In which Calvinism need not be defended
May 8, 2016 5:53:57 GMT
Post by Colossians on May 8, 2016 5:53:57 GMT
This material is for the teaching of the Body of Christ, however the author reserves copyright over it.
Forward
2 Corinthians 3:7-16 – in particular v16 – is often cited as proof for the anti-Calvinist position: the anti-Calvinist feels we are being told in this passage that a certain veil over our heart which prohibits our knowing Christ, is taken away once our heart turns to Christ.
Putting aside the obvious (circular) conundrum such idea presents, below we show that the anti-Calvinist has not paid enough attention to detail.
__________________________________________
IN WHICH CALVINISM NEED NOT BE DEFENDED
[7] “But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away: [8] How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious? [9] For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory. [10] For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth. [11] For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious. [12] Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech: [13] And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished:”
Here Paul says that the New Testament is in plain language because of the hope revealed in us. He contrasts this with the law, which he terms “the ministration of death” and which he says was characterised by a certain lack of revelation, symbolised in Moses’ covering his face with a veil.
Now note that such ministration (the law) he says at v13 is “abolished” – that is, abolished for those in Christ (see v14 below) – which is the basis for his saying that the children of Israel could not look to its “end” (its consummation): desiring to remain within the law the children of Israel were of necessity precluded from seeing Him who is the very consummation of the law.1
1 At the general-soteriology level we take from this the point that one’s being delivered from the law of commandments is coextensive with one’s believing on Him who is the consummation of the writings referred to as “the (books of) the law”. For given that commandments can’t be consummated but only disannulled, any consummating of the writings in which such commandments be found of necessity brings such commandments to an end. And so when we read at Rom 10:4 that “Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth”, we necessarily understand that although the Greek word for this “end” primarily speaks to an end goal, given that such end goal (Christ) has indeed appeared to them that are (consequently) born again, such “end” of necessity also speaks to abrogation of the law. For when we read at Rom 3:25 that “God hath set forth [Christ] to be a propitiation through faith in His blood, to declare His righteousness for the remission of sins that are past”, we understand that in the proclaiming of our sins to be (forever) past,1a of necessity is the law proclaimed to be no longer present. For we also read at Rom 4:15 that “where no law is, there is no transgression”: if no transgression is considered to have occurred, it is because there is in fact no law present. For is not our law rather Christ Himself? And did not that law go to the Cross? If then our law went to the Cross, how shall its jurisdiction over us continue? And so we see that it is at the Cross that the law of commandments and the law that is Christ Himself come together, for the law of commandments is that experience of God which we had before we knew Christ, and the law that is Christ Himself is that very same law of commandments crucified.1b
1a See our work: “Romans 3:25: The KJV correct, most other versions wrong”.
1b See our work: “The legal proof that Jesus Christ is God”.
[14] “But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ. [15] But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart.”
This “Moses” which is read, is in reference to the writings of Moses, the (5 books of the) law. (See Luke 16:29, Acts 15:21.)
The correlation here is that, because Moses was the embodiment of the people of Israel (for the people were all baptised unto him – see 1 Cor 10:2), in putting the veil over himself he was in fact declaring the veil to be over them. However there is (also) a dualism here: in that the veil was (nevertheless) primarily over himself rather than them, “heart” here is necessarily not in reference to (the more-general) the centre of one’s being, but (the more-acute) the understanding therein. For he upon whom the veil was demonstrably placed was head of the Jews, and “head” speaks to “mind” rather than “heart”: this “vail [that] is upon their heart” (therefore) speaks to the cognitive aspect of the heart as distinct from the orientational aspect of the heart.
That is, we are here being told that the Jew is unable to (spiritually) understand the writings that are ‘Moses’.
[16] “Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away.”
The antecedent for this pronoun “it” is “[the Jew’s] heart”.
Here then we are being told that when the Jew turns to God in his heart (this is the orientational aspect of the heart) the veil which speaks to the cognitive aspect of the heart and which is (accordingly) prohibiting his understanding of (the writings of) Moses, is taken away: upon his conversion he to whom the oracles of God naturally belong (see Rom 3:2) will finally begin to understand just who it is to whom Deut 18:15 refers.
Which is of course in line with the (ethnically-indiscriminate) general soteriological principle found at 1 Cor 2:14:
“But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned”
: whether Jew or Gentile, all who will see Christ in ‘Moses’, must be born again.
In concluding …
We have shown that 2 Corinthians 3:7-16 – in particular v16 – has nothing at all to do with the debate over whether one believes because one is regenerate (Calvinism), or whether one becomes regenerate by believing (anti-Calvinism), but that it is rather about the spiritual means by which a specific people comes to understand the spiritual library they were handed some millennia ago. (For “the law is spiritual” (Rom 7:14).)
No defence of Calvinism is therefore even relevant, let alone required.
Epilogue
The “it” of each of the 2 Jewish disciples with whom Jesus walked the road to Emmaus after His resurrection, had already “turn[ed] to the Lord”: to such fact the spirit of their conversation bears witness with our spirit.
Was not then the Lord justified in (consequently) taking the veil over ‘Moses’ away so that they would begin to understand their own library?
Indeed.
“And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, He expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning Himself” Luke 24:27.
Amen.
Forward
2 Corinthians 3:7-16 – in particular v16 – is often cited as proof for the anti-Calvinist position: the anti-Calvinist feels we are being told in this passage that a certain veil over our heart which prohibits our knowing Christ, is taken away once our heart turns to Christ.
Putting aside the obvious (circular) conundrum such idea presents, below we show that the anti-Calvinist has not paid enough attention to detail.
__________________________________________
IN WHICH CALVINISM NEED NOT BE DEFENDED
[7] “But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away: [8] How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious? [9] For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory. [10] For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth. [11] For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious. [12] Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech: [13] And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished:”
Here Paul says that the New Testament is in plain language because of the hope revealed in us. He contrasts this with the law, which he terms “the ministration of death” and which he says was characterised by a certain lack of revelation, symbolised in Moses’ covering his face with a veil.
Now note that such ministration (the law) he says at v13 is “abolished” – that is, abolished for those in Christ (see v14 below) – which is the basis for his saying that the children of Israel could not look to its “end” (its consummation): desiring to remain within the law the children of Israel were of necessity precluded from seeing Him who is the very consummation of the law.1
1 At the general-soteriology level we take from this the point that one’s being delivered from the law of commandments is coextensive with one’s believing on Him who is the consummation of the writings referred to as “the (books of) the law”. For given that commandments can’t be consummated but only disannulled, any consummating of the writings in which such commandments be found of necessity brings such commandments to an end. And so when we read at Rom 10:4 that “Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth”, we necessarily understand that although the Greek word for this “end” primarily speaks to an end goal, given that such end goal (Christ) has indeed appeared to them that are (consequently) born again, such “end” of necessity also speaks to abrogation of the law. For when we read at Rom 3:25 that “God hath set forth [Christ] to be a propitiation through faith in His blood, to declare His righteousness for the remission of sins that are past”, we understand that in the proclaiming of our sins to be (forever) past,1a of necessity is the law proclaimed to be no longer present. For we also read at Rom 4:15 that “where no law is, there is no transgression”: if no transgression is considered to have occurred, it is because there is in fact no law present. For is not our law rather Christ Himself? And did not that law go to the Cross? If then our law went to the Cross, how shall its jurisdiction over us continue? And so we see that it is at the Cross that the law of commandments and the law that is Christ Himself come together, for the law of commandments is that experience of God which we had before we knew Christ, and the law that is Christ Himself is that very same law of commandments crucified.1b
1a See our work: “Romans 3:25: The KJV correct, most other versions wrong”.
1b See our work: “The legal proof that Jesus Christ is God”.
[14] “But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ. [15] But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart.”
This “Moses” which is read, is in reference to the writings of Moses, the (5 books of the) law. (See Luke 16:29, Acts 15:21.)
The correlation here is that, because Moses was the embodiment of the people of Israel (for the people were all baptised unto him – see 1 Cor 10:2), in putting the veil over himself he was in fact declaring the veil to be over them. However there is (also) a dualism here: in that the veil was (nevertheless) primarily over himself rather than them, “heart” here is necessarily not in reference to (the more-general) the centre of one’s being, but (the more-acute) the understanding therein. For he upon whom the veil was demonstrably placed was head of the Jews, and “head” speaks to “mind” rather than “heart”: this “vail [that] is upon their heart” (therefore) speaks to the cognitive aspect of the heart as distinct from the orientational aspect of the heart.
That is, we are here being told that the Jew is unable to (spiritually) understand the writings that are ‘Moses’.
[16] “Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away.”
The antecedent for this pronoun “it” is “[the Jew’s] heart”.
Here then we are being told that when the Jew turns to God in his heart (this is the orientational aspect of the heart) the veil which speaks to the cognitive aspect of the heart and which is (accordingly) prohibiting his understanding of (the writings of) Moses, is taken away: upon his conversion he to whom the oracles of God naturally belong (see Rom 3:2) will finally begin to understand just who it is to whom Deut 18:15 refers.
Which is of course in line with the (ethnically-indiscriminate) general soteriological principle found at 1 Cor 2:14:
“But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned”
: whether Jew or Gentile, all who will see Christ in ‘Moses’, must be born again.
In concluding …
We have shown that 2 Corinthians 3:7-16 – in particular v16 – has nothing at all to do with the debate over whether one believes because one is regenerate (Calvinism), or whether one becomes regenerate by believing (anti-Calvinism), but that it is rather about the spiritual means by which a specific people comes to understand the spiritual library they were handed some millennia ago. (For “the law is spiritual” (Rom 7:14).)
No defence of Calvinism is therefore even relevant, let alone required.
Epilogue
The “it” of each of the 2 Jewish disciples with whom Jesus walked the road to Emmaus after His resurrection, had already “turn[ed] to the Lord”: to such fact the spirit of their conversation bears witness with our spirit.
Was not then the Lord justified in (consequently) taking the veil over ‘Moses’ away so that they would begin to understand their own library?
Indeed.
“And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, He expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning Himself” Luke 24:27.
Amen.