More Provisionist Thoughts and My Response

[DialecticSkeptic]

Provisionist: "A convicted criminal can receive a pardon, but unless he accepts it he will remain imprisoned."

This is false on a couple of different levels, and the truth of the matter just underscores the good news of Christ's atoning sacrifice. First, the person is no longer a "convicted criminal," and second, he can't voluntarily "remain imprisoned."

First, under the law, the person who receives a pardon is no longer a convicted criminal. A full pardon not only releases him from the punishment for the offense but also blots out of existence his guilt, so that he is deemed to have never committed the offense for which the pardon was granted. This effectively removes the legal basis for his imprisonment. He is, according to law, an innocent and free man.

Second, because there is no longer any legal justification for his incarceration, he can't just stay in prison. That would be unlawful detention. The prison authorities are required, legally obligated, to release the pardoned individual. Prisons are institutions for lawful detention, not voluntary residency. He can insist that he doesn't accept the pardon, but he will have to do that outside of the prison—because he is both innocent and free. And free people can rant as delusionally as they like.

 

[Josheb]

Provisionist: "A convicted criminal can receive a pardon, but unless he accepts it he will remain imprisoned."

This is false on a couple of different levels, and the truth of the matter just underscores the good news of Christ's atoning sacrifice. First, the person is no longer a "convicted criminal," and second, he can't voluntarily "remain imprisoned."

First, under the law, the person who receives a pardon is no longer a convicted criminal. A full pardon not only releases him from the punishment for the offense but also blots out of existence his guilt, so that he is deemed to have never committed the offense for which the pardon was granted. This effectively removes the legal basis for his imprisonment. He is, according to law, an innocent and free man.

Second, because there is no longer any legal justification for his incarceration, he can't just stay in prison. That would be unlawful detention. The prison authorities are required, legally obligated, to release the pardoned individual. Prisons are institutions for lawful detention, not voluntary residency. He can insist that he doesn't accept the pardon, but he will have to do that outside of the prison—because he is both innocent and free. And free people can rant as delusionally as they like.

Very astute set of observations proving the appeal to a pardoned criminal is a grossly false analogy (which, in turn, reveals the sophistry of Provisionism's defense). I'll add the fact there's not a single verse in the Bible that actually explicitly states the choice of the sinner has any merit, any more than his/her works have any merit. Neither is there a verse that reports humans are sufficiently powerful or authoritative to render the price paid for the "pardon" worthless. It's an abject failure to recognize the bondage of the bondservice model asserted throughout scripture, as well as the inherently monergistic nature of the covenant within which the criminal is pardoned (God never asks any covenant participant if they want to be chosen, called, or commanded).

 

[CrowCross]

Provisionist: "A convicted criminal can receive a pardon, but unless he accepts it he will remain imprisoned."

This is false on a couple of different levels, and the truth of the matter just underscores the good news of Christ's atoning sacrifice. First, the person is no longer a "convicted criminal," and second, he can't voluntarily "remain imprisoned."

First, under the law, the person who receives a pardon is no longer a convicted criminal. A full pardon not only releases him from the punishment for the offense but also blots out of existence his guilt, so that he is deemed to have never committed the offense for which the pardon was granted. This effectively removes the legal basis for his imprisonment. He is, according to law, an innocent and free man.

Second, because there is no longer any legal justification for his incarceration, he can't just stay in prison. That would be unlawful detention. The prison authorities are required, legally obligated, to release the pardoned individual. Prisons are institutions for lawful detention, not voluntary residency. He can insist that he doesn't accept the pardon, but he will have to do that outside of the prison—because he is both innocent and free. And free people can rant as delusionally as they like.

I don't believe one "accepts" Jesus without God granting the "pardon" first.

 

[Hazelelponi]

He can insist that he doesn't accept the pardon, but he will have to do that outside of the prison—because he is both innocent and free. And free people can rant as delusionally as they li

A slight legal error?

A person who is offered a pardon is not obligated to accept it.

If they do not accept it then they have simply never been pardoned.

A pardon is a tacit admission of guilt for the crimes your being pardoned for, if you don't accept it then it is not able to be forced upon you because in accepting it you're admitting that you actually committed the crime(s) your being pardoned for and did need a pardon - as opposed to proving your innocence through the appeals process or simply serving out your time so you don't open yourself up to civil liability.

At the least this is according to US law, and early days they did use the Bible to write many of our laws (without Catholic influence etc).

We would consider Christ as offering the pardon to a larger group, but only pardoning those who actually accept it, according to this terminology of us being pardoned, which is fitting with Matthew 22:11-13 and also consistent with the first act of those who accept Christs pardon as being remorse over their sin.. (ie: admission of guilt).

This implies regeneration is necessary in order to accept said pardon of Christ, and He doesn't regenerate everyone to whom a pardon is offered, I would think anyway.

Christ's pardon, His salvation, opens us up to civil liability (Biblically as Christ is our King our lives could be required of us at the hands of men), and is an actual admission of guilt, thereby we willingly accept it...

It's of little consequence that Christ changes our will in order we might accept the pardon.. It's still a will that is our own, a gift we willingly accept, or or course, willingly refuse.

I should note that I don't actually know what a provisionist is, I only answered due to legal error.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

A slight legal error?

A person who is offered a pardon is not obligated to accept it.

The problem with that counter-argument, as I see it, is that Christ "is the atoning sacrifice" for the sins of all the elect. It is not something he offers to do, but something he did. As it pertains to the analogy I shared, all those for whom he laid down his life (the sheep), they're not only released from the punishment for their offense (propitiation) but the existence their guilt is removed (expiation), "so that he is deemed to have never committed the offense for which the pardon was granted." This is what the atoning sacrifice accomplished, propitiation and expiation. If I may offer another recommendation: Leon Morris, The Atonement: Its Meaning and Significance (Intervarsity Press, 1983), a classic volume that belongs in every Christian home. I would also highly recommend John Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied (Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1955).

 

[Hazelelponi]

The problem with that counter-argument, as I see it, is that Christ "is the atoning sacrifice" for the sins of all the elect. It is not something he offers to do, but something he did. As it pertains to the analogy I shared, all those for whom he laid down his life (the sheep), they're not only released from the punishment for their offense (propitiation) but the existence their guilt is removed (expiation), "so that he is deemed to have never committed the offense for which the pardon was granted." This is what the atoning sacrifice accomplished, propitiation and expiation. If I may offer another recommendation: Leon Morris, The Atonement: Its Meaning and Significance (Intervarsity Press, 1983), a classic volume that belongs in every Christian home. I would also highly recommend John Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied (Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1955).

I believe Christ only died for the elect, I have a very monergistic and sovereign view of God and salvation...very very very. (Certainly not a popular God)

But I have a question for you. What do you call preaching the Gospel if not an offer of Pardon from God? Is the Pastor not annointed to speak God's very words in invitation?

The offer of Pardon is two fold, it is both Salvation to those who hear and accept, but at the same time, it is the Judgement. It's a double edged sword.

"I call heaven and earth to record this day against you that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing. Therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live," Deuteronomy 30:19

" If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have been guilty of sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin" John 15:22

Deuteronomy 30:19; Ezekiel 18:32; John 15:22; Luke 12:47; Romans 6:23; John 3:36; Romans 6:16; John 12:26

I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live,

www.esv.org

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

What do you call preaching the gospel if not an offer of pardon from God? Is the pastor not annointed to speak God's very words in invitation?

It is the word "offer" that I have a problem with. The way that Arminians and their ilk use the word has shaped my aversion to it, but my discomfort with the term goes deeper than that. That word has just always struck me as wrong, somehow. It has never felt quite right.

What do I call the preaching of the word? Not an offer but a promise from God—as it has been from the beginning. The gospel is not a conditional bargain—"If you do X, then Y will follow"—which is nevertheless true in a sense. Rather, it is a sovereign proclamation: "I have done X, ensuring that Y will follow." And the preaching of the gospel is his voice calling the sheep to that promise. The goats hear it, too, but they don't listen and respond because they don't belong to God (John 8:47).

 

[Hazelelponi]

It is the word "offer" that I have a problem with. The way that Arminians and their ilk use the word has shaped my aversion to it, but my discomfort with the term goes deeper than that. That word has just always struck me as wrong, somehow. It has never felt quite right.

What do I call the preaching of the word? Not an offer but a promise from God—as it has been from the beginning. The gospel is not a conditional bargain—"If you do X, then Y will follow"—which is nevertheless true in a sense. Rather, it is a sovereign proclamation: "I have done X, ensuring that Y will follow." And the preaching of the gospel is his voice calling the sheep to that promise. The goats hear it, too, but they don't listen and respond because they don't belong to God (John 8:47).

Don't we though have to use the language of Scripture?

Is pardon used in Scripture and how is it used, like we would use it? Pardon of a prisoner - or is it more akin to the manumission of a slave?

I agree with you that according to our faith and certainly experience, that manumission is a more fitting word, but we would have to examine passage to see how something is used.

Manumission is the releasing of the slave. A slave, unlike a prisoner with rights, has no choice if their master sets them free... Then they are just free.

Perhaps instead of pardon we would consider using terms like manumission. It comes across with different connotation I think...and might better fit your point.

Though pardons are patterned after Scripture I think.

But I do think Spirit filled Pastors (capitalized for the Spirit of Christ in them and to denote their authority and differentiate them from fake preachers only, much like we can capitalize the word President.. ) are heaping burning coals as well as inviting to enjoin to the Gospel.

We either get burned up wholly, or we become pure and refined gold. (Of course this part is judgement of only the believers perhaps? Where we are rewarded)

I have long considered some of the differences between us and the Arminians are found in how we are interpreting the nuances where I believe God is using a note of the above in some of the way He taught as more than one thing does occur when preaching does.

We sometimes seem to ignore the other senses perhaps being expressed at various times. That is why pardon doesn't bother me to be used perhaps like it does yourself.

But an actual Pastor might have a more difficult time seeing themselves in such a light... Kind of a hard thing, it's a lot of weight I'm sure.

However, we are to make our calling and election sure, and this work keeps us off the streets and out of trouble... It's a win win really. I do think it was nice of God to make us useful.

Should probably say 1.) manumission 2.) regeneration 3.) offer of pardon, 4.) salvation in Christ, the sealing Holy Spirit and the path beginning the 5 ,) the sanctification process.

Speaking of course of only believers. If you use the word pardon your automatically including at least some who are not saved into the mix, some who were not manumitted and regenerate to receive the message. But Jesus spoke about wheat from the chaff type stuff all the time, so it's not a stretch to use the word in it's context.

My pain level is really really high today so my thoughts are messed up, I took pain medicine. Sorry.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Don't we, though, have to use the language of scripture? Is pardon used in scripture? And how is it used? ... That is why pardon doesn't bother me to be used perhaps like it does yourself.

I will just redirect your attention to the word being considered, not pardon but offer. I have no issue with the word pardon.

And I think menumission (enfranchisement) is more closely related to ransom than pardon. We can be freed because Christ gave his life as a ransom.

Manumission is the releasing of the slave. A slave, unlike a prisoner with rights, has no choice if their master sets them free—they are just free.

Perhaps, instead of pardon, we would consider using terms like manumission. It comes across with different connotation I think, and might better fit your point.

Just to be clear, it is neither my word nor my analogy. It was an analogy put forward by a Pelagian (Provisionist), to whom I tried to show that it actually supports Reformed theology—because it relies on propitiation and expiation, which feature in penal substitutionary atonement.

If you use the word pardon, you're automatically including at least some who are not saved into the mix, some who were not [enfranchised] and regenerate to receive the message.

How does that follow?

But I do think Spirit-filled Pastors—capitalized for the Spirit of Christ in them and to denote their authority and differentiate them from fake preachers only, much like we can capitalize the word President—are heaping burning coals as well as inviting to enjoin to the Gospel.

As a side note, my capitalization choices largely follow the Chicago Manual of Style. So, it would be either "the pastor said" or "Pastor Mitchell said." Same rule applies to "the president, Donald Trump" or "President Donald Trump," or to "the Gospel of Matthew" versus "preaching the gospel."

I also tend to avoid reverential capitalization—which feels to me like needless superstition. This refers to capitalizing religious words that refer to deities, divine beings, sacred objects, or sacred concepts, even when they wouldn't typically be capitalized according to standard grammar rules. Reverential capitalization would write "Scripture," whereas I write "scripture"—and so does the Bible itself, so I am okay with it. (And I capitalize "Bible" only because it is a proper noun, a matter of standard English grammar rather than reverential style.)

 

[Hazelelponi]

How does that follow?

Because a pardon can be turned down, its choice based and rights based and as a result will always bring to mind those who will not accept it.

Salvation is a gift, but it's not forced, we don't become puppets, but it's not freewill, it's a changed desire. A kingdom change, if you will.

Any pardon is just an offer until it's accepted. People turn that down sometimes in real life for their own reasons.

Jesus said things like not to put family and reputation before God. If something is just an offer then those things are easily chosen.

You said you have a problem with offer, but that's all a pardon is, until the recipient says yes.

Just to be clear, it is neither my word nor my analogy. It was an analogy put forward by a Pelagian (Provisionist), to whom I tried to show that it actually supports Reformed theology—because it relies on propitiation and expiation, which feature in penal substitutionary atonement.

Okay... That's my mistake then.

As a side note, my capitalization choices largely follow the Chicago Manual of Style. So, it would be either "the pastor said" or "Pastor Mitchell said." Same rule applies to "the president, Donald Trump" or "President Donald Trump," or to "the Gospel of Matthew" versus "preaching the gospel."

I also tend to avoid reverential capitalization—which feels to me like needless superstition. This refers to capitalizing religious words that refer to deities, divine beings, sacred objects, or sacred concepts, even when they wouldn't typically be capitalized according to standard grammar rules. Reverential capitalization would write "Scripture," whereas I write "scripture"—and so does the Bible itself, so I am okay with it. (And I capitalize "Bible" only because it is a proper noun, a matter of standard English grammar rather than reverential style.)

I have given this some consideration and you are correct.

I don't really understand the word superstition, it's not a word that is actually much in my vocabulary but I do believe I understand what you're meaning here.

I will correct my behavior in this area. It's good to do so.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Because a pardon can be turned down. It's choice-based and rights-based and, as a result, will always bring to mind those who will not accept it.

Salvation is a gift, but it's not forced. We don't become puppets. But it's not free-will, it's a changed desire—a kingdom change, if you will.

Any pardon is just an offer until it's accepted. People turn that down sometimes in real life for their own reasons.

Jesus said things like not to put family and reputation before God. If something is just an offer then those things are easily chosen.

You said you have a problem with offer, but that's all a pardon is—until the recipient says yes.

Okay, then we have a provisional agreement. Yes, proclaiming the promise of God (i.e., preaching the word) does include "at least some who are not saved into the mix, some who were not [enfranchised] and regenerate to receive the message." In Reformed theology, there are countless elect who are not yet regenerated—until they are. And, for some of them, that particular moment of hearing the promises of God proclaimed marks their divine appointment with regeneration and freedom in Christ, while others may continue as unregenerate for another season.

But I still firmly reject characterizing this pardon as a mere "offer." As I said, the preaching of the word (as is the case for all the means of grace) is not merely an offer but a divine proclamation and promise—as it has been from the beginning. A divine pardon belongs to the promises of God; it is actively declared and effectual for the elect.

I have given this some consideration and you are correct. I don't really understand the word superstition—it's not a word that is actually much in my vocabulary—but I do believe I understand what you're meaning here. I will correct my behavior in this area. It's good to do so.

When I say something feels "needlessly superstitious" to me, I mean it's a practice people follow either out of habit or because they believe it has some special significance, even though there’s no valid reason to think it does. In Islamic terms, I think of it as similar to khurafat—baseless myths, false beliefs, and superstitions that have no grounding in reason or Islamic teaching. Just like some people might believe in lucky numbers or charms, I see capitalizing words out of reverence as unnecessary, since I see no reason to think it has any real significance.

And, again, the Bible itself does not engage in this practice. For example, in 1 Peter 2:6 we read, "For it says in scripture, "Look, I lay in Zion a stone, a chosen and priceless cornerstone, and whoever believes in him will never be put to shame." It does not capitalize scripture, stone, cornerstone, or him, even though in the practice of reverential capitalization those would be.

 

[Hazelelponi]

divine proclamation and promise—as it has been from the beginning. A divine pardon belongs to the promises of God; it is actively declared and effectual for the elect.

Okay I see how your using the words now. This does make sense, you just had to say more than once.. lol.

We agree. I understand.

khurafat

Good example thank you...