In my recent post discussing time, I mentioned the difference between the A-series view of time and B-series view of time is essentially that the former think tensed sentences cannot mean the same thing as tenseless sentences.
But if one is a B-series theorist, why even retain tensed sentences? Suppose the B-series theorist is correct in asserting that, say, present-tensed sentences are true only if when they are uttered, they mean to describe an event which occurs simultaneous with their utterance. Why not simply utter tenseless statements?
Another of Helm's chapters in Eternal God, The Two Standpoints, is summarized in God and Time: Four Views (cf. pgs. 55-59, 79-84, 89-91), can be read here. In it, he provides an explanation by showing that
...the events of the created world are creased as a B-series for God, but are capable of being identified indexically for those who are in time, and who need to negotiate efficiently through the temporal series... (Eternal God, pg. 284)
Your email isn't working!
ReplyDeleteAnyway I wanted to ask you: do you believe there is no salvation outside the church?
Sorry for being off topic,
-Maxim
What is the church? If the church is the bride of Christ, indeed, then no one can be saved apart from it. If the church those group of professing Christians who gather to worship on Sundays, then perhaps one can be saved apart from it, for although Romans 10 suggests a preacher is necessary, what is usually meant by "apart from the church" is whether one must be a member of a particular, visible denomination in order to be saved. The answer is no.
ReplyDeleteWhat about those people who say the idea of an "invisible church" is not in the bible? In the Reformed church I used to attend, the pastor said that.
ReplyDeleteIt's pretty obviously a Scriptural distinction. Actual Christians who congregated in apostolic times were often directly addressed by the apostles in the context of a letter meant to be circulated amongst all those who professed to be Christians. The majority of the NT epistles are polemic in this sense. As a friend of mine put it (link):
ReplyDelete//It is analogous to speaking to person A about person B while both of them are present, and ignoring person B.//
How can apostasy be explained except in terms of one who made a profession of faith later rescinding that profession (e.g. 1 John 2:18-19)?
Ok but the ones he said are the invisible church were still visible in the local church.
ReplyDeleteThe pastor I knew alleged that the term "invisible church" could be used to relegate local church membership as unimportant because "they're a part of the invisible collective and that's enough." That's why he opposes it.
Anyway I wrestled with this for a while, and following Clark's dictum against sensations, I reasoned that if God will put all of his saved people in a local church, then He will put me in one!
So, which churches did you previously attend and why did you leave? (I also don't currently attend a church.)
"Ok but the ones he said are the invisible church were still visible in the local church."
ReplyDeleteThat's irrelevant unless he thinks everyone in the visible church is also a member of the invisible church so as to make both groups without distinction. But that would disregard everything I just argued in favor of an over-realized eschatology.
"The pastor I knew alleged that the term "invisible church" could be used to relegate local church membership as unimportant because "they're a part of the invisible collective and that's enough." That's why he opposes it."
On the contrary, if every member of a "local community" is a member of the invisible church (true believers), then there would be no need to warn true believers about wolves in sheep's clothing. And why does what your former pastor considers "enough" even matter? Enough for what?
"Anyway I wrestled with this for a while, and following Clark's dictum against sensations, I reasoned that if God will put all of his saved people in a local church, then He will put me in one!"
Even if this was true, you're missing the distinction. Look at your argument:
Premise: Everyone who is saved is a member of a local church.
Conclusion: Therefore, everyone who is a member of a local church is saved.
Is that logical? No. The conclusion doesn't follow. The fact is that not everyone who is a member of a local church is saved, which is why a distinction between the visible (PROFESSING Christians) and invisible (ACTUAL Christians) is necessary.
"So, which churches did you previously attend and why did you leave? (I also don't currently attend a church.)"
I attended a Methodist church when I was young and didn't really know much more than basics, a non-denominational church when I was in high school and a little of college before I became a Calvinist, and a Reformed Baptist church before I relatively recently became a Presbyterian.
["Ok but the ones he said are the invisible church were still visible in the local church."
ReplyDeleteThat's irrelevant unless he thinks everyone in the visible church is also a member of the invisible church so as to make both groups without distinction. But that would disregard everything I just argued in favor of an over-realized eschatology.]
Daniel said the ones in the invisible church are in the visible church, but did not imply that all who are in the visible are of the invisible."
["The pastor I knew alleged that the term "invisible church" could be used to relegate local church membership as unimportant because "they're a part of the invisible collective and that's enough." That's why he opposes it."
On the contrary, if every member of a "local community" is a member of the invisible church (true believers), then there would be no need to warn true believers about wolves in sheep's clothing. And why does what your former pastor considers "enough" even matter? Enough for what?]
He didn't imply that. He just implied that it might induce people to disdain the local church, which would make me question their salvation.
["Anyway I wrestled with this for a while, and following Clark's dictum against sensations, I reasoned that if God will put all of his saved people in a local church, then He will put me in one!"
Even if this was true, you're missing the distinction. Look at your argument:
Premise: Everyone who is saved is a member of a local church.
Conclusion: Therefore, everyone who is a member of a local church is saved.
Is that logical? No. The conclusion doesn't follow. The fact is that not everyone who is a member of a local church is saved, which is why a distinction between the visible (PROFESSING Christians) and invisible (ACTUAL Christians) is necessary.]
That's not the argument I made; it was a hypothetical thought. I don't believe all people outside a local church are lost.
Paul seems to define "church" at the start of his letters as "those who are saved" - i.e., those predestined by God to have spiritual life/forgiveness. See Ephesians, where I counted Paul giving 60 attributes of the people he is addressing.
"Daniel said the ones in the invisible church are in the visible church, but did not imply that all who are in the visible are of the invisible."
ReplyDeleteI didn't cite that, but are you saying you disagree that all who are in the invisible church are in the visible church? Then you should still see a distinction between the two.
"He didn't imply that. He just implied that it might induce people to disdain the local church, which would make me question their salvation."
That's speculative pragmatism at best (insofar as it's supposed to be an opposing argument). Just because truth might induce jerk-reactions doesn't mean we should pander to people's feelings. Maybe neither you nor your pastor mean this, but if not, then I don't see what the objection is supposed to be.
"That's not the argument I made; it was a hypothetical thought. I don't believe all people outside a local church are lost."
Then you should recognize a distinction between the visible and invisible church, which is the point.
"Paul seems to define "church" at the start of his letters as "those who are saved" - i.e., those predestined by God to have spiritual life/forgiveness. See Ephesians, where I counted Paul giving 60 attributes of the people he is addressing."
Then again, Ephesians is written to a healthy church. It's not one of those polemical letters to which I referred.
Well, my point is that for Paul the word "church" doesn't mean merely professing Christians in some place, but saved Christians in that place.
ReplyDeleteSo he's not addressing everyone in that place; only those who are predestined/elect.
The Reformed pastor called the invisible church, the "un-oversee-able church." So he believes the same, just with a different name.
I'm not sure how you can read about the apostasy in the Galatian churches and think that.
ReplyDelete"Gal 1.3: Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ,
ReplyDeleteGal 1.4: Who gave himself for our sins..."
See? It's the elect. But it's the elect who have temporarily been deceived: "O foolish Galatians!"
Then: "So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free." (4:31)
Now read the rest of the chapter, such as:
ReplyDeleteGalatians 1:6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel...
He didn't explicitly say they believed the false gospel, but even if they did for a time, it's evident that God would ultimately forgive them and bring them back.
ReplyDeleteThose who believe a false gospel aren't saved by definition, which is all I need to show to demonstrate that the concept of the [visible] church can incorporate nominal Christians.
ReplyDeleteYou do not believe a justified person can temporarily lose their faith?
ReplyDeleteOf course not.
ReplyDeleteI'll also reply to your comments on your blog eventually. I've been busy.
ReplyDelete