Paul did not write Hebrews; we do not know who did

[Clete]

I can only speak for myself. I've heard others say that the foundational premise is Total Depravity, the T in TULIP. I never bought into that, and it seemed more like a reverse engineering deduction rather than an idea from Scripture (Scripture does say that every good gift comes from God, and even says that faith is itself a gift, by contrast). Like, I felt that people who argued for this were seeing the order in TULIP and trying to make it fit, that the T leads to every other letter in the acronym. I never bought into that. I didn't have a problem with people who argued that way, I just personally did not see things that way.

For me, what led me to Clavinism was first of all my deep conviction in God's sovereignty. It was intuitive that this was so, and confirmed, for me, in many Scriptures, and what it ultimately led me to conclude was that my faith in Him itself was not because of me. When I contemplated this premise, I did search for others who had the same thought, and those people are called Clavinists. I tasted Clavinism in the literature, and saw that it was good. The only really new idea I encountered when first studying Clavinism was Limited Atonement, the L in the TULIP acronym. (That, and lapsarian ideas about when in the logic of God's decree did He decree that man should fall.)

When I thought about my faith being a gift from God, I realized that I was lucky, I was blessed, and there was nothing in me which determined God's choice, I realized that for all those who weren't believers, the idea "there but for the grace of God go I" was pertinent. This idea that believers believe exclusively because of God's choice is contained in the U in TULIP, Unconditional Election. It had nothing to do with me, but only with the glory of God, that He chose me.

Not to say that I had a superiority complex, since I had done and could do nothing to deserve His gift. Only that I was very, very lucky. And I thanked God for His choice.

But that is all now behind me, and I join most other Christians now in seeing faith not as monergistic, but as cooperative, it does take not only the offer, but the acceptance, to seal the deal.

So, I'd have to say that this response has the flavor of truth to it. I also have to say that I'm quite surprised! I really did think you were just making it up! I stand corrected.
It seems you were enough of a Calvinist to fellowship with them but came to it via a route that had basically nothing to do with real research into the doctrines they teach or why they teach them, which is the typical way most people come from outside into nearly any doctrinal system. You basically had a favorite doctrine (e.g. that God controls everything that ever happens) and hung out with the first set of people you could find who taught that God is a control freak and that if anything ever happened that God didn't specifically want to happen that He would somehow break and wouldn't be God any more.

For the record and just in case anyone ever asks you this same question again....

Anyone who tells you that Total Depravity is the basis for the Calvinist system is an ignoramus who literally has no idea at all what he's talking about. The foundational premise for the entire Reformed system of theology is their doctrine of Immutability. I say "their doctrine" because what they believe about God's immutability bears no resemblance at all to what the bible teaches concerning God's unchanging character. Their doctrine of Immutability teaches that it isn't merely God's character and personality that is perfect and unchanging but that there is no aspect of God's existence as God that can change in ANY WAY whatsoever. It is this hyper-immutability version of the doctrine that sits as the ground and foundation of every single distinctively Calvinist doctrine you can name. Chief among them being their soteriology.

The Calvinist Doctrine of Salvation (Soteriology)

If God is immutable, then His will is fixed, His purposes unalterable, and His decree exhaustive. Such a decree does not merely touch salvation; it governs it entirely. The five points commonly summarized by the TULIP acronym (Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, and Perseverance of the Saints) are often treated as distinct doctrines. In reality, they are interdependent expressions of a single theological logic. Each one flows from the premise that God’s will cannot be changed, challenged, or frustrated, and together they form the Calvinist doctrine of salvation.

The doctrine of total depravity holds that mankind is not merely sinful but entirely incapable of initiating or even desiring his own salvation. The human will is seen as bound in sin, morally disabled from seeking God or responding to His offer of grace. This condition is rooted in the doctrine of original sin, which teaches that all human beings inherit both the corruption and the guilt of Adam’s transgression. This is not simply a moral description, it is a theological necessity. If God's will is the ultimate and immutable cause of all things, then salvation cannot begin with man. Therefore, man must be entirely unable to choose God so that salvation may be attributed wholly to divine initiative. Louis Berkhof makes the point clearly: “The doctrine of total depravity does not mean that man is as bad as he can be, but that every part of his nature is corrupted and that he is utterly incapable of changing his spiritual condition. Only the immutable will of God can bring about regeneration.” Human inability is not merely a consequence of the Fall; it is a condition that supports the broader claim that God’s will alone is effectual. The doctrine of depravity, then, serves to eliminate any hint of cooperation between man and God. Grace must act alone, or God is not sovereign. If God is not sovereign, then He is contingent. If God is contingent, then He is mutable. If God is mutable, then He is not God.

Moving next to the doctrine of unconditional election, we find that it rests on the foundation of human inability, which itself is rooted in the Calvinist doctrine of immutability and shaped historically by Augustine’s view of inherited guilt. If man cannot move toward God, then God must move unilaterally toward man, though in a way that does not imply contingency or any change in God. If God's will does not change, then His decision to save must be made from eternity, not based on anything foreseen in the creature. Those who are saved are not chosen because of faith; they have faith because they are chosen. Election is not contingent; it is decretive. R. C. Sproul underscores the point: “God does not foresee an action or condition on our part that induces Him to save us. Election rests on God’s sovereign decision to save whom He is pleased to save” (Chosen by God, p. 22). To suggest otherwise would be to introduce uncertainty into the divine purpose and to open the door to a future not already settled in the mind of God. The immutability of His will rules out any such possibility. Election must therefore be sovereign, unconditional, and irrevocable.

The same logic extends to the doctrine of limited atonement. If God’s decree is eternal, effectual, and unchangeable, then Christ’s death must be understood as accomplishing precisely what was intended from eternity. The atonement, in this view, is not a general provision offered to all, but a specific payment securing the salvation of those whom God has chosen. Since the divine will is immutable, its redemptive purpose must succeed without exception. As Louis Berkhof writes, “The atonement is not a mere possibility; it is a divine certainty, grounded in the eternal counsel of God. It secures the salvation of the elect, for whom alone it was intended.” Christ’s death is therefore seen as definitively effective for the elect, not merely making salvation possible but actually securing it according to the immutable counsel of God.

From this follows the doctrine of irresistible grace. If God has chosen certain individuals to be saved and has provided atonement on their behalf, then their salvation must be applied with certainty. The effectual call of the Spirit does not depend on human cooperation but acts directly upon the will, bringing it into alignment with the divine purpose. Grace, in this framework, is not merely offered but enacted; it produces the very faith that it requires. As R. C. Sproul writes, “The efficacy of God’s grace does not rest on the fickle will of man, but on the immutable will of God. If grace can be resisted to the point of frustrating God’s redemptive plan, then God is not sovereign. And if He is not sovereign, He is not immutable” (Chosen by God, p. 146). If God has purposed to redeem, then the sinner must come, not by constraint, but by a regenerated will that cannot fail to respond.

The perseverance of the saints follows as the necessary conclusion. If salvation is the result of God’s eternal and unchanging decree, then it cannot ultimately be lost. Those whom God has called and justified will also be glorified. Their faith may falter and their path may darken, but the outcome is secured by the constancy of divine purpose. As John Owen observed, “The immutability of the divine purposes is the foundation of the saints’ perseverance. If God’s love toward them could change, so too would their condition. But His love is from everlasting to everlasting.” The believer's endurance is not grounded in his own strength, but in the unwavering resolve of God. To fall away finally would be to imply a revision in the redemptive plan, which is incompatible with the doctrine of immutability. The same will that initiated salvation is the will that brings it to completion.

We see then that these five doctrines do not stand individually, but are strands of a single rope, woven tightly together and anchored in the immutable sovereignty of God. Total depravity removes human agency as a contributing factor, election affirms God's unchanging will, limited atonement secures the result, irresistible grace ensures its application, and perseverance guarantees its completion. Together, these doctrines form a unified expression of immutable divine sovereignty in action. As John Piper explains, “If total depravity is true, then unconditional election follows. If unconditional election is true, then limited atonement and irresistible grace follow. The doctrines of grace are a coherent and necessary implication of God’s sovereign grace.” They are not independent affirmations loosely held, but corollaries of the single, inviolable truth that God cannot change.

 

[Derf]

Your first real contribution to the thread. Thanks.

So... Paul is not the author... good work.

But the point is that whoever wrote Hebrews, he was influenced by Paul. Luke, especially, was with Paul regularly. And if Paul influenced Luke, one of the ways he must have done so is by telling him his gospel. It is extremely unlikely that Luke, hearing the gospel from Paul, would reject it in favor of a gospel that requires an impossible standard of obedience. Nor, after hearing the gospel from Paul and his admonition not to go after another gospel, would it seem very likely that Luke would then preach another gospel to anyone, including Jews.

One final point. Galatians was not written just by Paul, but by all the brethren that were with him. I don't know if that includes Luke, but it seems likely that it did:
[Gal 1:1-2 KJV] Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead And all the brethren which are with me, unto the churches of Galatia:

Therefore, Luke would likely be writing Hebrews against his own admonition not to go after another gospel, if Hebrews is actually preaching another gospel, which @Clete, @Right Divider, and @JudgeRightly maintain.

We can revisit why it was probably someone who heard and believed the gospel Paul was preaching, but the main tenet of the claim comes from the nod to Timothy
[Heb 13:23 KJV] Know ye that [our] brother Timothy is set at liberty; with whom, if he come shortly, I will see you.

And @Lon, this is why the position is so fragile, that it pits one part of the scripture against another, rather than seeing them as supporting one another. Hebrews, if it is antithetical to Paul's gospel, must be considered anathema. But if Paul's letters and the book of Hebrews are preaching the same faith, we may have some things to figure out in terms of how to take them, but the general message is a common one to both Jews and Gentiles.

 

[Idolater]

Er, but if it points that way? How addicted to your own theology are you? Lots are, very much here on TOL. It is why I get 'whishy washy' but I'm more honest with God about asking Him to make me more like Him instead of always thinking "I've" found it!" Some call it whishy washy, I call it 'not so much into me that I cannot listen to God correcting me anymore." He is sovereign over all His creation, even me.

Again with the derogatory. I've never claimed to be Calvinist. I certainly do not disdain them as you do.

I don't disdain Clavinists, I disdain Clavinism.

I've a lot of love for those who don't agree with me.

So do I. So what?

TOL pushes the divide too far often enough, instead of realizing the difference between who is in the faith and who happens to get it wrong, we stab one another in the back, here.

Where? I don't see any back stabbing here. If someone has a negative opinion of someone else on TOL, they say it openly. The whole World knows. Where's the back stabbing?

Should we? I don't think so. It is a very bad habit. When there is enough genuine difference, we think 'stupid' is 2Timothy2:25 with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth. Don't fall into what is acceptable here. It isn't the mark for dialogue. Reach a higher calling. I'm convinced those who are rude are very much babes in Christ. Those of us who are mature must reach the higher mark of grace. I can hardly believe anybody was a Calvinist who resides here, they have no empathy for supposedly once being one.

It doesn't matter arguing 'why' as much as discovering 'why.' If it points one way, without resistance, we should look. If it doesn't, fine, but you'd at least have to acquiesce that it'd make sense.

Wouldn't it make so much more sense then, therefore, if the Catholic version is correct???

Of course not. How would iron sharpen iron if we were all the same? I would have always said I was Amyraldian, (not Catholic).

Of course I enjoy them. Call them "Clavinists?" Never.

You wouldn't call John Clavin himself a Clavinist???

Derogatory is derogatory. Would you smile if I called you a Papist? Mary-worshipper? Such tends to cause divides. Somehow, in every conversation, we have to make a bridge for communication. If iron sharpens iron, you use water or oil. We don't just grind away on metal lest we harm its temper. Similarly, TOL must use oil and water (conversation seasoned with salt) else it is just harsh and serving no purpose but promoting Open Theism and Mid Acts theology against all contenders. Without the grace needed, Open Theism will die. The early church had Arians. They were harsh among even one another and died out. God is sovereign, it just died out on its own and I believe connected was the absence of godliness. Our faith is all tied together. Grace Ambassadors (Mid Acts) should show Grace first foot forward.

I sharpen my blades on a diamond sharpener now. I have a coarse and a fine sharpener.

He'd say he did. I have to wonder if anyone who ever 'was' Calvinist, had/has any love 'for' what they once were. Why be one, if it didn't/doesn't lift one to the Savior? For me, these men, even if I disagree, have love for the Savior. That is the mark. If we are going to distance and fight, it should be on the grounds of who actually loves the Savior. I started a thread yesterday about whether anyone who rejects Paul's Apostleship can be Christian in any sense. I'd suggest it is impossible, because at that point they begin to pick and choose which book of the bible, if any, they will follow. It'd make 'me'ology rather than theology. That is a dangerous place to be. This particular (to bring it back to discussion), isn't outside of Christian walls over the disagreement. It is okay for me and you to say "I don't think Hebrews is Pauline at all."

You're taking the organization who printed your Bible as your magisterium. You can analyze the nexus of the printing event, but that's only going to bring you back to another organization, an organization you don't want to acknowledge, the Church. The Catholic Church.

You'll have to explain that to me.

How is a discussion on Calvinism attached to Pauline authorship? Or placement of Hebrews?

Where I say this: “ God pulls strings and works behind the scenes to bring about what comes to pass. That's just Clavinist. ”

The order of the books of the New Testament is an example of "what comes to pass." It came to pass—it simply did. Therefore, according to Clavinism and distinctively to Clavinism, this is the work of God. The order of the books of the New Testament is the work of God. I've said that it's placed after Philemon because Paul being its author was the most popular guess, but that its order wrt its length (being a very long letter) means that it's clearly not decisive, but only a guess.

 

[Right Divider]

But the point is that whoever wrote Hebrews, he was influenced by Paul.

Again, a claim without support.

Luke, especially, was with Paul regularly.

So what?

And if Paul influenced Luke, one of the ways he must have done so is by telling him his gospel.

Duh

It is extremely unlikely that Luke, hearing the gospel from Paul, would reject it in favor of a gospel that requires an impossible standard of obedience.

Confusion reigns with you.

One final point. Galatians was not written just by Paul, but by all the brethren that were with him. I don't know if that includes Luke, but it seems likely that it did:
[Gal 1:1-2 KJV] Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead And all the brethren which are with me, unto the churches of Galatia:

Silliness is your middle name. That does NOT say that writing Galatians was a group effort.

Just another twisting of scripture.

Note that Paul says "I certify you..." and NOT "We certify you..." etc. etc. etc. (Gal 1:13,cf).

 

[Lon]

And @Lon, this is why the position is so fragile, that it pits one part of the scripture against another, rather than seeing them as supporting one another. Hebrews, if it is antithetical to Paul's gospel, must be considered anathema. But if Paul's letters and the book of Hebrews are preaching the same faith, we may have some things to figure out in terms of how to take them, but the general message is a common one to both Jews and Gentiles.

??? Not sure what this is in reference to for me specifically. I believe Hebrews is written to Hebrew Christians, not gentiles. What is the mention in lieu of? Thanks

 

[Derf]

??? Not sure what this is in reference to for me specifically. I believe Hebrews is written to Hebrew Christians, not gentiles. What is the mention in lieu of? Thanks

Here:

Why?

 

[Lon]

Here:

Thanks, it has been awhile and I missed context. Appreciate the reminder, help. My last paragraph is most pertinent. The rest of this, just how I came to see Hebrews and trying to address your concern over the book for gentile and Mid Acts specifically, concern: I'm not sure MId Acts sees Hebrews as antithetical, just that it is specific, and specifically Hebrew. See Acts 15 for context. From the first verse: Acts 15:1 Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the believers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.” *(see also verse 5 for the same) 2 This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question.

See, interestingly, it was Peter who said "no, not true." Acts 15:10 Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? 11 No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”

Note a couple of points with me: 1) that Christian Jews, remained Jewish, following the Law. 2) that gentiles were not to keep the Law, even further, that it was putting God to the test to even try, against God.

Thus, when a Mid Acts believer/theologian, reads Hebrews, he/she sees the context not as 'antithesis' per say, but different instructions for a different people. I first started being called Mid Acts, when I suggested that I'd been reading Hebrews incorrectly for a very long time. I said "I was reading Hebrews 1:1 'God, who gave our forefathers many different glimpses of the truth in the words of the prophets, has now, at the end of the present age, given us the truth in the Son. Through the Son God made the whole universe, and to the Son he has ordained that all creation shall ultimately belong.' and realized I don't have forefathers. I'm not related to Hebrew forefathers."

I then looked at the name of the book and had a 'duh/ah ha' moment. It was written 'to' Hebrews.


I'd wrestled long, as a christian, trying to understand what Hebrews was saying 'to me.' I'd made a mistake. I, like many others, thought the whole New Testament was 'addressed' to me. I didn't recognize that some books have specific people (Hebrews) mentioned in their context of audience.

The story is longer, but I'm trying to address:

And @Lon, this is why the position is so fragile, that it pits one part of the scripture against another, rather than seeing them as supporting one another. Hebrews, if it is antithetical to Paul's gospel, must be considered anathema. But if Paul's letters and the book of Hebrews are preaching the same faith, we may have some things to figure out in terms of how to take them, but the general message is a common one to both Jews and Gentiles.

It isn't so much as 'pitting' as seeing 1) that Jews had to keep 'most' of the Law and 2) that gentiles do not.

Please readdress if lost in my details, but I'm trying to build the context for understanding over the difference. It isn't that Hebrews is antithesis, in fact, Jews today cannot fall into the same temptation Hebrews addresses: they have no priests and no longer sacrifice for sins, even among nonChristian Jews, so the book in its greatest concern, isn't relevant as an actuality today. Rather, it is applicable in any sense that we (Jews and gentiles) seek any other avenue for our sins, than Jesus Christ. In and of that, it is wholly applicable across board in concept, just not in instruction, if you follow.

 

[Lon]

I don't disdain Clavinists, I disdain Clavinism.



So do I. So what?

The 'so' is how we address any particular person, such as if I called you a (see above). Perhaps it is preference and protocol on point: Do I call Idolater a Papist or a Mary-worshipper? Or Catholicism the church of satan? Such may be accurate as far as my evaluation, but where does the derogatory get me? Posturing? I tend to think so. You talk about a diamond blade shortly, and I get it, but, and on analogy, if I use the diamond sharpener too often, the blade is sharp, but am I overdoing it? Grinding the blade a bit too much? My father-in-law had a few knives that were MUCH shorter/thinner than originally planned. On point, I'd suggest (suggest merely) that once a month is about enough for diamond sharpening in most cases. My daily gets more need. So, for this discussion, I'm just saying it isn't always best to go ahead and marginalize. It makes it harder to get a point across. Granted Christ called the Pharisees pointedly. Note with me that they didn't change. I'm not saying Christ Himself didn't do diplomacy well. I'm not saying that. I'm saying we should know what our tools do when we use them and the affect/effect.

Where? I don't see any back stabbing here. If someone has a negative opinion of someone else on TOL, they say it openly. The whole World knows. Where's the back stabbing?

Back to diamond sharpeners: Jesus called spades spades, meaning He wasn't gentle to those outside the faith (Pharisees). He was remarkably gentle with Samaritans. It helps if we try and use His filter for whom we are addressing. If we use a term like "Clavinist" as a pejorative, we are 1) not actually making any comparison, just using inane derogatory that doesn't mean much, other than a nod to a TV program (John Ratzenberger is a sort of Evangelical Catholic). 2) Because it is inane, is seen not as a spiritual comment like Jesus' "whitewashed tombs" but simply disdain/name-calling and not much else. Things to ponder.

Wouldn't it make so much more sense then, therefore, if the Catholic version is correct???

I'm sure the connect makes sense for you, but I'm not following.

You wouldn't call John Clavin himself a Clavinist???

"Calvinist." Is it spelling that is the problem here? Did you really not know "Clavinist" is a nod to the TV show cheers and no theology at all?

I sharpen my blades on a diamond sharpener now. I have a coarse and a fine sharpener.

It is good analogy. Above I ask if your 'sharpener' is actually functional 'as' a sharpener. Some people use rocks. Me? I use diamond, sandstone blocks, porcelain, leather strops and compound. "Clavin" just doesn't seem to do the job, or any job for that matter. You can keep using it, I just think with good tools I possess, it isn't doing you much good in theology or knife sharpening. You can disagree, but I'm pretty good with theology tools.

You're taking the organization who printed your Bible as your magisterium. You can analyze the nexus of the printing event, but that's only going to bring you back to another organization, an organization you don't want to acknowledge, the Church. The Catholic Church.

Actually, I read Hebrew and Greek, pre-dates your preference by a few hundred years

Where I say this: “ God pulls strings and works behind the scenes to bring about what comes to pass. That's just Clavinist. ”

Some people test their knives on paper. Paper doesn't actually do anything for the knife. It does something for the tester. I don't believe you'll ever see paper in a knife sharpening kit. I do believe God is sovereign and man is not. It'd make you believe I'm Calvinist, but I'm closer to Amyraldian (Catholics are the only ones I've ever found, but close to my theology position).

The order of the books of the New Testament is an example of "what comes to pass." It came to pass—it simply did.

Pretty much don't agree, but again "how does this apply to anything 'Calvinism'?"

Therefore, according to Clavinism and distinctively to Clavinism, this is the work of God. The order of the books of the New Testament is the work of God.

However God moved men, sure. Think of Calvinism and organization of men as being on par. It makes no sense to go against God. It makes no sense to go against order. On point, I don't believe it a feather in any particular theology camp, other than that God is an orderly God and in any sense we follow Him, we reflect Him. If that leads you to Calvinism, or any Calvinist principle, that's well and fine. I wrestle with Calvinism as you, I'm not as reactionary on point. I don't disdain any well-thought idea. I rather see points where I believe a thing doesn't ring true, and move from there. A bit about me: I don't tend to gravitate toward groups and ideas, thus not Catholic either. I gravitate toward God's word and try to let it and He conform me.

I've said that it's placed after Philemon because Paul being its author was the most popular guess, but that its order wrt its length (being a very long letter) means that it's clearly not decisive, but only a guess.

It is a fine guess. For me, I keep working on other ideas that may make more sense. For instance, if it is written 'to Hebrews' and not me, in particular as a gentile, it'd make sense to put it more toward the end of my 'gentile' collection, if you follow.