Fragmenta
July 30 2005 A.D.
MORE MISTAKEN GREEK SCHOLARSHIP
From p. 8 of the Response to the LA Presbytery report on the Federal Vision:
the Bible uses predestine (προορίζω; Ephesians 1:5, 11; Romans 8:29) only of the elect in the Westminsterian sense of those who will spend eternity in heaven. The use of this term by FV proponents to denote those elect only to membership in the visible church and not in the Westminsterian sense 6 is contrary to Biblical usage...
I will pass over the extremely dubious methodology employed here to condemn Steve Wilkins' use of "predestined" to refer to God's ordaining certain people to merely temporary membership in the covenant. My concern is to let everyone know that the claim made here about προορίζω is just plain wrong. To wit: it just isn't true that the Bible uses "predestine only of the elect in the Westminsterian sense." Consider Acts 4:27-28:
For of a truth Herod and Pontius Pilate gathered together with the gentiles and the people of Israel in this city against your holy servant Jesus whom you anointed, to do the things which your hand and your will had predestined (προώρισεν) to happen.
This is talking about the elect in the Westminsterian sense? No, rather it is a full confirmation of Wilkins et al.'s usage: if God proorizo'ed the nasty things Pilate and Herod did to Jesus, then we are obviously quite safe using "predestine" and its cognates to refer to God's decision to bring the decretally non-elect into the church for a time.

Greenville seminary opponents of FV theology have already made other poorly researched and unwarranted philological claims in public debate about FV theology. (See here and here.)

Apparently, this is their way of fulfilling Colossians 4:6's direction that their "speech be always...seasoned with salt." Take what they say with a few grains, please.



() Posted by Matt at 12 : 40 am
Even apart from the fact that they are simply wrong, notice where this gets them. Doesn't the fact that Paul refers to all the Ephesians as predestined itself prove Wilkins' point?


Posted by mark at 1 : 55 am on 07 . 30 . 05 A.D.
I've not read the response you linked, I'm not fond of Robbins to begin with. That said, I want to note a few problems with your premise.

Firstly, I believe you are quoting Acts 4:27-28. That's an easy slip, so we'll let that slide. :) Secondly, consider what it is that is 'proorizo'ed' in Acts 4:27-28:

Act 4:28 to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur.

God's plan and purpose is that which is predestined, not individuals to some kind of temporary covenant membership. You may be correct in pointing out the responders' error in grammar, I don't know Greek so I am unable to grant that, but your attempt to make these verses somehow prove that point is untenable.

Finally, consider what it was that God 'predestined' in Ephesians. The first predestining is "that we would be holy and blameless before Him". Secondly. He predestined 'us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself''. God also predestined that "we have obtained an inheritance".

Unless we're willing to grant the Arminian or some other aberrant view of predestination wherein what God predestines doesn't come to pass, there's no way the book of Ephesians "prove(s) Wilkin's point" in fact, just the opposite. Ephesians tells us rather that God predestined those to whom it was addressed to holiness, adoption, and inheritance, not to temporary covenant membership and thus ultimately to hell.

Now, that doesn't mean that God didn't predestine some to hell, or even that God didn't predestine some to 'temporary covenant membership', in fact God "works all things after the counsel of His will". But there is nothing in Ephesians to suggest that the elect are anything but those whom God adopts, sanctifies and ultimately saves. therefore your argument is groundless.

Micah Burke

Posted by M Burke at 4 : 11 am on 07 . 30 . 05 A.D.
I think you missed the point of Matt's appeal to Acts 4, Micah. The point is that the term is not a technical term for predestination to ultimate salvation, and therefore there is nothing slippery or strange to view it as referring to the foreordaining of things such as temporary inclusion in Christ.

As for your treatment of Ephesians 1, it forces us to say that Paul was only writing to the elect in the Westminsterian sense. But he doesn't go through any hoops to speak that way.

Posted by Tim G at 4 : 26 am on 07 . 30 . 05 A.D.
After reviewing the specific part of the response to which you refer, I wish to point out one more thing.

You state: "My concern is to let everyone know that the claim made here about προορίζω is just plain wrong. To wit: it just isn't true that the Bible uses "predestine only of the elect in the Westminsterian sense." Consider Romans [Acts] 4:27-28"
The mistaken verse aside, re-read what the responders wrote:

269 While the Report rightly says that the Bible uses the word elect in several different ways,
270 not only in the Westminsterian sense and not all of which are finally salvific, it neglects
271 to note that the Bible uses predestine (proori,zw; Ephesians 1:5, 11; Romans 8:29) only
272 of the elect in the Westminsterian sense of those who will spend eternity in heaven.

The point they're making is not that the Bible only uses the term predestination or predestine ONLY of the elect unto salvation, but when the words predestine in regards to the elect are found in the Bible, it is "in the Westminsterian sense of those who will spend eternity in heaven." Acts 4:27-28 therefore has absolutely nothing to do with their statement. The responders in fact accept and allow that the Bible does use the terminology in different ways. I think this is nothing more than a poorly worded statement on their part, but not the major error you seem to believe it to be.

In Christ,

Micah Burke

Posted by M Burke at 4 : 28 am on 07 . 30 . 05 A.D.
Tim,

It therefore seems that your view of Ephesians 1 means that God in fact doesn't actually get what He predestines. There are therefore some who, even though they were predestined to it, they are not made holy, are not adopted, have not obtained the inheritance and finally are not sealed with the Spirit.

As the commentators of the Geneva Bible notes write: "This is a metaphor taken of a seal, which being put on anything, distinguishes between those things which are authentic, and those things which are not." Predestination, in Ephesians, is like the 'golden chain of redemption' in Romans 8, there's no possibility that those who are predestined in the way Paul uses in both Ephesians 1 & Romans 8 will not perservere.

This whole discussion reminds me of Douglas Wilson's book "Easy Chairs, Hard Words" in which he explains that if someone said "the whole school was at the game" and yet one student was in fact sick, the statement would none-the-less be true. Likewise, Paul surely addresses the entire church of Ephesus as "we have been predestined", even if there are some therein that were not bound for heaven it in no way makes his statement false OR require the kind of grammatical gymnastics seemingly being placed upon it by Wilkins, rather it simply is addressing those who have been predestined etc.

Posted by M Burke at 4 : 39 am on 07 . 30 . 05 A.D.
BTW, when you write a letter and address specific individuals therein, must what you say in every part of the letter apply to individuals not specifically addressed? When Paul writes "we have been predestined" he is not referring to the unelect, rather, his letter is addressed to "the saints who are in Ephesus, and are faithful in Christ Jesus." Not the "unfaithful".

Posted by M Burke at 4 : 41 am on 07 . 30 . 05 A.D.
Micah,
My point is a narrowly circumscribed one. It is not true that the Bible only uses proorizo of the elect. It appears, rather, to be a term applicable to God's activity of foreordaining whatsoever comes to pass. Thus Wilkins' usage is well within Biblical boundaries, and the Response to LA Presbytery is mistaken to cry foul about it.

Do you contest this?

Posted by Matt at 8 : 41 am on 07 . 30 . 05 A.D.
Micah,

if that's what the Response meant, it was somewhat confusingly stated.

Posted by oduggie at 9 : 02 am on 07 . 30 . 05 A.D.
Matt,

Micah is precisely correct. It was an oversight on our part not to say something like, "when the Bible uses proorizo, when in reference to persons (Rom 8, Eph 1), it always refers to individuals who cannot lose their election, which is how WCF III uses the term. " The two other instances of proorizo (Acts 4, I Cor 2) in the Bible are not relevant to the discussion, although we should have mentioned them, to save folks blogging time.

When Wilkins uses the term, he is referring to the Eph 1 passage, Matt, not to one of the other two instances, so your argument does not hold. Read WCF III again and see how the Confession uses the term, predestinated.

But as someone told me on another blog, can someone say everything every time they say anything? Our letter was more detailed than the report itself.

Sincerely,
Chris Hutchinson

Posted by Chris Hutchinson at 9 : 35 am on 07 . 30 . 05 A.D.
Chris, the use of proorizo in Acts 4 (and everywhere else) must condition our understanding of the term in Ephesians and Romans. That is how lexicography works. It is not philology, but special pleading for you to say, "Oh, there's one usage about things, and another usage about persons, and we didn't bother with the former class, because they don't tell against Wilkins. But the latter class is against Wilkins' usage." This is equivalent to "what my net don't catch ain't fish."

Let me remind you that the report says, "the use of [proorizo] by FV proponents to denote those elect only to membership in the visible church and not in the Westminsterian sense is contrary to Biblical usage." No, it is not. For you have just admitted that Wilkins' usage is not contrary to the sense of half the instances of proorizo in the Bible. For the Biblical usage includes Acts 4 and 1 Cor. 2, where the word is not applied to the elect. If you want to exclude these two passages, you have a lot more work to do. And it is irresponsible of you not to have done it before accusing poor Steve Wilkins of unbiblical usage.

Posted by Matt at 10 : 43 am on 07 . 30 . 05 A.D.
The mistake was mine in drafting that portion of the letter. Many months ago the signators had discussed the restricted use of proorizo with persons as its object, and I had that discussion in mind as I drafted; no doubt all of us had it in mind, and it occurred to none of us that I failed to mention the restriction of its use with persons as object. Put the blame on me. And, by the way, the sense of various transitive verbs in Greek (and other languages) does vary significantly depending on whether their objects are personal or impersonal.

Posted by Cal at 11 : 42 am on 07 . 30 . 05 A.D.
Matt,

This will be my last post. Read Romans 8:29-30 and then read Ephesians 1:5, 11. Then read WCF III.v, keeping in mind that their Bible was the KJV, which translates proorizo as "predestinate," unlike the Acts and Corinthians passage where it is translated as "ordained."

To my knowledge, Mr. Wilkins never references these others passages, and is speaking of people as predestinated, rather than events; people who are predestinated to be part of the visible church, but not to everlasting life. But WCF interprets predestination differently, and anyone who wants to say that they believe in WCF predestination, just not from the Eph 1 text has to prove their exegetical case why proorizo should be interpreted differently there than in Rom. 8:29-30. And I would surmise that if they were to succeed in this, they would succeed in beginning to undermine the exegetical basis for WCF III altogether, and we would need to think about changing the Confession.

Matt, I think you should at least consider the possibility that you are not examining this evidence with as open a mind and a heart as you might. May God bless your continued study of these texts.

Chris Hutchinson

Posted by Chris at 1 : 15 pm on 07 . 30 . 05 A.D.
Prof. Beisner,

Please do not lecture me about how transitive verbs in Greek behave. The sense of a verb may vary depending on whether its object is a person or not. But then again, it may not. This is the sort of research that one has to do before one accuses a minister of the Word of playing fast and loose with the language of the Bible.

Now you claim that this research was done, and you apologize for not mentioning it in the Response. But this is not the apology that is called for. You ought to apologize to Steve Wilkins for falsely accusing him of twisting the meaning of the Biblical word "predestine." You have no evidence that he has done so. But you still speak as though your criticism stands.

The Biblical sample size for proorizo is four instances. In order to establish that the verb has a special personal sense, you need to have looked at other Greek sources. A quick TLG search reveals that the verb is appears only 23 times in all of Greek literature. Did you look at the evidence? I have, and I can see no reason at all to think that proorizo has a special sense with personal objects, which Wilkins has violated.

If you'd like a list of the instances of the verb in Greek literature, I'll be happy to email it to you.

Posted by Matt at 1 : 43 pm on 07 . 30 . 05 A.D.
Quick correction: KJV translates as proorizo as "determined" in Acts 4. Doesn't affect my post, but I wrote it too quickly. -- Chris H.

Posted by Chris at 1 : 59 pm on 07 . 30 . 05 A.D.
Mr. Hutchinson,

I believe in total and complete predestination, of everything that happens. Note that the Greek Bible, like English, uses the verb with a predicate. That is to say, God doesn't just "predestine" anything, full-stop. He predestines X to do Y or to be Z.

In Acts 4, God predestined "the things" (acc.) that Pilate and Herod did "to happen."
In Rom. 8, we have a predicate accusative: "predestined them same-shaped of the image of his son", which is equivalent to "predestined them to share the image of his son."
1 Cor. 2 is elliptical: "We speak the wisdom of God hidden in a mystery, which God predestined before the ages for our glory..." That is, God predestined the contents of the gospel, i.e. that certain things (Christ's life and work) should happen.
In Eph 1, God did not just "predestine us", but "predestined us for adoption..." Again, an event.

In WCF III.v, the verb is again not a complete one, but requires a complement: "Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life..." Indeed, in every instance of the word "predestinated" in the WCF, it is either followed by "unto life" (III.3, 5, 8; X.1) or else qualified as "thus predestined" (III.4). This is just fine and dandy. The fact that I believe that Pharaoh or hypocrites in the church have been predestinated unto death does not at all prevent me or Steve Wilkins from believing what Westminster says about those that are "predestinated unto life." No one is undermining Westminster's usage of "predestinate." The suggestion is preposterous.

What the KJV does with proorizo is nothing to the point. The WCF itself (I.8) makes clear that the KJV is not to be appealed to for settling controversies of religion. The Greek is authoritative, and to the extent that the KJV makes it appear that there are two different verbs, one "ordain" and the other "predestinate", it obscures the Greek.

As for poor Mr. Wilkins, I expect that he was simply using "predestine" in a plain vanilla sense, without any prejudice one way or the other about its various meanings. To accuse him of some sort of carelessness or failure to consider all the passages is rather unfair. His usage happens to be accurate. He, like the vast majority of Christians, never imagined that anyone had set up a division of different sorts of "proorizo," and that he would fall afoul of such imaginary distinctions.

Finally, I repudiate your suggestion that I am not open-minded on these issues. My method is to examine the evidence and put it on the table so that others can examine it too. So far, the signers of the Response have not done this. I am asking them to do so, and indeed, offering them the means to do so. (If you too would like a copy of all the uses of proorizo in Greek, let me know.)

After you and your fellows have seen that the Bible and Greek usage do not support your accusation, the fair-minded thing to do would be to withdraw this particular accusation and apologize to Rev. Wilkins.

Posted by Matt at 2 : 27 pm on 07 . 30 . 05 A.D.
Matt,

Your reply to Mr. Hutchinson is in no way helpful to this disucssion. The intent of their statement in the response was evident to even an uneducated observer like myself, why not simply accept their grammatical/contextual correction here and let it be?

All parties involved would agree that God predestines all that occurs, even the presence of tares among the wheat. (Which are always tares, btw, never wheat even though they are part of the field and appear for all intents and purposes to be wheat.) That said, you should concede the point and acknowledge that it is not applicable to their comments, or otherwise admit that you do not hold to the WCF standards.

Time and again the responders have admitted that the Bible uses 'predestine' in different ways, your argument only proves that point. That said, this in no way lends any support to the idea tha tEphesians 1, or Romans 8 provide for a concept of "elect" that are in fact not bound for glory. Yes there are those who are 'elected' to damnation, but this is not in view in these passages.



Posted by M Burke at 2 : 34 pm on 07 . 30 . 05 A.D.
Micah,
The Response already admitted that there is Biblical basis for talking about those who are "elect" but not in Westminster's sense. Its authors then pulled proorizo out of their bag in order to achieve with it what the various verbs "to elect" would not do for them: namely, to establish that there is a special word applicable only to the elect, which Mr. Wilkins is abusing by applying it to temporary covenant members.

That bubble too has been popped, since Greek lexicography will not support their claim about proorizo. That is the issue here. If they admit that "predestine" is used in a way that admits Mr. Wilkins' usage, then they should apologize for claiming otherwise in a signed letter to his Presbytery.

But so far, they have not admitted that the charge at the bottom of page 8 of their Response is false. They have, instead, produced imaginary distinctions about "proorizo with persons" versus "proorizo with things or events." This is all nonsense, and I have said so.

Still, no apology to Mr. Wilkins, no admission of error, only of sloppiness in not producing their full data in the letter. I say, let them produce their data. I'm eager to see it. Indeed, I'll even help them out with an exhaustive list of the instances of the word in Greek literature.

No, somehow, I am supposed to "accept their grammatical/contextual correction" and let the matter go. But have you not heard me, Micah? Their "correction" is itself mistaken and without warrant. It has not made their accusation true where it was false before. Their accusation of Mr. Wilkins is still false. They still need to withdraw it.

Posted by Matt at 3 : 04 pm on 07 . 30 . 05 A.D.
Matt,

Thank you for your response. I never should have said that would be my last post -- that was indeed my intent, but there are two simple misunderstandings that I can clear up easily.

1) When the WCF uses the word, predestinate, it is referring only to the sense of God electing people to everlasting life. It specifically refuses to use the term for those who are foreordained to death. I assumed we were all on the same sheet here, and I should have referenced WCF III.3 in this regard; my apologies.

Therefore, we must conclude that the divines had the two NT redemption-related instances of the word "predestinated" in mind when they chose to make this careful distinction. They did their work in English, and wrote in English. If you are a better Greek scholar than they, then try to change the WCF to accomodate the Greek better. But the distinctions which you say are imaginary are exactly the distinctions which WCF III.3 makes.

2) I think Steve was merely sloppy in using Ephesians 1 to try to show that the reprobate within the visible church have "every spiritual blessing in Christ," and yet can lose those blessings, including predestination to adoption. We are calling him to better exegesis, and to exegesis that lines up with WCF III. And as he wishes to have a national influence upon Reformed theology, we wish to sharpen that influence, and/or give pause to some who may be otherwise inclined to buy wholesale everything FV leaders have to say. That is our purpose.

I Cor 8:1b,
Chris H.

Posted by Chris at 3 : 11 pm on 07 . 30 . 05 A.D.
Christopher,

The distinctions I say are imaginary are the ones that Mr. Beisner attempts to make -- not about the WCF, but about Greek word usage. The distinction between "proorizo with persons" and "proorizo with objects" is bogus, with no support in Greek usage. Since the distinction was manufactured in order to shore up an accusation that Wilkins was distorting the Bible's use of proorizo, we should conclude that the accusation is without any merit, and it should be retracted.

Those who pretend to "clarify and sharpen" should not muddy the waters and distort the facts. Those who pretend to call others to better exegesis should not display deeply flawed lexical methodology or make false claims about Greek. I am far from agreeing with everything Mr. Wilkins has to say, but I think it would be a pity if he loses any credibility at all to you and Mr. Beisner on this particular point.

Posted by Matt at 4 : 11 pm on 07 . 30 . 05 A.D.
Chris,

When you find some time, could you sum up the exegetical evidence for the claim that Paul is addressing only part of the congregation -- the eternally elect part -- to which he is writing in Ephesians 1? Does "us" really mean "some of us"?

Thanks,

Todd Harris
Texas

Posted by Todd Harris at 4 : 30 pm on 07 . 30 . 05 A.D.
Gee,

I kinda wonder where the "eternity in heaven" part came from. Have we moved from biblical or ecumenical or classically reformed formulations to modern revivalist language?

What happened to the old "resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come"?

Posted by Paul Baxter at 5 : 05 pm on 07 . 30 . 05 A.D.
Matt & Todd,

Matt,

Your argument is really with the KJV translation committee and the WCF divine's usage of the word, not Mr. Beisner. Just admit that you differ with them and think you know how to better handle Greek than them. Which is possible, but we are simply trying to point out the way the divines understood proorizo from WCF III, and that Steve differs with that understanding. But it may only be clear to those who are not looking for mud.

Todd,

Very briefly, because I need to go over my sermon:
1) I have no problem with a charitable addressing of whole churches as predestinated, knowing that not every member, head for head, has every spiritual blessing in Christ just because they are baptized. I think that is what is going on in the circular letter of Ephesians.
2) Ephesians 6:24 -- "Grace be with all them that love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity." Do the reprobate love Jesus in sincerity? If so, then we have other theological problems.
3) Romans 8:29-30 -- all who are predestinated will be justified and glorified. The only other place this word, proorizo, is used in the Bible when in reference to persons is Eph 1:5, 11; therefore, the two uses must inform one another. The predestinated of Eph 1 will reach glory. Even if that is wrong, that is clearly how WCF III understands it.
4) General allowance of ST to inform our exegesis of particular passages -- if one is truly adopted, one can never lose one's sonship -- John 10:27-29. And a realization that NO ONE comes to Ephesians 1 without some prior ST commitment and bias, even if they think otherwise. And so FV men are coming with all of their prior theological commitments as well, including the notion of Christendom.

Those are some reasons. Take them or leave them, as I have run out of debating time.

Good night to all, and to all a good night,
Chris Hutchinson

Posted by Chris at 6 : 15 pm on 07 . 30 . 05 A.D.
No, Chris, my issue is with Mr. Beisner. I have no problem with the WCF's use of "predestinate." I feel no need to correct it on this point. To be sure, I have taken issue with the WCF's sometimes slipshod terminology before: its equation of "sin" and "transgression" for instance, obscures an important Pauline point in Romans. But in the present matter of "predestine" the supposed conflict between Westminster's language and my arguments is wholly of your own imagining.

No, the only thing I have a big problem with is Mr. Beisner's claim that it is somehow unbiblical to use the word of God's decision to make some people temporary members of the covenant. Is it so hard to track this in my comments above? Do I not keep coming back to it again and again, this word proorizo?

Westminster never says "you may not use this word about anything other than election-unto-glory." Quite the contrary, because it always qualifies "predestinate" with additional words ("unto life"), it leaves the door open for use of the word in the wider sense that the Bible uses it. So we are free -- yes, that's right, free, not in bondage to anyone's shoddy scholarship -- to speak of "predestined to temporary membership in Christ" or "predestined to damnation," or "predestined to make erroneous claims about Greek in a letter to a presbytery."

Thank you for your contribution, Mr. Hutchinson. Now that you have said your piece, it is my hope that we will be able to stop worrying about the language of the WCF and the KJV translation. I appreciate that you may be more comfortable talking about them, but they are not relevant. My only concern is the erroneous claim about the Bible's usage of proorizo on page 8 of the Response. That is a matter of Greek philology and semantic ranges -- not of English translations or confessional statements. Mr. Beisner screwed up on the level of language study, not theology. That has been my concern all along: to correct the record about the usage of a Greek word.

Posted by Matt at 6 : 51 pm on 07 . 30 . 05 A.D.
I know Matt personally (so to speak) and I would like to caution anyone about challenging his powers of analysis in the Greek language. And yes, it would be totally unsurprising if he knew more about Greek and translating from Greek to English than the Westminster divines. For starters, he has better resources at his fingertips (and on his computer) than they ever dreamed of.

Posted by Grandpa Mike at 8 : 37 pm on 07 . 30 . 05 A.D.
I'm sick of hearing folks who just can't seem to grasp what Wilkins is saying. It's not that hard. Listen to, or read, Wilson's stuff on "Church Historical/Eschatological", and stop thinking like platonists, and perhaps it will sink in.

Posted by Adam at 10 : 49 pm on 07 . 30 . 05 A.D.
Matt will correct me if I'm making a botch of what the Greek really says, but another possibility is that Paul's use of "predestine" in Eph 1 refers neither to all the Ephesian readers generally (judgment of charity or no) nor to those who are individually destined for salvation.

Eph 1:11-12 has a shift from "we" to "you," the "we" being "the first to hope in Christ" and the "you" being the audience to whom Paul is writing. If verse 11 is a kind of brief re-cap of what verses 3-10 were just talking about, then it is simply the "we" who are explicitly said to be predestined (though the "you also" would perhaps imply the equal predestination of the "you").

If the "we"-"you" interplay in Ephesians 1 and 2 has to do with the incorporation of Jews ("we") and Gentiles ("you") together into Christ (as becomes increasingly clear, one could argue, as the text progresses), then the "we" and "you" might have to do more with God's plan for two groups than it does with particular individuals at this point (which is not at all to deny that God also predestines individuals since God "works all things after the counsel of his will").

The "we" who were the first to hope in Christ would refer then to the Jewish people, particularly the Jewish church in Palestine, while the "you" would refer to the Gentile inclusion, especially in Asia Minor within the scope of this letter.

The point, then would be that God chose the Jewish people and brought the history of Israel by his predestination to fulfillment in Christ through the Gospel, so that in Christ, every blessing ever promised to Israel is now available to them in Christ, made known in the fulness of time to the end that all might be summed up in Christ. That inheritance secured by God's predestinating purposes for Israel is now enjoyed by those Jews who believe, but the same God who accomplished this is now also incorporating all the Gentiles who believe into this new thing that he has done.

Or something like that. Just a thought I've had rattling around the back of my brain for a number of years. I'm not absolutely wed to the interpretation, but I'd be particularly interested in Matt's thoughts on it.


Posted by garver at 11 : 53 pm on 07 . 30 . 05 A.D.
Joel, I'm certainly just an amateur, but I've argued for this interpretation in other venues. I think it's the most contextually plausible view. So, it neither supports nor undermines Wilkins - or Beisner et.al.

Posted by Barb at 12 : 38 am on 07 . 31 . 05 A.D.
I have no idea why my ealier message got posted 3 times. I just wanted to say that my comments were not directed towards Beisner et al, as much as folks online who argue for an either/or approach to things like: Paul's audience. Does paul speak of the invisible church, or the visible church? Does Paul simply give a judgment of charity? Looking at the Church historically makes sense out of it - Paul is speaking to the Church, the whole Church and nothing but the Church. In my opinion Wilson's lecture at the AAPC made all of the difference, yet thinking outside of the enlightenment oriented "visible/invisible" distinction seems so difficult for some. Joel, you make a great point. And that's pretty much my reading of Eph. Paul definately has Jew Gentile relations in mind in that epistle, whether that's too NP or not, I don't know.

Posted by Adam at 3 : 41 am on 07 . 31 . 05 A.D.
Joel,

The reading on which we=Jews and you=Gentiles is what I have always understood the letter to use from 1:12 on. But I think it is a bit hard to read 1:1-11 that way, since the distinction has not yet been made.

As of 1:5 (our "predestined" verse), the previous mention of "us" and "you" -- i.e. the one that will be in the reader's mind when he comes to 1:5 -- is in the greeting of the letter (1:2): "Grace to you and peace from God our father and the Lord Jesus Christ." It is this "us" that is continued in verse 3 ("the father of our Lord Jesus Christ who has blessed us, and so on.

Now, 1:12, with its restrictive participle ("we who have believed earlier") seems unmistakably a reference to Jews only. It is followed by 1:13's "in whom also you (καὶ ὑμεῖς)..." So a Jew/Gentile distinction is clearly operative in 1:12-13.

The other possibility that occurs to me is that the distinction in 12 might be not between Jew and Gentile, but between earlier believers (the apostles, the various Mary's, etc.) and later believers (e.g. those converted by Paul's missionary journeys).

In short, I don't know.

Posted by Matt at 9 : 37 am on 07 . 31 . 05 A.D.
Matt,

You wrote, "That has been my concern all along: to correct the record about the usage of a Greek word."

I understand and take your point. It has taken me awhile, because I was trying to back up and give you some of the context of our concerns, and so I was not completely hearing your more narrow philological concern. I will personally grant that one Greek word does not prove a case. I also apologize for any insults you perceived in my previous posts.

Let me try to show once more our concern for any still reading this. Words mean things only in their immediate context; you pointed out that we are always "predestinated" TO something. Mr. Wilkins understands the predestination TO ADOPTION in Ephesians 1:5 as something which all church members have, and some lose. It is in footnote 6 of our letter and in his Knox Colloquium essay, p. 269.

Our concern is, if predestinated adoption is something we can lose, what then CAN'T we lose? What comfort then is the doctrine of predestination if that which we are predestinated to can be lost?

Furthermore, we noted that the word there, famously gone over above, is the same word that Paul (the same author obviously) uses in a very similar context of personal redemption in Romans 8:30, which says that all those who are predestinated are also justified and glorified. Well then, if we can lose the predestinated adoption of sons in Ephesians 1:5, what keeps us from being able to lose the glorification promised here? Those are our questions.

So these are pastoral concerns which we tried to get at through word choice, attempting to show folks the close parrallels between the two passages. I think you have shown that our letter's statement puts too much weight on the one word rather than in what those texts say we are predestinated to. So as we continue to dialog, let LA presbytery answer how they understand that word in both passages, and you might well send them your research to further the cause of truth. I know the chairman of the ad hoc committee personally and so in fact, if you email it to me, I will email it on to him. No one should fear truth.

Now, further, one might argue that WCF III is founded on neither of these texts, but only by "good and necessary consequences." But I contend that if we allow a wedge to be driven between WCF III's usage of predestinated and its use in these two texts, we could well lose the doctrine itself as a good and necessary consequence of that development. And I think that would be unfortunate for Reformed theology.

One quibble: it is of course within your Christian freedom to say someone is "predestinated to damnation," but that speaks precisely opposite to how the Confession speaks, and misses the point that predestination is a positive doctrine of how God actively places his love on His elect to save them from damnation. He does not do that with those whom He leaves in unbelief. The distinction is Scriptural according to these two texts and WCF III, and should be maintained, I think.

Now, on this Lord's Day, I have tried to communicate our pastoral and theological concerns with what we perceive to be the misinterpretation of predestination in Ephesians 1 in a dispassionate and polite manner. Thanks to all for your patience in bearing with me.

Thank you, Matt, for your zeal for correct philology. May God lead us into all truth, and a peaceable wisdom. (Phil 3:15; James 3:13-18).

Yours in Christ's grip,
Chris Hutchinson
Grace Covenant PCA
Blacksburg, VA

Posted by Chris at 2 : 57 pm on 07 . 31 . 05 A.D.
Thanks, Matt. What you say about Eph 1:1-11 makes sense and I've oscillated back and forth over that before. So I'll continue mulling it over.

Posted by garver at 6 : 18 pm on 07 . 31 . 05 A.D.
Barb,

"Does paul speak of the invisible church, or the visible church?"

Read Eph 1:1-2 and answer your question.

Posted by M Burke at 7 : 04 pm on 07 . 31 . 05 A.D.
Grandpa wrote: "I know Matt personally (so to speak) and I would like to caution anyone about challenging his powers of analysis in the Greek language."

It's not his analysis of Greek that is in question, but his understanding of English.

Posted by M Burke at 7 : 06 pm on 07 . 31 . 05 A.D.
Matt,

I take it that, given this discussion, you would take issue with Pastor Doug Wilson who said, in the 2004 debate with Dr. James White, that the "elect cannot apostasize"?

Posted by M Burke at 7 : 07 pm on 07 . 31 . 05 A.D.
Christopher,

I feel as though you understand what I am saying now.

You are correct that Westminster does not speak of "predestionation unto hell." Why it does not is an interesting question, but I am not at all sure that the reason you have given is the true one.

But even though Westminster uses "predestine" only of God's choosing the elect, I have already shown you that the Bible uses the verb also of God's decision to have Pilate and Herod conspire against Jesus. It would thus appear to be a verb that the Bible uses of evil deeds as well as good -- indeed, it appears to be applicable to anything that God brings to pass by His providence.

I expect that Westminster's avoidance of the term "predestine" with regard to reprobation is due to some squeamishness about God actively picking people for hell. Hence its language about "passing over" rather than "choosing."

But this scruple aside, the Bible's usage, not Westminster's, must be normative. Mr. Wilkins is free to use the verb proorizo (predestine) as he has: Biblically speaking, it is not just the salvation of the elect that is predestined, but all things whatsoever. The Response is making a false claim about Greek word usage.

Posted by Matt at 7 : 14 pm on 07 . 31 . 05 A.D.
Matt,

Thank you for your response. Our remaining stated differences appear to be over the nature of Confessionalism itself, and since I don't know your ecclesiastical affiliation, I will simply leave it at that.

Blessings, Chris

Posted by Chris at 8 : 05 pm on 07 . 31 . 05 A.D.
In the end it doesn't really matter if ‘predestine’ is used to speak only of the elect (in WCF or the Holy Scriptures), if you take into account that Church - both those who are 'eternally elect' in the mind of God, and those who are not - are referred to in terms of what we might call the 'POSITION' of the Church. The Church itself, as a body of people in history, like Israel, is POSITIONALLY referred to as the elect of God, in anticipation of what they will be on the final day. The Church in history receives it's name on the basis of what it will one day be. For example, the pure "bride of Christ", without blemish.

The thing to remember is that when the New Testament was being written the Church/Israel was in the throes of an eschatological transition. God was judging Israel. God was judging his "Bride", his "elect/chosen". This judgment is both positive and negative. It comes as a blessing to the 'elect' - those true believers from whom the whole nation had received it's name(s) during the Old Covenant era – that is, the CHOSEN people. However, it comes as a terror to those who received the name “chosen”, and yet were apostates due to unbelief. So, in the N.T. authors, we see a lot of talk about "true Israel/circumcision", the "elect", those "predestined/chosen" - because the time had come for God to reveal, by way of judgment, those who did not belong in God's 'elect' people, and justify those who, like Abraham, actually believed God in Christ. The New Test authors, particularly Paul, were not developing a new Theology of election. They were speaking in terms of judgment, because judgment had come. We must learn to decipher the terms, and word usages, of judgment from the normative terms of the covenant. I'm talking about Biblical Theology, as oppose to systematic, in a sense. Normatively, God called ALL of Israel elect and chosen, yet in the eschatological time of judgment God refers to his people as wheat and chaff, justified and unjustified, elect and apostate. HISTORY matters. In systematic history is secondary. In enlightenment logic, history is secondary. In the New Test we find a transition wherein terms are beings used in what I call both, ‘normative’ and ‘eschatological’ senses. That is, Paul is speaking to the Churches using both senses. Perhaps at different times, or perhaps at the same time – this is where we must bring all of our exegetical resources to bear. I think that, for the most part Paul is speaking both generally, and specifically. That is, Paul is speaking (as the Old Test does through out) to God’s people in the normative sense, referring to all of them on the basis of what the Church will one day be. (This is kind of like speaking of our glorification, and resurrection, in anticipating of those events; or, already/not yet) While at the same time, speaking to them in an eschatological sense because of the Judgment that was occurring at the time; Paul was referring to them as the body of those who were escaping wrath, that is, the justified/elect/chosen, etc. The reason I don’t think these two contradict themselves, and why I don’t think that Paul would have felt as though we was contradicting himself is that Paul didn’t think like we do. We make an ontological differentiation based on history, or “realms”. Visible/invisible, or historical/eschatological. What some of us are attempting to do is get away from making ontological distinctions like this. Trying to think Hebraically.

Some reformed folks have obviously taken a good thing (Calvin’s soteriology) way too far, tossing everything else out, and making it the lens through which we understand everything else. It’s lead to great confusion, a low view of the Church, a low view of sacraments – if not a good reason to do away with paedo-baptism all together – a complete shift towards individualism, dispensationalism, revivalism, etc.

[side-note: I find it very interesting that no one seems to care about how the rest of the Church, particularly the Church-historical, would feel about the FV. Really, I’m not joking. The FV is much closer to the Church historical in it’s ecclesiology (and a lot closer to Calvin for that matter). That means something to me, personally. I know a lot of reformed folks like to sit in the corner and act as though the Historic Catholics, Orthodox, Lutheran, Anglican, etc. Churches, don’t exist. We are all wrapped up in our WCF, while Calvin was all wrapped up in the Church fathers.]


Posted by Adam at 9 : 03 pm on 07 . 31 . 05 A.D.
In the end it doesn't really matter if ‘predestine’ is used to speak only of the elect (in WCF or the Holy Scriptures), if you take into account that Church - both those who are 'eternally elect' in the mind of God, and those who are not - are referred to in terms of what we might call the 'POSITION' of the Church. The Church itself, as a body of people in history, like Israel, is POSITIONALLY referred to as the elect of God, in anticipation of what they will be on the final day. The Church in history receives it's name on the basis of what it will one day be. For example, the pure "bride of Christ", without blemish.

The thing to remember is that when the New Testament was being written the Church/Israel was in the throes of an eschatological transition. God was judging Israel. God was judging his "Bride", his "elect/chosen". This judgment is both positive and negative. It comes as a blessing to the 'elect' - those true believers from whom the whole nation had received it's name(s) during the Old Covenant era – that is, the CHOSEN people. However, it comes as a terror to those who received the name “chosen”, and yet were apostates due to unbelief. So, in the N.T. authors, we see a lot of talk about "true Israel/circumcision", the "elect", those "predestined/chosen" - because the time had come for God to reveal, by way of judgment, those who did not belong in God's 'elect' people, and justify those who, like Abraham, actually believed God in Christ. The New Test authors, particularly Paul, were not developing a new Theology of election. They were speaking in terms of judgment, because judgment had come. We must learn to decipher the terms, and word usages, of judgment from the normative terms of the covenant. I'm talking about Biblical Theology, as oppose to systematic, in a sense. Normatively, God called ALL of Israel elect and chosen, yet in the eschatological time of judgment God refers to his people as wheat and chaff, justified and unjustified, elect and apostate. HISTORY matters. In systematic history is secondary. In enlightenment logic, history is secondary. In the New Test we find a transition wherein terms are beings used in what I call both, ‘normative’ and ‘eschatological’ senses. That is, Paul is speaking to the Churches using both senses. Perhaps at different times, or perhaps at the same time – this is where we must bring all of our exegetical resources to bear. I think that, for the most part Paul is speaking both generally, and specifically. That is, Paul is speaking (as the Old Test does through out) to God’s people in the normative sense, referring to all of them on the basis of what the Church will one day be. (This is kind of like speaking of our glorification, and resurrection, in anticipating of those events; or, already/not yet) While at the same time, speaking to them in an eschatological sense because of the Judgment that was occurring at the time; Paul was referring to them as the body of those who were escaping wrath, that is, the justified/elect/chosen, etc. The reason I don’t think these two contradict themselves, and why I don’t think that Paul would have felt as though we was contradicting himself is that Paul didn’t think like we do. We make an ontological differentiation based on history, or “realms”. Visible/invisible, or historical/eschatological. What some of us are attempting to do is get away from making ontological distinctions like this. Trying to think Hebraically.

Some reformed folks have obviously taken a good thing (Calvin’s soteriology) way too far, tossing everything else out, and making it the lens through which we understand everything else. It’s lead to great confusion, a low view of the Church, a low view of sacraments – if not a good reason to do away with paedo-baptism all together – a complete shift towards individualism, dispensationalism, revivalism, etc.

[side-note: I find it very interesting that no one seems to care about how the rest of the Church, particularly the Church-historical, would feel about the FV. Really, I’m not joking. The FV is much closer to the Church historical in it’s ecclesiology (and a lot closer to Calvin for that matter). That means something to me, personally. I know a lot of reformed folks like to sit in the corner and act as though the Historic Catholics, Orthodox, Lutheran, Anglican, etc. Churches, don’t exist. We are all wrapped up in our WCF, while Calvin was all wrapped up in the Church fathers.]


Posted by Adam at 9 : 18 pm on 07 . 31 . 05 A.D.
Matt, do you have any idea why my messages are being posted twice?

Posted by adam at 9 : 19 pm on 07 . 31 . 05 A.D.
Oh, I figured it out. Sorry about that. I hit 'refresh'.

Posted by adam at 9 : 20 pm on 07 . 31 . 05 A.D.
Chris, surely it is common to here "double predestination" affirmed in the PCA. Sometimes it is pointed out that the confession doesn't use such language, but I've never heard this viewed as suspicious or positively at odds with the Westminster Standards.

Posted by mark at 10 : 37 pm on 07 . 31 . 05 A.D.
Micah wrote:
It therefore seems that your view of Ephesians 1 means that God in fact doesn't actually get what He predestines. There are therefore some who, even though they were predestined to it, they are not made holy, are not adopted, have not obtained the inheritance and finally are not sealed with the Spirit.

Actually, you can only arrive at that conclusion by assuming it as your starting point. You assume that none of these things were true of the whole Ephesian church, and therefore God didn't get what He predestined. But that is the very issue in question, isn't it? Whether these terms are narrowly used by Paul to refer only to the elect-in-the-WCF sense. The very issue in question is whether the non-elect (in the WCF sense) are sanctified, adopted, made heirs and sealed with the Spirit in a biblical sense which Paul is employing.

Now, to be honest, I personally don't have a problem with the notion of a sort of generalized "us." The Church is characterized by Christ's work, which impels belief; therefore it is construed as made up of believers, even if there are hypocrites/unbelievers in its midst. In fact, that is precisely the line I just took in a sermon on Belgic Confession Article 27.

On the other hand, in the final analysis, the FV debate doesn't really boil down to the reality of hypocrisy (although I have said more than once that it has been an underplayed theme by some expounding "FV" matters, and I for one insist on that reality).

But the more essential problem is that one side in the discussion takes apostasy passages seriously, and the other does not. If simply a generalizing of texts like Ephesians 1 would put everybody on the same page exegetically, I personally wouldn't hesitate. I believe there is such a thing as predestination-in-a-WCF sense, and would like to find an easy way to resolve this debate.

But my openness to alternative readings of passages such as Eph 1 has to do with a broader biblical testimony, as well what I would call the "natural resonance" of the texts themselves.

I hear Paul speaking of falling from grace, of beginning well/in the Spirit and subsequently finishing in the flesh/making Christ of no advantage, and I hear Jesus Himself speaking of branches being genuinely in the vine (which is Himself) and subsequently being pruned out. That all makes sense within a covenantal paradigm.

But everything I hear from the "other side" is sheer reductionism (such as claims that Gal 5 is not talking about justification, even though the term itself is explicitly employed), and there is no room for these passages to mean what they (frankly, very clearly) say. Which tells me that a system has overweening control over the exegesis, and I'm frankly not interested. If that's the game, I don't play. People who want to play it can (and will) define themselves into oblivion, as the micro-sects have done ad nauseum.

Also, let me say this about the matter of confessional language: Any assumption that because the confessions use a term and the Bible uses the same term, then we must do our exegesis on the basis of confessional usage of that term, puts the cart before the horse and makes real exegesis utterly impossible. Subscribing to a confession does not require that you understand all the supporting passages in the same way the confession's framers did. Otherwise, I would never subscribe to a confession, period. It would be too tenuous. (Besides which, the framer's would have disagreed with each other's exegesis in many cases, so such a norm is simply impossible.)

Subscribing to a confession requires that you hold to the truth of that confession. It doesn't require that you hold everything to be stated as well as possible; still less does it require you to hold that the confession says everything that should be said about biblical teaching; and least of all does it require you to turn the confession into a huge grid to impose upon Scripture. Each and any of those approaches transform confessions from being an anchor designed to prevent drift into an anchor hung about the neck. Each and any of those approaches transform the role of the confession into a virtual substitute for Scripture. (And don't give me the line that confessions are amendable. They aren't amendable in any realistic sense if any of the three approaches above holds.)

In the final analysis, however, this is not a confessional conflict, and there are many signs of this. For instance, the Westminster standards say that the sacraments confer grace, while many of the people trying to engage "disciplinary action" don't believe that, and have said so explicitly. Why are they not getting charges flung about? Why is it that the anti-FV camp locks arms with them? No, this is not a defense of confessionalism, no matter how committees like this portray their work. It is an aggressive defensive of a particular viewpoint, and the FV will not be the last target if they get their way. Their always tighter circles to draw, and given the opportunity, they will be drawn.

Posted by Tim G at 11 : 02 pm on 07 . 31 . 05 A.D.
Tim has hit the nail on the head, Micah. Indeed, this was the root reason why I objected to the Response's claim about proorizo. Their argument went like this:

1. Wilkins applies the language of Ephesians 1 to covenant members in good standing rather than to the predestinate-unto-life.
2. The adjective "elect" can be used of a general sort of election in a non-Westminsterian sense. So we have nothing on him there. But...
3. The verb proorizo is used exclusively of the elect.
4. The verb proorizo is used in Ephesians 1.
5. Therefore Ephesians 1 describes only the elect.

In response, I pointed out that premise 3 is false. In an effort to save premise 3, the authors of the Response make the following argument:

1. Matt Colvin says that proorizo is used of God predestining anything whatsoever, not only the salvation of the elect.
2. But there are two sorts of proorizo, one of persons, another of things.
3. Proorizo is used of persons only in Romans and Eph. 1.
4. These passages are about only the elect.
5. Therefore proorizo when used of persons, is applied only to the elect.

When combined, these two arguments are CIRCULAR. (The second is also unsound philology.) The report assumes what it wants to prove about Ephesians 1.

Posted by Matt at 8 : 07 am on 08 . 01 . 05 A.D.
Just a couple of notes.

First, I notice that no one has bothered to touch Romans 8:30 and its relation to Ephesians 1:5. Why not?

Matt, FYI, we had considered these arguments internally (and with the Knox FV men) many months ago, well before your posting.

Tim, the WCF does not have a chapter on apostasy, but it does have a lengthy chapter on assurance. You can emphasize what you want; I wish to emphasize what my confession emphasizes. And in my view, the loss of Eph 1:5 and Rom 8:30 for the cause of assurance would be major losses.

At least I would still have Phil. 1:6 and John 10:27-29. Or do those apply to every church member head-for-head too? That is not sarcasm, but a sincere question.

Chris Hutchinson

Posted by Chris at 9 : 57 am on 08 . 01 . 05 A.D.
Well . . . mightn't Philippians 1:6 be saying that the Gospel work that God began among the Philippians through Paul (as the first mission work in Europe) and in which the Philippians have been his partners and co-workers, will continue until it is brought to completion at the eschaton? That's certainly how many commentators take the verse.

Even if that's correct, however, that doesn't mean, of course, that one couldn't claim it as a promise by faith more individually and personally. It's still revelatory of the character of God and the certainty of his purposes.

Posted by garver at 10 : 20 am on 08 . 01 . 05 A.D.
Adam wrote:

[side-note: I find it very interesting that no one seems to care about how the rest of the Church, particularly the Church-historical, would feel about the FV. Really, I’m not joking. The FV is much closer to the Church historical in it’s ecclesiology (and a lot closer to Calvin for that matter). That means something to me, personally. I know a lot of reformed folks like to sit in the corner and act as though the Historic Catholics, Orthodox, Lutheran, Anglican, etc. Churches, don’t exist. We are all wrapped up in our WCF, while Calvin was all wrapped up in the Church fathers.]

Yes, indeed. The FV is simply Reformation Christianity, plus (for most) paedo-communion. Hence, it appears Romanist to those who reject the Reformation emphases in favor of the so-called Second Reformation (anti-liturgical, anti-sacramental, etc.) and also to American PresBAPterian evangelicals. The foreign language spoken by the FV is the language of the Swiss Reformers.

Beyond this, the fact is that the Presbyterian world uses a lot of Biblical words in a very specialized way, and when these things are emphasized, Presbyterianism ceases to be part of the Church and becomes a sect.

Think about it. Who else speaks of some "covenant of works," an abominable phrase? Who else uses "regeneration" to mean those elect for heaven? The rest of Christendom speaks of baptismal regeneration, and means what the Bible and the Reformers meant: that by baptism God gives new life. The parable of the sower and the soils illustrates what can happen to the new life conferred by Word and water at baptism. These are but two examples.

As long as such odd and peculiar terminology is explained carefully, and kept at a level lower than the Scripture, it is just fine. I'm happy to subscribe to the Westminster documents in that way. But when this stuff is elevated, as it is being done by various anti-FV, anti-Shepherd, anti-VanTil, anti-ProtestantReformation people, then it is just sectarian.

The PCA has before it a simple choice: whether to be part of the Church, or to spiral in upon itself and become an irrelevant sect speaking its own weird language to nobody but itself.

Jim Jordan



Posted by J.B.Jordan at 10 : 57 am on 08 . 01 . 05 A.D.
Adam wrote:

[side-note: I find it very interesting that no one seems to care about how the rest of the Church, particularly the Church-historical, would feel about the FV. Really, I’m not joking. The FV is much closer to the Church historical in it’s ecclesiology (and a lot closer to Calvin for that matter). That means something to me, personally. I know a lot of reformed folks like to sit in the corner and act as though the Historic Catholics, Orthodox, Lutheran, Anglican, etc. Churches, don’t exist. We are all wrapped up in our WCF, while Calvin was all wrapped up in the Church fathers.]

Yes, indeed. The FV is simply Reformation Christianity, plus (for most) paedo-communion. Hence, it appears Romanist to those who reject the Reformation emphases in favor of the so-called Second Reformation (anti-liturgical, anti-sacramental, etc.) and also to American PresBAPterian evangelicals. The foreign language spoken by the FV is the language of the Swiss Reformers.

Beyond this, the fact is that the Presbyterian world uses a lot of Biblical words in a very specialized way, and when these things are emphasized, Presbyterianism ceases to be part of the Church and becomes a sect.

Think about it. Who else speaks of some "covenant of works," an abominable phrase? Who else uses "regeneration" to mean those elect for heaven? The rest of Christendom speaks of baptismal regeneration, and means what the Bible and the Reformers meant: that by baptism God gives new life. The parable of the sower and the soils illustrates what can happen to the new life conferred by Word and water at baptism. These are but two examples.

As long as such odd and peculiar terminology is explained carefully, and kept at a level lower than the Scripture, it is just fine. I'm happy to subscribe to the Westminster documents in that way. But when this stuff is elevated, as it is being done by various anti-FV, anti-Shepherd, anti-VanTil, anti-ProtestantReformation people, then it is just sectarian.

The PCA has before it a simple choice: whether to be part of the Church, or to spiral in upon itself and become an irrelevant sect speaking its own weird language to nobody but itself.

Jim Jordan



Posted by J.B.Jordan at 11 : 11 am on 08 . 01 . 05 A.D.
Christopher,

Let me get this right. You're saying the authors of the Response considered the arguments I just formalized and showed to be totally circular... and made them anyway? What, were they hoping no one would notice?

Nobody is making an issue of Rom. 8:30's use of proorizo, because it isn't an issue. Everyone grants that the Bible can use proorizo of God's decision to choose those who are predestinate-unto-life. The question has always been whether the Bible uses this verb of other decisions God makes. Does that answer your question?

Posted by Matt at 12 : 17 pm on 08 . 01 . 05 A.D.
Matt,

Yes, that answers my question.

If I understand you, you think it is possible that when Paul penned Romans, he was thinking, "those whom God predestines to be conformed to the image of His Son can never lose that conformity;"

and when he wrote Ephesians, he was thinking, "those whom God predestines to be adopted as His sons can in fact lose that adoption."

Fair enough. Whether that exegesis should be promoted within the PCA is what that part of what our letter is about. Thanks for the dialog.

Signing off,
Chris Hutchinson

Posted by Chris at 1 : 40 pm on 08 . 01 . 05 A.D.
Nothing in the Westminster Confession or Catechisms makes it unlawful to interpret Ephesians 1 in the way you have suggested. You are manufacturing accusations here out of thin air. Romans 9 explicitly says that Israel had the adoption and yet not all were predestined to eternal life. Paul goes on (Romans 11) to explicitly use the example of Israel's judgment as a warning for his Christian readers. Are the Ephesians immune from such a warning if they should show the same tendency?

All of this was written by a seminary student (now a PCA pastor) back in 97 at reformed.org in order to defend paedobaptism from Greg Welty's attack. Rev. Horne never seems to have provoked an open letter from your group. Why is this suddenly an issue?

Again, there is nothing remotely unconfessional about the view you are portraying as such. If an absolute predestinarian thinks Ephesians 1 allows for some other possibiliites he remains a predestinarian and confessional.

What possible charge could you bring in an actual court case against this position?

Posted by Strider at 2 : 24 pm on 08 . 01 . 05 A.D.
"I wish to emphasize what my confession emphasizes"

Interesting. I should have linked that in my entry:
http://miscreant.blogsome.com/2005/07/31/propositionalism-is-sometimes-right/

Posted by miscreant at 2 : 29 pm on 08 . 01 . 05 A.D.
Chris writes, "Tim, the WCF does not have a chapter on apostasy, but it does have a lengthy chapter on assurance. You can emphasize what you want; I wish to emphasize what my confession emphasizes."

This comment appears to evince exactly what I was talking about in my previous post.

I want to emphasize what the Bible emphasizes, and it emphasizes different things in different contexts. I want to articulate biblical teaching on assurance and apostasy in the appropriate context, not sacrifice one at the expense of the other.

Beyond that, "emphasis" is vague and inappropriate. You have no idea what I "emphasize," nor I you. In debate, the things that come out are the differences. So the real question here is whether you share the biblical view of apostasy, period, not whether you "emphasize" it.

Frankly, in my pastoral ministry I don't emphasize it all that much. I think of apostasy as repudiation of the family, and I don't think many families need to dwell on that issue. But the concept finds it place clearly enough in Scripture (moreso than my analogy would initially suggest to me), so I try to be careful to give it due weight. It is not a fixation. But it is an attempt to be faithful.

Posted by Tim G at 2 : 34 pm on 08 . 01 . 05 A.D.
totally random comment...

how cool. As I was reading your blog, I thought "I wonder what Cal would think of this," and then I see that he posted a comment! As I suppose it gets me no brownie points with you that he is my friend, I'll not say any more. :) Carry on.

Posted by JT at 9 : 59 pm on 08 . 01 . 05 A.D.
Wonderful are God’s providences! Last Saturday, my son parked his car partly on the grass. When I asked why, he said it was because his sister had parked so far to the left of center in the driveway he’d not been able to get his car entirely on it. When I later mentioned that to her and asked why she’d parked so far to the left, she said his car had already been there, slightly on the grass, so she’d guessed we wanted to try to fit all four cars side-by-side in our three-car driveway, so she’d parked as close to him as she could. I thought surely one of them must be lying, and I was both irritated and saddened. Later my wife and I discussed it with them. We eventually realized that my son’s parking where he did was forced not by my daughter’s parking the car where it was but by my wife’s parking the van there–after which it got taken out again, and, while it was out, my daughter returned to find the situation she’d described. My son realized, “Oh, that’s right, it wasn’t the car, it was the van that was in the way.” Simple mistake in memory on his part. Understandable but false conclusion on mine. How glad I am to have been corrected before I jumped all over my son or daughter for lying!

I tell the story because it illustrates how easy it is to jump to conclusions based on appearances, when added investigation can correct our impressions. It was perfectly understandable for Dr. Colvin to think, when he read “the Bible uses predestine (proori,zw; Ephesians 1:5, 11; Romans 8:29) only of the elect in the Westminsterian sense” that we intended to say that the Bible never used proorizo otherwise. Taken by themselves, those words readily bear that sense. I take the blame for it, since I drafted that paragraph. I wrote ambiguously, indeed, misleadingly. I should have written instead, “the Bible uses predestine (proori,zw; Ephesians 1:5, 11; Romans 8:29) of the elect only in the Westminsterian sense.” That would more clearly have limited the scope of the assertion to those places in which the Bible uses proorizo of the elect, and that was in fact my intent. Indeed, I could and should have eliminated all ambiguity by writing, “When the Bible uses proorizo with the elect as its object, it uses it only in the Westminsterian sense of those who will spend eternity in heaven.”

The confusion grew when Chris replied “It was an oversight on our part not to say something like, ‘when the Bible uses proorizw, when in reference to persons (Rom 8, Eph 1), it always refers to individuals who cannot lose their election, which is how WCF III uses the term.’” The confusion progressed further when Dr. Colvin understandably replied, “It is not philology, but special pleading for you to say, ‘Oh, there’s one usage about things, and another usage about persons . . . ,” and I responded, “Many months ago the signators had discussed the restricted use of proorizw with persons as its object, and I had that discussion in mind as I drafted; no doubt all of us had it in mind, and it occurred to none of us that I failed to mention the restriction of its use with persons as object. Put the blame on me. And, by the way, the sense of various transitive verbs in Greek (and other languages) does vary significantly depending on whether their objects are personal or impersonal.” The reason for the confusion is that Chris and I had a context of discourse in mind–that of the signators many months ago–that Dr. Colvin did not. In our discussion many months ago (I think it was about this time last summer), we focused on the linking of proorizw with words designating the elect: eklego (Ephesians 1:4-5) and klhtoj (Romans 8:28-29). In those contexts the objects of proorizw are persons, not impersonal things or events, and we began in our discussions to use persons as shorthand for elect persons. That shorthand carried over to my drafting of the misleading sentence, and quite naturally Dr. Colvin, unaware of the prior discussion and how it led to that shorthand, thought us quite mistaken.

Interestingly enough, another reader of the blog, Micah Burke, figured out what we meant by paying close attention to the context. He wrote, “The point they’re [that is, the authors of the Response] making is not that the Bible only uses the term predestination or predestine ONLY of the elect unto salvation, but when the words predestine in regards to the elect are found in the Bible, it is ‘in the Westminsterian sense of those who will spend eternity in heaven. . . . I think this is nothing more than a poorly worded statement on their part.” Precisely. How did Micah hit accurately on that? He read the suspect phrase in light of the whole paragraph. The controlling topic of both the sub clause and the main clause in the Response is the use of the word elect. The import of the sub clause is the use of the word elect in its varied relations; the import of the main clause is the use of the word predestine in relation to the word elect; in other words, the use of the word elect in its specific relation to the word predestine. The point of the Response is that the verb predestine is used of the elect only in the Westminsterian sense and is not used of the elect in any of the other ways that the word elect is used in the Bible.

In short: Our intent was not to say that Scripture uses proorizo only of those elect to eternity in heaven but to say that when Scripture uses proorizo of the elect it has in mind only those elect to eternity in heaven, i.e., those elect in the sense the Westminster Standards give to that word. That is true. Further, our argument is not philological but exegetico/theological, focusing on the theological content of the relevant passages. The blame for the confusion is mine as the one who drafted the suspect paragraph.

Dr. Colvin has said we owe Mr. Wilkins an apology for using a bogus Greek argument against his use of predestine in a sense contrary to the Westminsterian sense. Had we used the Greek argument Dr. Colvin understandably thought we did, we would owe the apology. We didn’t. We do, however, owe Louisiana Presbytery an apology for writing so ambiguously as to make Dr. Colvin’s interpretation of that point of our letter so plausible. The case against Mr. Wilkins’s usage as contrary to the Confession is that when Scripture uses proorizo of the elect it has in mind only those elect to eternity in heaven, i.e., those elect in the sense the Westminster Standards give to that word–not also, as Mr. Wilkins uses it of the elect, those elect only to membership in the visible church with its earthly, temporal, revocable benefits as contrasted with its heavenly, eternal, irrevocable benefits.

Posted by Cal at 5 : 20 pm on 08 . 02 . 05 A.D.
Mr. Beisner,

Perhaps I've missed it, but I don't see an argument for your position about proorizo. Aren't you merely asserting?

Posted by Todd Harris at 7 : 40 pm on 08 . 02 . 05 A.D.
Your methodology is still wrong-headed, and for the very same reasons that I have been stating all along, Dr. Beisner. You would like to conclude that poor Matt Colvin just didn't read between the lines as astutely as Micah Burke. But nothing you've said here changes anything. Allow me to explain: You want to conclude that "when Scripture uses proorizo of the elect it has in mind only those elect to eternity in heaven." Why do you care about this? Only because you want to make certain that Eph. 1 is about only the WCF-style elect, and not about the elect in any other sense. Otherwise, Rev. Wilkins would not be in trouble. But what if Eph. 1 is not about the elect in the WCF-sense of the word? Then you have no evidence at all that proorizo is only used of them. But this is the very point at issue in your dispute with Rev. Wilkins.

It sounds very impressive to say that you had a learned discussion about the "linking" of proorizo with eklego and kletoi, but this is a sample size of two, and its probative value in an "exegeto-theological" dispute is nil.

In the end, your argument comes down to "Wilkins is wrong to think that the elect in Eph. 1 are just generally elect. Why? Because proorizo is used of them. And when proorizo is used of the elect, it is only of the specially elect. Why? Well just check out our sample passages: Rom.8 and...oh, that's right, Eph 1, the very passage under dispute!"

Petitio principii, Dr. Beisner. A totally circular argument. Apologize to Rev. Wilkins and LA Presbytery and stop trying to make this wrecked philological ship float. This is not exegesis. It is, rather, a textbook example of eisegesis.

Posted by Matt at 7 : 41 pm on 08 . 02 . 05 A.D.
It seems as though you have it in for Dr. Beisner, and are intent that he will be wrong. I would not have thought you would resort to personal attacks on integrity to make a point. I think I'll not read you anymore.

Posted by Tom T at 2 : 20 pm on 08 . 04 . 05 A.D.
Well, Tom, you are certainly free to read whom you like.

I have no particular knowledge of Dr. Beisner at all. I don't know him from Adam.

But I do know erroneous claims about Greek when I read them. And when I read them in a letter to a Presbytery, urging disciplinary action against a pastor, I consider the stakes fairly high, I consider it a duty to send an amicus curiae letter to them, correcting the record and refuting Dr. Beisner.

There are only a limited number of motivations that can impel a man to insist on his rightness in the teeth of the evidence and superior expertise. None of those motivations are good ones.

Posted by Matt at 5 : 01 pm on 08 . 04 . 05 A.D.
It has been alleged in this blog that the argument of paragraph III.C. in the Response to the LA Presbytery Ad Hoc Committee on Federal Vision Theology is circular. The allegation misconstrues the context of the argument and thus the argument itself. Let me explain.

The facts are that the Report and the Response both stipulated to the WCF’s understanding of the Bible’s vocabulary and doctrine of election. See especially WCF, chapter 3, paragraphs 3-5 and the texts cited in notes 70-75, namely, in the order of their citation, 1 Timothy 5:21; Matthew 25:41; Romans 9:22-23; Ephesians 1:5-6; Proverbs 16:4; 2 Timothy 2:19; Ephesians 1:4, 9, 11; Romans 8:30; 2 Timothy 1:9; 1 Thessalonians 5:9; Romans 9:11, 13, 16; Ephesians 1:4, 9; Ephesians 1:6, 12.

That the Presbytery’s Report stipulated to the Confession’s understanding appears in its statements on election:

“a. The Bible uses the term ‘elect’ in different ways, including at times to refer to the corporate people of God. The Confession would allow for the term to be used in this way of those who belong to the corporate people of God. However, the Confession itself uses the term ‘elect’ to speak of only those who have been unchangeably chosen by God for eternal salvation.

b. The Confessional understanding of election does not allow for the view that a person can be ‘elect’ and, later, ‘unelect’ after the manner of the WCF’s understanding of the term.”

That the Response stipulated to the Confession’s understanding is evident in the paragraph cited above.

Accordingly, the point of the Response is that the Report overlooked a detail of no little importance, namely, that the Confession’s understanding of the vocabulary and doctrine of election is tied explicitly to its understanding of the vocabulary, and hence the doctrine, of predestination. In calling the Presbytery’s attention to this detail, therefore, the Response is appealing to the Presbytery to recognize that, when the Confession ties the vocabulary and doctrine of predestination to the vocabulary and doctrine of election, it does so in a manner that puts FV’s (and Mr. Wilkins’s) use of the vocabulary of election and the FV’s doctrine of election even more clearly at odds with the Confession than the Presbytery’s Report states. In other words, the Response acknowledges that the Report did well as far as it went, but that it could and should have gone farther.

Returning to the allegation of circularity in the Response, one may debate, if he will, the Confession’s exposition of predestination, election, their relationship, and the Biblical exegesis implied therein. That debate is not, however, the context in which the argument of paragraph III.C. of the Response should be interpreted. The evidence shows that both the Report and the Response agree on the Confession’s exposition. Confessional Presbyterians, among whom are the LA Presbytery and the signers of the Response, know that they are not free to ignore their church’s constitutional Standards in their exegesis and theologizing. If they conclude in a given instance that the Standards are wrong, they are obliged to make their disagreement explicit and allow the courts of the church to decide whether it rises to a level that would disqualify them for continued office, not to obscure the difference or assume to themselves the authority to make that decision. For these reasons and the like, what the Response faults the Presbytery for missing in their evaluation of FV (and Mr. Wilkins's) teaching on election is the Confession’s linking of the vocabulary and doctrine of election with the vocabulary and doctrine of predestination. It is in this context that the argument of paragraph III.C. of the Response is properly interpreted.


Posted by R. Fowler White at 2 : 51 pm on 08 . 05 . 05 A.D.
Dr White, if that is the case, then why were the framers of the WCF so resistant to introducing prooftexts to begin with? They did not intend to hamstring exegesis as you suggest. And nor is that what confessional subscription means. This is an agenda, (im)pure and simple.

Posted by Tim G at 2 : 57 pm on 08 . 05 . 05 A.D.
The ease with which you guys impugn motives is simply breathtaking. Aside from its logical irrelevance, see Philippians 2:3 and 1 Corinthians 13:4-7.

Posted by Cal at 4 : 43 pm on 08 . 05 . 05 A.D.
Who's trying to press for heresy charges, Dr Beisner? Yet, you implicitly charge me with being uncharitable. In your upside-down world, perhaps that actually makes sense to you.

Posted by Tim G at 8 : 22 pm on 08 . 05 . 05 A.D.
I have no doubt that many heretics--even Heretics with the capital H--are honest, sincere, well-meaning people (insofar as any of us sinners can be). I do not impugn the motives of a Jehovah's Witness by calling him a Heretic. Many of the Cathars--capital-H Heretics if ever there were any--put their neighbor Christians to shame with the sincerity, zeal, and purity of their lives. Neither do I impugn the motives of Mr. Wilkins by saying that some of his doctrines contradict the Westminster Standards (which does not by itself put them in the same category with the anti-Christian doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses). But perhaps, Tim, you are so accustomed to assuming that when someone disagrees with you it is because he is dishonest, mean, and hateful that you can't imagine otherwise. And, yes, in suggesting this I am suggesting a moral criticism. To the extent that you are unable to disagree with someone without demonizing him, you lack charity. Paul said something about that in 1 Corinthians 13:1ff. Now, a challenge to you: Before snapping off another self-justifying, other-condemning responses, why not spend a few days meditating and praying on that passage and asking God to make your heart sensitive to whether maybe, just conceivably, you might need to do some repenting. And here's another suggestion: Re-read all the critics' entries and my introduction and conclusion in the Knox colloquium book The Auburn Avenue, Pros & Cons: Debating the Federal Vision, and see if you can detect in them anything remotely like the nearly ubiquitous pattern of personal attack in them that you observe in your and Matt's posts above. I shall not log back onto this blog. You know how to contact me privately if you wish.

Posted by Cal at 12 : 22 pm on 08 . 06 . 05 A.D.
Dr Beisner says he will not log back into this blog. I will simply point out that I never made any personal attacks on Dr Beisner. I never implied nor said that he is "mean, dishonest, or hateful" (all terms he raises above). I simply said this entire "project" was driven by an agenda, which it clearly is. I don't know what personal motivation drives that agenda. I do know that the agenda is misguided and upside down.

Posted by Tim G at 4 : 20 pm on 08 . 06 . 05 A.D.
I'll be giving Dr. Beisner a phone call later. I really want to hear his answer to why he still refuses to do any work on proorizo.

Posted by Matt at 8 : 27 pm on 08 . 06 . 05 A.D.
Two closing statements, and then I am done.

1. I deny that I engaged in any personal attacks, nor did I impugn motives in this thread. I identified an "impure agenda" (not a hidden agenda), and I defined explicitly what that agenda was: "an aggressive defense of a particular viewpoint." And that aggression I do consider sectarian, and hence "impure."

2. I do apologize, however, for the unnecessary stridency which I regretfully allowed into my tone at various points. I am the first to say that we need to do better in our internet conversations, and more specifically, that I need to do better. Please forgive me.

Posted by Tim G at 9 : 41 pm on 08 . 06 . 05 A.D.
Tim, in response to your e-mail to me, to which I have sent a private response that I hope will, along with your own e-mail, help promote open and trusting communication between the two of us, I went ahead and came again to the blog.

I do hope that you recognize how difficult it must be for those with whom you debate something to figure out how you can charge them with an "impure agenda" without thinking "impure" entails some moral content. And indeed it appears that you intended it to bear moral content, as I think is inescapable in the paragraph from which you quoted:

"In the final analysis, however, this is not a confessional conflict, and there are many signs of this. For instance, the Westminster standards say that the sacraments confer grace, while many of the people trying to engage "disciplinary action" don't believe that, and have said so explicitly. Why are they not getting charges flung about? Why is it that the anti-FV camp locks arms with them? No, this is not a defense of confessionalism, no matter how committees like this portray their work. It is an aggressive defensive of a particular viewpoint, and the FV will not be the last target if they get their way. Their always tighter circles to draw, and given the opportunity, they will be drawn."

When the Response we sent to LA Presbytery cites specific points at which we think--and sought to demonstrate--that Mr. Wilkins has taught things contrary to the Confession, you assert that this is is "not a confessional conflict," and then you go on to say the kinds of things you say in the rest of that paragraph, do you see how readily those you have in mind here must take your words as impugning our motives?

Nonetheless, I take at face value your apology and your acknowledgment of "unnecessary stridency." I appreciate your request for forgiveness, and I want to be sure any other readers of this blog know that you have it from me.

Let us all treat each other with the charity implied in Paul's instruction, in Philippians 2:3, that we ought to consider others better than ourselves. Some thirty years ago that passage convicted me, and I have tried--not always successfully--ever since to live by this rule based on it: When I see someone do something I think is wrong, I should imagine my having done it myself, then try to figure out the best justification for it that I could have come up with, and then assume that he had a better one than that. I might still think what he did was wrong, but at least that kind of thinking will minimize the ease with which I assume that he not only did the wrong thing but also did it with the wrong motives.

Posted by Cal at 8 : 26 am on 08 . 07 . 05 A.D.
Matt, I do not refuse to do any work on proorizo. I do refuse to agree that the issue has ever been the philological/lexicographical one you make it. The issue is a Confessional and, tied to that, exegetico/theological one, as Dr. White has adequately explained above. By all means go ahead and send me the list of uses of proorizo; I shall read them with interest.

Posted by Cal at 8 : 35 am on 08 . 07 . 05 A.D.
But Dr. White doesn't say anything to establish the "Biblical usage" of proorizo to which Rev. Wilkins' usage was supposedly "contrary." His claim is about how the WCF's prooftexts understand Eph. 1. But ministers do not subscribe to the prooftexts, and the WCF cannot, and does not, serve as evidence for the "Biblical usage" of a Greek word. Lexicography and philology are the only way to establish such a thing. They are always prior to "exegetico/theological" concerns,which cannot even get started until you know what Greek words mean.

Yet, I will give you this, Dr. Beisner: Everyone seems to be in agreement that I am misunderstanding your argument. If you would kindly formalize it a bit more for me, so that I can see how you get to the conclusion, then I might be able to see how you don't have to do philology and lexicography to make your claim.

Now, if you want to back off and change your accusation from "contrary to Biblical usage" to "contrary to Westminster's exegesis of Eph 1", then ... guess what? I'd be off your back entirely, because I don't care at all what Westminster's exegesis is. I'm not a Presbyterian, and I'm happy to let you and your presbyterian opponents duke it out for the body of Moses.

Posted by Matt at 3 : 19 pm on 08 . 07 . 05 A.D.
Dr. White writes:

"Returning to the allegation of circularity in the Response, one may debate, if he will, the Confession’s exposition of predestination, election, their relationship, and the Biblical exegesis implied therein. That debate is not, however, the context in which the argument of paragraph III.C. of the Response should be interpreted. The evidence shows that both the Report and the Response agree on the Confession’s exposition. Confessional Presbyterians, among whom are the LA Presbytery and the signers of the Response, know that they are not free to ignore their church’s constitutional Standards in their exegesis and theologizing."

This is not true, but it does accurately identify the problem. The writers of the WCF were theologians, who knew the ways of eminence, negation, and analogy. In discussing "ultimate predestination," they were free to use texts that were either ambiguous or clearly "partial predestinarian" to support their case. Moreover, they knew that what they had produced was NOT simply the result of a string of "proof" texts.

The WCF does not do "exposition" of passages, and is not intended as a guide to "exegesis." It is a wholescale perversion of the WCF to use it in that way. This, I feel, is the root "heresy" of those attacking the FV: that their real authority is not the Bible but their tradition.

But what Dr. White and these other sectaries want to do is read the Bible through the lens of the WCF, instead of the other way around, as the writers originally intended. If the WCF refers to Eph. 1 in arguing for "ultimate predestination," THEY think that this means that the WCF is making the exegetical claim that this is what Eph. 1 is actually and directly about. In fact, the WCF is making no such claim. The WCF is claiming only that when taken within a Christian-theistic worldview, Eph. 1 SUPPORTS the notion of "ultimate predestination."

Jim Jordan

Posted by J.B.Jordan at 1 : 25 pm on 08 . 08 . 05 A.D.
Mr. Beisner, you wrote:

"When the Response we sent to LA Presbytery cites specific points at which we think--and sought to demonstrate--that Mr. Wilkins has taught things contrary to the Confession, you assert that this is is "not a confessional conflict," and then you go on to say the kinds of things you say in the rest of that paragraph, do you see how readily those you have in mind here must take your words as impugning our motives?"

I see how relentless and uncharitable you and the others who wrote that letter have been in attacking as unconfessional a brother who has been found by his Presbytery to be in accord with said Confession, thereby implying that you and the other signatories know more about the Confession than the entire Louisiana Presbytery.

I see how the signatories never fail to apply the title "Reverend" to themselves, but consistently fail to do so with respect to those they accuse.

I truly wish that you did, indeed, the sort of humility you claim for yourself above. Instead, I see the sort of arrogance and meanness of spirit of which you are accusing Tim and Matt. I sincerely doubt that you are treating Rev. Wilkins and the others the way you would want to be treated.

Posted by Paul Nanson at 3 : 15 pm on 08 . 08 . 05 A.D.
Now here is a FV discussion worth reading. I think the FV guys have the upper hand in this one, but the tone of their opponents is better than usual. It might just be me, but it seems like the FV opponents who have had to deal closest with the FV theology/exegesis have, somewhere along the line, had the startling revelation that this stuff isn't as simple as they thought AND that FV guys have some good points. I have the highest respect for people with the honesty and integrity to adjust their tone and position because of the demands of their conscience. May this North American, conservative, presbyterian (truly a tiny group in the Kingdom) squabble serve to unify and mature the Church until the end of the age. Wouldn't it be great if it did?

Posted by JWH at 6 : 26 pm on 08 . 11 . 05 A.D.
Post a new note:

Name:

E-mail: (optional)

Website: (optional)

Type your comments here:

Remember my info.

Return to journal home