, and we we affirm free will in the sense that a a person is ultimately responsible uh for their decision, for their moral decision to accept or reject race. Um you know, so what can God do? You know, he desires all to be saved, but what can God really do in light of a libertarian view of free will? So the other one then that goes along with that is uh Titus, right? Titus 2.11. Um and uh here it's is uh for me, this is I think this is probably the starting point uh for me. This is where I think we we ought to start. And uh it is uh where Paul says that the grace of God has appeared, uh, bringing salvation to all people. And you'll what you notice in these all these passages is the theme of universality. And uh, you know, we haven't uh I think we touched on this on a previous um podcast uh about the um the necessary enabling right the four aspects of the necessity of pervenient grace. So provening grace is first of all necessary because of uh human sin and the universality of sin and and uh total total corruption. So um so we have these verses such as John 1.9 and Titus 2.11 and and 2 Peter 3.9 as well, where God is not willing that anyone should perish. So these these pretty encompassing, you know, even John 3.16, you know, for God so love the world, you know, the whole world, um, that there's a universal love that God has that is all inclusive, not just for all kinds of people, for but for every creature, every person, uh, all of his creation God loves and doesn't want any any part of his creation, not just humanity, but any part of his creation to perish. Um and and so if we if we can understand that, that's going to shape our understanding of the whole doctrine of script of salvation through scripture. But if we if we take a different stance and say, well, you know, that God God doesn't love all of his creation, and that he has in fact uh either he created some things for damnation or after the fact decided that it was dispensable, uh, that it leads you to both of those lead us to the same conclusion that therefore God does not love finally everything in his creation. And so that opens the door then to to selection and uh and requires us to understand these all passages quite differently.
SPEAKER_02You know, it's maybe it's my personality or um, I'm not sure what it is, but the arguments for uh even as a whole, Wesleyan sociology, that really focus on trying to say, you know, if Calvinism was true, God wouldn't be loving. Those arguments were never extremely compelling for me. And I don't know why that is, but um, sometimes it it did feel like maybe it's the way that it was framed. It almost sounded like they were trying to say, God must fit my conception of love. And I I would want to say that um maybe that's not the best place to start, but that definitely, certainly, we need to get there by constructing a biblical doctrine of God's love and then saying, look, this is incompatible with what God Himself reveals about the nature of love. Um and sometimes I I do think that the line gets blurred between this is what God reveals to us is true love versus bringing our own conception of love and trying to make God fit into it. And I think that that can be off-putting. And um, sometimes I think the appeal of reformed theology is that um it it really breaks us out of the categories of the way of ways of thinking, the the way that we typically think about even greatness, um, and it really presents God as sometimes transcending those categories. And so I think Wesleans just as a as a need to avoid the error of approaching it um almost in a way that that minimizes God or makes God seem um I'm I'm struggling to articulate this, but do you understand my general concern with the way we go about explaining that point?
SPEAKER_01Yeah, yeah. We certainly don't like it when a reformed theologian does that to us, right? Um and so I was I was looking at a passage here from Tom Shriner, because this way he he concludes that the doctrine of provenient grace in the Wesleyan sense cannot be exegetically vindicated. I mean, that's just that's it. I mean, it cannot be exegetically vindicated. Well, he didn't have to come to that conclusion. He could have said, you know, like John Feinberg, he he could have said, you know, I understand how they come to this by disagree. I disagree for these reasons. You know, it's it's it's a possible reading of scripture by disagree. He just doesn't even go that far. He just says, no, there's just no way it can be true. Um and uh we have to understand that when we come to scripture and we're talking about biblical theology, all right. Um biblical theology can mean a lot of different things. So maybe we I'll make uh our circle back around to where we started uh here. And um and I let me throw this out as a question because you may um have some insight on this, but I I I gather that the way biblical theology is used in our circle, uh our ecclesiological circles, is uh is such that people are referring to really exegesis of the text. So so I call it exegetical theology. Would you would you agree with that? What do you think?
SPEAKER_02Yeah, it's helpful. I mean, this is a this is maybe something we ought to have an entire podcast on. Uh, because even that fourfold division, like biblical theology, systematic theology, historical theology, and practical theology, it's fairly recent. And the more I read the Church Fathers, I just realize that. Totally explode those categories. I mean it they're not, you know, they're just interpreting the Bible in light of Christ, right? So I'm not so sure that I I really uh I've I'm increasingly skeptical of it. You just don't like it at all. I just don't like it at all. So I think there is a way to do something like biblical theology. So I I have now this is a he's a he's a reformed guy, but uh Jim Hamilton, his biblical theology, God's glory and salvation through judgment, he he takes a theme and he traces it throughout the whole canon of scripture, emphasizing the unity of the canon as the unfolding of this particular theme redemption. I think that's really valuable at a popular level. Um, the Bible project videos, a great example of this. But sometimes, um, even there, you see them avoiding certain things uh because they're they're they're so limiting themselves in the scope of what they can do. So I love the Bible Project, and I'm just sharing this because I know so many people use the resources I do too. They're tremendous. By all means use them. But like even their video on the Holy Spirit makes me really nervous. It's a great example of where they basically are saying, okay, our doctrine of the Holy Spirit as a third person of the Trinity is uh, I mean, I can hear them behind the scenes saying, like, this is the second order reflection. That's not what we're doing. We're doing biblical theology. So, you know, you get this doctrine of the spirit that's like really kind of vague. I mean, he's not a like, they don't say he's a person of the Trinity, you know? And I even talked to them about that a little bit. And they, you know, they they shared a little bit of their approach and their reason for taking that. And I think what happens is we're we're almost like um we we end up stressing the we don't want to read the Bible theologically. We want to just take the Bible on its own terms, as if that's possible. We we want to just let the Bible speak for itself. Uh, you can't do that. You know, you always bring, you always bring presuppositions, you always bring your theology to the text. You ought to do that. The creeds were given for that reason. The creeds were given as a rule of faith to guide your Bible reading, so that ordinary believers, Joe the plumber, doesn't read the Bible and come up with heresy. Because without some kind of rule, a theological rule to guide you, that's what happened. I thought I'll just share this and then stop because I know I'm going on here, but this is something I'm I feel pretty strongly about. I talked to a guy recently, he's reading the Bible, Colossians, Christ created all things, and he's like, Yeah, you know, Jesus created everything. And I'm like, Yeah, that's great. Yes, yes, a lot of people don't realize that. But then he said, Yeah, I always thought the father created everything, but I guess he didn't, only the son did. Whoa, whoa. And he's like, Yeah, I couldn't find any Bible verses that say that the Father created all things. Well, there's a great example of how you need the apostles' creed, God the Father, you know, Almighty, maker of heaven and earth. He is the source of all things, and it's it's worked out through his hands, the Son and the Spirit. If you don't have basic theology, you're going to end up with some kind of so I mean, even like Arius, you know, he was coming at this doctrine, the sun, you know, because he's being more biblical, right? My father is greater than I am, right? There it is. Let the text speak on its own terms, right? So, yeah, I'm I'm really skeptical. I'm skeptical about where this has led some people. Like, I'm increasingly nervous about like Bruce Ware and Wayne Grudum, and this is what they seem to do. They just want a really proof-text-y approach, and it ends up denying classical doctrines like eternal generation, which I think they've they've come back around to, or like the descent to the dead. So anyway, I talked too much, but yeah, definitely.
SPEAKER_01Yeah, so so we just read uh Irenaeus, right? We just read uh on on Apostolic Preaching, which was a good summary of his his way of theologizing, his understanding of the rule of faith. And you know, as as you know, our our Bible faculty, we get together, you know, your Old Testament, New Testament guys, your historical theologians, systematic theologians, your practical theologians, we all come together and our discussions are okay, how can we how can we integrate you know your theological domain into into our theological domain? How can we and I mean that that's where discussion is now. And part of that is because of the the specialization that that has happened uh through the years. Uh so I understand that. It's not to you know put that down, but um but I think our our desire to to bring these, we call them domains, theological domains together again, uh, really is an effort to say, you know what, um, someone like Irenaeus, uh he was not conscious of working within a particular theological domain. Uh it was just uh it was it was just him uh under understanding with the church. You know, the church was his theological domain. It was in conversation with with those who had gone before him and those who were in uh alive with him, uh, you know, sorting out how to understand this. So so great point here, let's go back to this about the rule of faith and how uh take, for instance, the Nicene Creed uh is given to us as a rule of faith. So we often think of you have the Bible, and then you have the creeds, and then you have whatever else. So you know, first order, second order, third, fourth down the line. Um, but but you hinted at this, and I want to see if this is what you're saying, that the creeds are are given to us, words of Irenaeus, as a rule of faith, that it we should not look at them as, for instance, the Nicene Creed as you know, we got the Bible, and then we have you know a distanced second-order statement, theological statement that has you know less authority and it's down the line. Um but what we have in the Nicene Creed is we have a an early uh consensus on how we ought to read the Bible. So, in a sense, yes, it's down the line historically, and it's not claiming to be to replace scripture, but it is saying you need to put these glasses on in order to understand the whole of scripture. Because if you only take a part of scripture, you you may let as as Arius, for instance, right? Arius is was you know, it was well known that he as uh you know Martin Luther is known to have not liked certain parts of scripture, um, you know, you pick and choose. No, no, no. If you take all of scriptures as it's been handed down to us, you're gonna reach these conclusions. These are assumptions that are made, and and and for the for the most part, um, these are assumptions such as the divinity of Christ, that when Christ is presented, there's not it scripture does not present an argument for the divinity of Christ, other than just the life and the teachings and the happenings of Christ. It is he rose a dead, he rose again from the dead. That's the argument.
SPEAKER_02Who then must he be? Yeah.
SPEAKER_01Yes. I mean that that is the argument. And you know, Paul, of course, comes along and adds some argumentation, but the idea of the creeds as a rule of faith uh really is uh the church's gift to us for how we ought to um how we are to read scripture and is part of what it means to be biblical. And that and that's really where I'm where I'm going with it. Um so sometimes that there's a strong bifurcation between you know the text and the creeds, and if you really want to be biblical, you'll you'll you'll set the creed aside and you'll really just get back to the text. No, no, no. The church has never thought that was biblical. Yeah, they've never they've never recognized that as a practice in some sort of biblical theology.
SPEAKER_02Yeah, so I think uh it's like Matt Emerson or maybe Timothy George says something like this too. Uh, like the the creeds have a derivative authority because they're faithful summaries of scripture. So to to be biblical is to be creedal. When you step towards the creeds, you don't step away from scripture, you step towards it. If you step away from the creeds, you're stepping away from scripture. Um, and so uh yeah, I think it's it's like it's like arrogant in a subtle way. It's a subtle form of arrogance to set aside the creeds. It's like saying, Me and my Bible, and that's enough. Whereas embracing the creeds is saying, no, I'm too stupid to do this by myself. I need the church constantly standing over my shoulder saying, Really? You think that's what that Bible verse means? You know? So even like the chat, like Chalcedonian, um, you think about all the verses. I mean, I spent some time on this around Advent, like all the verses that you've got to make a decision if this is talking about Christ in his incarnation, you know, properly attributed to his humanity, or is this a feature of divinity? So, I mean, like right now I've been studying um, you know, the issue of eternal submission. And when the son prays to the father, not my will but thine be done. Well, you know, how do you separate that? How do you interpret that without theology? How do you interpret that without the creeds? Is he praying, not my divine will, but your divine will, or not my human will, but your divine will? So these creeds guide us in thinking through the, you know, how do we categorize this? Uh, and this is necessary for creatures such as us because we're limited. And if we if we toss out the creeds, we just end up putting some other superstructure on our reading. We end up bringing other presuppositions to the text. They're our own, they're they're formed from our narrow historical moment. They're they're not they're not neutral. Why not in why not use what has been handed down to us for 2,000 years? They stood the test of time. And I think that shows the real humility and the real desire to be biblical.
SPEAKER_01Yeah, and not only does that um if we if we lose the the meaning of the creeds and our in our worship, especially, uh, not only does that um will we almost inevitably be be led astray in our reading of scripture, um and that's not to to separate you know the spirit from the reading of scripture, but what I'm saying is if we intentionally lay aside the gift of the church and what the church hands down to us, right, uh that is part of what the spirit has given to us. So he convicts the world, uh, he he enlightens uh us by means of the church. And if we set that aside, including the creeds, uh not only does that uh taint our understanding of scripture and our reading of scripture, but it also taints our whole life of church, including our worship, including decisions that we make for the church. And I recently told you, I won't go back to it uh here, but I recently told you of a situation uh where a church was debating a the most basic uh dogma of of Christian faith. And you know, a holiness conservative holiness church that did not understand it, and and I can guarantee you that part of it is because there was there was total lack of of understanding of our creedal faith. Uh they were not guided by Trinitarian thinking. Uh that was something that was just a nice, you know, something we may sing about or uh something that uh you know is a nice tag on to our theology, but not really core. Uh that's that's that's pretty alarming uh when it when that creeps right into and but that's gonna happen if we set aside the creeds, if we set aside uh uh tradition, and and if we frame the conversation as scripture or tradition, that's a terrible way of framing framing it. When I say tradition here, I mean you know big T tradition. I don't mean you know last 75 years of life, but I'm talking about the the being in communication with the church, uh past and present. Uh that's so crucial to understand scripture.
SPEAKER_02Yeah, and I mean I think the example is considering hiring a Unitarian. And I uh, you know, I it's just heart-wrenching. I mean, it's it's alarming and it it's but it's also heart-wrenching. This is the faith. I mean, this is this is the faith that's been delivered to us, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Um, this is our God. You you know, you know, Unitarians are not Christians. They're not Christians, right? It doesn't matter how conservatively they dress, it doesn't matter how conservative their entertainment is, it doesn't matter how many secondary or tertiary doctrines they agree with us on, they are not Christians. I can't say that clearly enough. Now, could somebody who's part of a Unitarian church make it to heaven? Yeah, maybe if they're ignorant, you know, but if you really believe that, I mean, read the right, and you know, I've had a debate with a colleague on this, and I I've said, I think I'm gonna stick with the Athanasian Creed on this one, where it says if you this this is what you must believe. If you don't, if you don't hold fast to this, then you are not a Christian. You know, this is the faith that we've received Trinity and unity and unity and trinity. So this isn't to be harsh, this isn't to be critical, this isn't to be judgmental, this isn't to be exclusivist. This is to say when you deny the doctrine of the Trinity, you lose the Christian faith. You know, and this is the beauty of it too, the beauty of our faith and what makes it distinctly Christian. So, anyhow.
SPEAKER_01Yeah, yeah. So, what we're talking about here is, you know, what's it mean to be biblical and how we probably have, and I think that's safe to say in in our day, and at least in our you know, church circles, uh probably quite narrow understanding of what that means. Would you agree with that? And and that we need to build that out, we need to flesh that out to understand that what it means to be biblical means that uh or includes the um the prior beliefs that scripture expects us to bring to the text. And we often overlook that. That's probably the first thing we overlook. We think we can come to the text as if it's just a you know, we have a blank, you know, blank slate that we're working with, uh, or or as if it's going to define everything and spell out everything. No, no, no. It makes a lot of assumptions and expects us to, from the text, to be able to make connections and say, oh, it's assuming that this is true without saying that it is, it's assuming that this is true. And we have to understand, and the creeds help us with that. And so prior to the text, there are certain commitments that the Bible expects of us. That counts as being biblical. Um then then on the other side of the text, then um again we come back to to creedal statements and uh other other statements are being made. We have a history of interpretation of scripture, and that helps us to and that's all about being biblical. Uh, what are the implications then that are drawn out from this? All of that counts as being biblical. Um and and and so we we need to uh uh you know flesh out more of that concept uh for people. And uh and I want to I want people who are listening this to uh begin to think more broadly in terms of what it means to be biblical. And again, as you mentioned, yeah, these are new, actually new categories of of theology that might not really be helpful. And of course, many have made the argument that you know the term biblical theology is not helpful, and in some ways it hasn't been helpful.
SPEAKER_02So to bring this back around to provenient grace, um, it it it may seem like that was a really long diversion, but I really think what we're saying is that one of the fundamental things that you need to understand when approaching the question, is provenient grace biblical, is what do you mean by biblical? And if you mean you can prove this by a couple proof texts, stringing that string them together, no, maybe it's not, because it's going to be hard to articulate the doctrine just the way we articulate it, merely on that basis. But if you mean looking at all that scripture says, bringing to those texts scripture's own presuppositions, uh, and and the necessary theological conclusions, we think, yeah, it is. It's actually a real it's it's there's a pretty strong case we can make that in that sense it is it is biblical.
SPEAKER_01Yeah, so let's call provenient grace a a key to understanding scripture, just like Trinity, right? Trinity is a not at the same not at the same level, but but right general category. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, you're not gonna understand what scripture says about God without having a a Trinitarian framework from which you're working.
SPEAKER_02It has explanatory power. And without it, you're not gonna be able to make sense of a lot of data.
SPEAKER_01Yeah, right. So uh so let's distinguish again distinguish between the two. So Trinity is a key, it is an essential key. Without it, you will not interpret scripture rightly. Yeah, provenient grace is a second order. Yeah, it's not the first key you're gonna use, it's the second. So so it's gonna, it's it's it's at least second order here, where it is going to uh be key in in giving you an overall understanding of what scripture is is saying. Uh, but you know, as a Western Arminian, I I will admit and I will say that it is it is possibly not true. It is possibly not true. Now, given what I understand about God and Trinity, uh, I I think an argument can certainly be made that it is necessarily true, uh, but my logic may be flawed. Uh that's a flaw in me, not in scripture, not in God, uh not in Revelation. Um, so but it is, and I think my uh little anecdote from John Feinberg back there is is important because he understood that it's a it's a key, is that it's a key in that sense as well, that this this is a possible explanation for for what scripture is saying for Christian faith. And he happened to find that key useful in that situation, uh, even though he wouldn't generally find it useful. Um and so I maybe that that little metaphor will help someone to to recognize that we uh that we need these. And every Sismac or every uh theological system of thought has its keys that it uses, right?
SPEAKER_02Let me yeah, let me try just quickly here and see if this see if this is another way to get out what you're saying. Would it be something like um you have all this biblical data and it's like pieces of furniture in a dark room? The furniture is there and it's not going to change, but sometimes these concepts are like a flashlight that help us to see what's already there more clearly. Nothing substantive changes of the content, but without the explanatory power of some of these second order concepts, we we don't always see things as clearly as what we could. Is that is that a helpful way to get at it too?
SPEAKER_03Mm-hmm.
SPEAKER_02Yeah, yeah. Because I worry that people here, okay, even like the doctrine of the Trinity, like people walk away with this kind of concept, like the Trinity somehow is adding something else. Like when we say second order or second level, it's like somehow it's bringing something new. Uh and I think it was like Athanasius who said, like, we wouldn't even need the the trend, we wouldn't even need to articulate the trinity if it wouldn't be for the heretics, you know. Like it's there, it's there, but these concepts help us to see what's already there more clearly. Uh, it's it's an imperfect illustration, but sure, sure.
SPEAKER_01Yeah, yeah. And I think I think either illustration, I think, uh gets to a similar point, and that is that um you know, the doctrine provenient grace is doing something to help us understand what is there. Uh it is, you know, whether it's the image of unlocking or shining light on, it is it is allowing us to go to a deeper understanding of what's there, of what it says and what what we uh what is true about God and about our salvation. And so that without it, you wouldn't we wouldn't have an understanding, a deeper understanding. We would be quite handicapped in our ability to understand and make some connections. And even to connect explicit teachings of scripture, we'd find great difficulty without this. Very helpful.
SPEAKER_02Why don't we just uh here if we have a couple more minutes? Are there any other key texts that you want to highlight, especially from Pope, um, that that are uh helpful for articulating teaching on this doctrine? Right. And maybe a way to think about it too, like if there's a pastor who's listening, what are some texts that say you're preaching through a book? Uh, you know, you want to be aware of that, hey, this this might not, it might not jump out at you, provenient grace. But if you're aware of how these these uh this doctrine provenient grace helps us to understand what this this verse is kind of touching on. Sometimes you know you touch the edge of the iceberg and you don't realize you're touching the iceberg, but if you have the doctrine, you can see how this text fits into our construction of a bigger doctrine, to be aware of that and then to and then to teach and preach the doctrine from a text like that.
SPEAKER_01Yeah, yeah. So one of the things that actually surprises me about Pope is uh that he uh does not have um I'm I'm not seeing here, I didn't, I'm looking back over it to make sure, but I did not see here, I don't have it marked, a any reference to John 1 uh in his discussion of proving grace. And neither does he have um the first Timothy two or Titus II, uh Titus 2.11, 1 Timothy 2, 4. Uh but he does have Romans 5. And Romans 5, I would say would be the fourth, um, the fourth of those four passages. So uh again for Wesley, uh John 1.9 was was the big one. Uh it remains big for Methodists, um, clearly not for Pope, but it it did remain big for Methodists, uh, but not biggest. Um the others were Titus 2.11, 1 Timothy 2.4, and probably the biggest is Romans 5, um, as far as a passage that deals that that has a sustained argument for how to understand salvation and universality and and so forth. Um, so we ought to probably just do a podcast just on Romans 5.
SPEAKER_02Uh in some ways we did, because if you if you think back to our discussion on uh it was maybe our very first discussion on Pope's doctrine of provenient grace, we spent almost the entire time talking about theological framework and how uh an understanding of recapitulation that Christ is the new Adam is really that universal context, how there was something about the atonement that accomplished something objective for the entire human race. And so, in some ways, that was a sustained reflection on on uh Roman or Romans five. It wouldn't hurt too much. It's been a while, it's been a while ago. It has been. Yeah, I think you just posted it, but yeah, I would recommend people to go back to that. Yeah, not that it, you know, again, I I want to stress these are discussions, and I uh, you know, I'm learning constantly, so wouldn't want to necessarily die on any any hill that anything that I've said. But I think the idea is that we're we're wrestling with some of these things that in some ways really need to be retrieved, and uh that takes time, but I do think that conversation could be helpful for just raising some points for uh of general consideration.
SPEAKER_01Yeah, yeah. So uh so I won't go back through you know our our comments on Romans 5, but that that is a very important passage for Methodists, and as I think I do recall um mentioning that there was some disagreement among Methodists on exactly how to understand Romans 5, other than uh there was widespread agreement that um that Christ and Pope does say this uh very explicitly uh two or three different places that Christ has reversed the effect of Adam for all people. And and that's really, really crucial. Um so it becomes a very Christ-focused doctrine of salvation rather than a very man-focused okay.
SPEAKER_02So um I'm not sure how much time you have here. Are we needing to wrap it up here pretty soon? Um yeah, and in five minutes. Okay. Well, let me ask you this question, and if we need to, we can come back to it. Uh in your dissertation, um, I believe one of the implications that you see for um provenient grace is that it it helps us to support uh a basis for child membership in the church. So um we are we're recognizing that somehow those children are in Christ because Christ is the new Adam, He's reheaded the human race, and his provenient grace has been extended to all, and that that is salvific indirection. Um and so you think that children should be enrolled in the church's membership, and that then at some point they have to be faced with whether or not they're gonna remain a member. So um my question, uh I'm not uh I I think I'm I see that as supporting perhaps other uh other arguments for for for child membership. I think it's a good point to raise. My question is uh why not say then that children ought to be baptized? Because baptism is our participation in Christ. And um Methodists throughout history have certainly baptized infants. It's kind of comical. I was talking to somebody yesterday about um about the differences between Calvinists and Wesley Arminians, and you know, what they started talking about Baptists, and I was saying, well, you know, Baptists really it's not the same thing as Calvinists. And I said, Really, we're basically Baptists. Uh, Baptists primarily means, you know, believers-only baptism by full immersion and congregational church government and a strong commitment to religious liberty. Beyond that, like that's pretty much what a Baptist is. So we used to be covenant theologians, you know, for the most part, and baptize infants. They're they're children of the covenant, you know. Like, I think if Wesley realized how many Methodists today didn't bapt baptize their infants, he would go into a holy panic, you know. Same thing with lots of the Methodist theologians when they entertain the question, are like, well, yeah, duh, of course you baptize infants, you know. So how I'm curious what your posit, what your position is on infant baptism and why not go the next step and say, not only enroll them in membership, but baptize them because I think where I feel the tension is how can you have an unbaptized member? If you're gonna make them a member, probably ought to baptize them. That's that's where I'm thinking.
SPEAKER_01Sure, yeah. I I don't have any problem with infant baptism. Okay.
SPEAKER_03Well, that's great. Okay.
SPEAKER_01Yeah, yeah, I don't. Yeah. Um, you know, we uh you know in our local church, we have I mean I think I I did baptize one infant. Um, but and I would if someone asked me to, but generally here the the mentality is more Baptist, uh believers baptism. But yeah, I'm I'm much more Methodist uh story on that than than what most would be. Um and I stand with Larry Smith on that. So I'll I'll provoke uh his name for all of all of my fellow fellow GBSers who may think I'm a heretic, but um those those uh good old days at God's Bible School and College in Cincinnati. Um but yeah, so I for sure, and but so here's the key point to that, because believers baptism, the fault to that is that it over-emphasizes, I believe, the um the um yeah, the individuality of salvation. It deemphasizes the corporate nature of salvation. And of course, infant baptism can you know risk the other side, right? As well. But we have really lost sense of corporate salvation. And that has a lot to do with why in Methodist circles infant baptism has been rejected or is not practiced because there's just virtually no concept of corporate salvation. That's why people can say, Well, you know what, I think I'm just gonna watch service online today. Uh, I don't think I'm gonna, I'm too tired. You know, people say that all the time. It's like they have no concept of the role of corporate worship and corporate life uh has to do with our our salvation.
SPEAKER_02Yeah, the church's in communion thing. Yeah, we tell it. You know, because I think in some ways that's even close more closely tied to this issue of infant baptism because there's one, you know, the sacrament of your continued participation in the church. This is the sign and seal of your continued participation in the worshiping community. And here we offer it online and some places recording it so that you can watch it later by yourself in your pajamas with your grape juice and your you know and your wise sandwich bread. And that's the opposite of communion. It misses the point. Yeah, it does, doesn't it? Wow. I needed to get that off my chest. I have been holding because I just I I really want to be charitable, you know. I mean, I really think there's a lot of pastors, they're they're good intent, good intentions, you know, and they're trying to navigate this this pandemic. It's been hard for all of us, but boy, that online communion thing, that was really hard for me. I I just felt like it was one of the biggest for me, it was one of the biggest, uh, it betrayed or exposed so many theological problems. I think of how like Bavink talks about how um it was really differences over the Lord's Supper that divided the Protestant Reformation. Not because the Lord's Supper is somehow like the most important thing in theology, but because our practice of the supper is a reflection of so many other things that we believe about Christ, about the incarnation, about the church, about, I mean, it all these theological streams converge at the supper. And we desperately need sacramental retrieval. And one of the things that I just want to put a plug in, like I've really, really increasingly recentered word and sacrament, word and sacrament. Not because it's like if we, you know, so and Holy Joy's new logo, you know, words, it's not because if somehow we just do word and sacrament better, everything else will be fixed. It's actually that our practice of word and sacrament are really maybe the clearest reflection of everything else. And so we holistic church renewal and church growth and and and doctrinal retrieval, I think, will find its kind of crystallized expression in our practice of word and sacrament. Would that be fair?
SPEAKER_01Yeah, certainly. Certainly. So the the sacraments are uh you brought up infant baptism, but you know, the Eucharist uh is not it's not an amendment to uh our faith. It's it is it is core. Uh you don't have Christian faith without it. Uh I was trying to remember uh who it was. Can I quote you on that one?
SPEAKER_02You don't have Christian faith without it. I because I don't know of too many people that would recognize that fact. It's that central.
SPEAKER_01I it is I I believe that. I believe that. But many people don't. That's the thing. Many people don't believe believe it. Uh someone recently, man, I wish I could remember who it was. It was someone you'd recognize. Uh, but they said something to the effect of um, you know, the church starts at the Eucharist. Um, you don't you don't have a spirit-formed people of God until you've been at the table. And uh and it's from that that the body of Christ comes. And uh yeah, we we yeah, we need to have some more discussion on that. So let's come back to that. Um maybe we should do yeah, yeah, that's that's something worth worth talking about.
SPEAKER_00Thank you for listening to the Holy Joys podcast. Email your questions to podcast at holyjoys.org, and they may be featured on a future episode. Our labors for a holy happy church are supported by generous listeners like you. Please pray about partnering with us at holyjoys.org forward slash donate.
