The Redeemer Report features an article by Tim Keller defending revival and conversion as biblical. Keller’s outspokenness on revivalism should not be a surprise since he was a student of Richard Lovelace (Dynamics of Spiritual Life), and since he has defended revivals on other occasions. Followers of Keller’s career and writings may be forgiven if they wonder how revival goes down with the upwardly mobile and aesthetically informed Manhattanites who gravitate to Redeemer Church. (You can take the boy out of Gordon-Conwell, but can you take Gordon-Conwell out of the boy?)
Keller’s latest column offers a succinct biblical theology of revival. What caught my eye, though, was less the theology or revival than the unspoken interlocutors behind Keller’s argument. Why all of the biblical data he assembles needs to be called a revival or a conversion is a question Keller does not answer. Revival itself is a confusing metaphor for spiritual life. It suggests someone who was alive, died, and is now brought back to life. How helpful can it be to use this image with reference to a person who is not regenerate? And just as pertinent, can it ever be used for a saint? Do saints die spiritually and then need resuscitation? If so, doesn’t revival imply that saints won’t persevere? This might explain the appeal of revival to the likes of Finney.
But back to Keller’s unidentified readers. He writes with a measure of hostility rarely seen:
As I sat looking at my computer screen at the title I’d written for this article, I was somewhat bemused by the fact that a defense of conversion and revival was even necessary. But so it is. There are quarters of the church now questioning whether or not conversion, the new birth, giving oneself to Christ, etc., are topics that should even be raised. Conversion, and its corporate expression, revival, are thought to be manifestations of Western individualistic thinking.
Keller adds, again with a surprising edge:
The point of this article is not so that you (or I) can win arguments with those of a different persuasion. Christians throwing theological brickbats at one another is only amusing the Evil One. Rather, we should move forward positively to seek revival in our own lives and churches and to joyfully share the Gospel with those who do not yet know Christ. Changed lives and changed community will both glorify God and fill us with the joy unspeakable.
Let me be clear, I am critical of revivals and revivalists not for the sake of throwing brickbats (whatever they are). I am interested in the ways in which revivals have undermined reformation. I would contend (and have) that the better word to use for improvement in the church is not revival but reform. The rise of Protestantism was not a revival. It was a reformation. Meanwhile, the interior turn that experimental Calvinism nurtured and that gave rise to revivalism, acted as a solvent on those marks of reformation by which we identified a true church — proclamation of the gospel (creeds), rightly administered sacraments (liturgy), and discipline (polity). If revivalists were not inherently anti-formalists, they might be more willing to consider the importance of these formal aspects of church life. But ever since George Whitefield, revivalists have been more concerned with “the heart” than they have with the churchly qualities that manifest the heart and unite believers to the body of Christ.
Of course, other good reasons exist for raising questions about revivals and conversion. From Charles Finney’s New Measures to Jonathan Edwards’ — another pro-revival New York pastor — gullibility over the conversion of four-year olds, revivalism has a checkered past. If Keller is such an effective apologist for revival, he needs to be as empathetic with revivalism’s critics as he is with Christianity’s unbelieving opponents who live in large metropolitan centers.
95 Comments
Lily, I don’t mind if you want to ask your own questions. I MIGHT even try to answer them for you. But don’t mistake your questions for an answer to mine about where the water is in the Bible imperatives. You haven’t even attempted to answer this real question. If you want to have the debate with me that you already had with somebody else, then you got the wrong person.
I doubt very much that RS and I agree about what Romans 6. I have rejected the idea that “being placed into the death” is talking about the Holy Spirit’s work of regeneration. I agree with Smeaton and Haldane that it means God’s act of legally identifying the elect with Christ’s death. Lily, if you are looking for only two sides, I would think that you would agree with RS that the baptism of Romans 6 is regeneration by the Holy Spirit (except that you would assume “union of water and word” as the Spirit’s instrument). I am not that kind of “unionist”.
You can say “this is the crux” all you want, but it doesn’t make it so. And even if one “crux” is the either-or between God’s work and human work, that was not my question. Even if “where is the water” is not a “crux”, it seems to me like a question important enough for your
clergy to answer.
Lily: Richard and Mark,It looks like you are both missing what is happening in Romans 6. Is baptism a monergistic gift of grace alone, or a pelagian work of man, or a semi-pelagian work of man and God? If it is grace alone at work to be baptized into Christ via the union of the Word and Water in baptism, then it is not a work of man. That is the crux of the matter. Is it the God’s ordained means of grace alone or man’s work of obedience or a synergistic work of man and God?
Smeaton (The Apostles Doctrine of the Atonement) — “We need to ask,
then, what Paul means by these expressions that he uses, on which he makes his point so strongly: “dying with Christ”, “dying to sin”, “buried with Christ”, “crucified with Christ”. One particular verse of Scripture will give us a key to the meaning of the above phrases: For Christ’s love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died. 2 Corinthians 5:14
In this passage, Paul uses two expressions interchangeably; that is, “He died for all”, and “all died in Him.” He is describing the same thing from two different points of view. The first of these
expressions describes the vicarious death of Christ as an objective fact. The second phrase speaks of the same great transaction, in terms that indicate that we too have done it. So then, we may either say, “Christ died for us”, or “we died in Him.” Both are true. We can equally affirm that He was crucified for us, or we were co-crucified with Him.
We are not referring here to two acts-one on Christ’s side and another on ours. Rather,we have but one public representative, corporate act performed by the Son of God, in which we share as truly as if we had accomplished the atonement ourselves.
It is a mistake to not carry Romans 5 into Romans 6. If we carry the thought of the representative character of the two Adams from the one chapter into the other, then the difficulty vanishes.
All men sinned in the first man’s act of sin; for that public act was representative, and all Adam’s offspring were included in it. From God’s perspective, there have been but two men in the world, with the two families of which they are the heads; there have been just two public representatives.
The idea of Christ being our Surety and the representation of His atonement as the act of “one for many”, run through this entire section of Romans. But the passage we are studying (Romans 6:1-8)
contains one difference as compared with other passages, and that is that here we are described as doing what our representative did.
Let us notice the expressions used in Romans 6:1-8: It is said that “we died to sin (verse 2). As this phrase is misunderstood quite frequently, we must discover what it really means. It frequently
occurs in the writings of Paul in different forms, and it always alludes NOT TO AN INWARD DELIVERANCE FROM SIN, but to the Christian’s OBJECTIVE RELATION. It means that we are legally dead to sin in Jesus Christ.
This is made very clear by two other expressions occurring in the section. The first of these passages applies the same language to the Lord Himself; for He is said to have died to sin once (verse 10). Now the only sense in which the Sinless One can be regarded as dying to
sin, is that of dying to its guilt, or to the condemning power which goes along with sin, and which must run its course wherever sin has been committed. He died to the guilt or criminality of sin when it was laid on Him. He certainly did not die to sin’s indwelling power.
The second of these phrases shows that this dying was the meritorious cause of our justification. “He that is dead has been justified from sin” (verse 7). The justification of the Christian is thus based on his co-dying with Christ; that is, we are said to have died when Christ died, and to have done what Christ did. The entire section of which this is a part is to be regarded not as an exhortation, but as the simple statement of fact; this passage does not set forth anything done by us, but something done on our account, or for our sake, by a Surety, in whose performance we participate.
It might be asked, “can’t we understand that these statements designate two separate actions, one done by Christ, and a similar or parallel one by us?” NO. The acts are not two, but one, described from two different points of view. There is not one crucifixion on the part of Christ, and a second, parallel and similar but different, crucifixion on the part of His people. There is but one corporate
act—the act of “one for many.”
But what is the old man that is said to be co-crucified with the Lord? Does not this refer to our inward corruption? NO. To summarize, Romans 6:1-5 says we have been crucified with Christ, which tells us that our standing has changed from being “in Adam” (with its curse and
condemnation) to being “in Christ” (with all of its blessings and benefits). Therefore, because of our crucifixion with Christ, that is, our official standing now in Christ, our behavior should change…
Richard,
If you continue to parse scripture in this way, you will end up saying man is saved apart from the gospel. Indeed, you are not yet a theologian of the cross.
Are you forgiven by grace alone, through faith alone, for Christ’s sake alone… or not? Plainly it is the former. If you choose to argue with scripture’s plain meaning of God’s means of grace given to us in baptism, then you argue with God not man. Baptism is not just plain water, but it is the water included in God’s command and combined with God’s word. Without God’s Word, water is plain water. Either baptism does what God promises it does or he is a liar.
Matthew 28:19
Therefore, go and make disciples of all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.
Mark 16:16
He who believes and is baptized will be saved.
Romans 6:4
We were therefore buried with Him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.
Colossians 2: 8-14
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power: In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross.
1 Peter 3: 18-22
For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at God’s right hand—with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him.
Mark,
You err to your own poverty and argue with God not man. The scriptures offered to Richard cover some of your errors. One day you will learn and not quote blind men as your defense.
DGH is fine with joyless Christians, as long as they have Word and Sacrament in an Old School Presbyterian church.
Richard, I don’t think pastors have that kind of power, and when they think they do bad things happen. Think Mark Driscoll and clairvoyance. Also, every single act of piety is only a visible representation of something we can’t see. Speaking in tongues, or Phebe’s swaying, is not more a guarantee of a right heart than anything else. The question then is what does the Bible require for acts of piety. Last I checked, going to church qualified and swaying wasn’t required.
My point about denying Christ’s authority is that you seem to think that confessionalism’s high regard for sacraments is unbiblical. You don’t concede that confessionalists are trying to be biblical and follow their Lord.
I see that you are trying to do that. And I disagree with your interpretation of the Bible. My your disagreement with my interpretation of the Bible is based on not being spiritual or pieced to the heart.
BTW, I wasn’t mocking Phebe. I was pointing out how odd it is and remains. What may be worth taking issue with is Edwards’ gullibility. But such innocence usually happens when believers think they have swallowed Holy Ghost, feathers and all (thanks to Martin Luther).
R. D. is fine with joyful Christians who don’t have word and sacrament.
Huh!??!
D. G. Hart:
My point about denying Christ’s authority is that you seem to think that confessionalism’s high regard for sacraments is unbiblical. You don’t concede that confessionalists are trying to be biblical and follow their Lord.
RS: I am not arguing that confessionalists are TRYING to be biblical and follow the Lord. I am arguing that they ARE NOT biblical.
Zrim: Richard, confessional Reformed Prots agree with you that Christ is the sovereign head of the church and is himself our prophet, priest, and king, or as Belgic 31 puts it “the only universal bishop.” So I’m not sure why you offer that as a point to reflect on. But what you seem unfazed by is how the Bible makes it clear that Jesus has gifted his church, and in particular her officers, to maintain good order and worship, to preach the Word of God and administer his sacraments (Belgic 30; 1 Tim. 3).
RS: It is not a matter of if these things are set out, but to the degree that they are.
Zrim: A Reformed view of authority isn’t as authoritarian as you seem to want to suggest. It simply follows the pattern of Scripture which makes it clear that there is such a thing as authority and that it is there for our spiritual benefit. How do you get from any of this that confessional Prots want to usurp Christ’s authority?
RS: In particular, regarding the very last question, it is to the issue of grace. God alone can show grace and it is always in accordance to His pleasure and sovereign will. Grace is not captured in the sacraments and dispensed at the authority of any man. Then, men are to watch over the souls of others, but they are to watch over in such a way as to remind people of the One who really watches over souls.
Richard, I see that you’re saying my point is not biblical (which would extend to Calvin and the Reformers since you think they are wrong about the sacraments). But your charge of being unbiblical carries the implication that my infidelity may mean I’m not a Christian if I don’t have Phebe’s experience. I can recognize a credible profession from a Pentecostal believer and still disapprove of his experience. I don’t see the capacity in your argument to do the same. Experience rules for experiential Calvinists.
Lily: Richard, If you continue to parse scripture in this way, you will end up saying man is saved apart from the gospel. Indeed, you are not yet a theologian of the cross.
RS: Hmm, and here I thought you were the one saying that men are saved apart from the Gospel of grace alone. In other words, you have really watered it down. Interesting you say that I am not theologian of the cross. If we go back to Luther’s point on that, I would unequivocally differ.
Lily: Are you forgiven by grace alone, through faith alone, for Christ’s sake alone… or not? Plainly it is the former. If you choose to argue with scripture’s plain meaning of God’s means of grace given to us in baptism, then you argue with God not man.
RS: No, I am not arguing with God, just human beings. Indeed there are a very few verses that point to baptism and may seem to say what you say, but there are so many other verses that point to the grace of God alone and apart from the sacraments.
Lily: Baptism is not just plain water, but it is the water included in God’s command and combined with God’s word. Without God’s Word, water is plain water. Either baptism does what God promises it does or he is a liar.
RS: The question, however, is if He promises grace and puts it in the hands of men to apply as they please. If so, the God gives grace that is no longer grace.
Lily: Matthew 28:19
Therefore, go and make disciples of all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.
RS: Yes, disciples are to be baptized. But a person becomes a follower of Christ to be a disciple rather than be made one at baptism. Again, disciples are baptized. They are already disciples.
Lily: Mark 16:16
He who believes and is baptized will be saved.
RS: You might want to quote the whole verse on this one: “He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.” Those who do not believe are condemned. The text does not say that the baptism saves, but simply that those who believe and are baptized will be saved.
Lily: Romans 6:4
We were therefore buried with Him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.
RS: But if the person was already baptized into Christ by the Spirit in Romans 6:3, the “therefore” makes sense in v. 4. Baptism is a picture of what has already happened to the person. But again, this text does not teach that grace is given in baptism.
Lily: Colossians 2: 8-14
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power: In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross.
RS: Again, this text does not say that grace is given in baptism. if you will carefully note you will also see that this circumcision of Christ is done without hands. When was the last time you saw or heard of anyone being baptized without the use of hands? It is not speaking of water baptism taking sins away. It is speaking of Christ taking away sins at the cross.
Lily: 1 Peter 3: 18-22
For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at God’s right hand—with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him.
RS: Does this text tell us that grace is given in the water? No, it tells us that the water symbolizes baptism. It then says that baptism saves us, but how? It saves us as a pledge of a good conscience toward God. Here is a better translation: ” 21 Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you– not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience– through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him.” It is an appeal to God for a good conscience through the resurrection.
But going back in the text. How were the people in the ark saved by the water? They were saved from the water by being in the ark. The only people baptized by the water were all those who drowned.
Richard, again, confessional Reformed Prots agree—vigorously, in fact—that the sacraments do not function ex opere operato. They are signs and seals. We also agree that duly ordained men watch over souls and in such a way as to point to Christ. But this is where I scratch my head—you’re the one hitherto making the case for pointing inward, recently dinging pastors for having not looked into souls, but now you speak in extrinsic language (watching over, reminding). Why do you get to speak extrinsically but when old lifers emphasize extrinsic piety it’s usurping Christ’s authority?
D. G. Hart: Richard, I see that you’re saying my point is not biblical (which would extend to Calvin and the Reformers since you think they are wrong about the sacraments). But your charge of being unbiblical carries the implication that my infidelity may mean I’m not a Christian if I don’t have Phebe’s experience. I can recognize a credible profession from a Pentecostal believer and still disapprove of his experience. I don’t see the capacity in your argument to do the same. Experience rules for experiential Calvinists.
RS: For the sake of clarity (I think once again), I am not arguing that any person or all people must have the same thing happen to them as Phebe’s experience. I am just arguing that what happened to her was not unusual during revival and is not something that should be used to question Edwards and his methodology. Every person in the world is unbiblical at some point and most likely many points, so I hope not all who are unbiblical are lost. I use the word “unbiblical” in this context to refer to practices that have gone beyond what the Bible teaches.
I am not arguing that experience (in your sense) rules, though most likely there is some equivocation going on here in how we use the term. I do believe and will argue that people must go through some conviction of sin, and for some it will be more intense than others. I use the word “experience” as meaning gaining knowledge by practice, which stands at the side of knowledge by theory. I think you use the word “experience” as meaning something like ecstatic experiences. I would argue, for example, that a person can know in theory about the conviction of sin, but that a person must in reality be convicted of sin. The two are not one and the same. I would not argue, however, that each and every person must have a Phebe type of experience.
What I do argue, however, is that a new creature in Christ will have new affections, new hates, and new joys and loves. This does not mean that they are ecstatic affections all the time and maybe not at any point. I am just arguing for a thorough salvation and one which includes a new heart. I would not argue that a confessionalist cannot have joy in the risen Savior and it be a very still and quiet joy. I would argue at the same time, however, that the confessionalist has gone to far in following the teachings of Calvin at the point of the sacraments. But again, even if I am right that does not make Calvin and all confessionalist unbelievers and I certainly don’t believe that.
But Pentacostals?
Zrim: Richard, again, confessional Reformed Prots agree—vigorously, in fact—that the sacraments do not function ex opere operato. They are signs and seals.
RS: Yes, I am aware of that. However, “Compared with our actual thoughts about Him, our creedal statements are of little consequence. Our real idea of God may lie buried under the rubbish of conventional religious notions and may require and intelligent and vigorous search before it is finally unearthed and exposed for what it is. Only after an ordeal of painful self-probing are we likely to discover what we actually believe about God.” In other words, the idea of that has led to lots of language that grace is virtually a lock if you take the sacrament. The heart is very deceptive and it will use creeds and the sacraments to deceive itself about grace.
Zrim: We also agree that duly ordained men watch over souls and in such a way as to point to Christ. But this is where I scratch my head—you’re the one hitherto making the case for pointing inward, recently dinging pastors for having not looked into souls, but now you speak in extrinsic language (watching over, reminding). Why do you get to speak extrinsically but when old lifers emphasize extrinsic piety it’s usurping Christ’s authority?
RS: There is a difference between pointing people to the inward man and examining people with spiritual wisdom concerning their inner person without trying to take authority over that inward person. The priest in Roman Catholicism pronouces to those confessing that they are forgiven. That is going beyond Scripture. If ministers pronounce people saved because they are doing the external things, that is going beyond Scripture as well. True believers hear the voice of Christ and they follow Him. Ministers are to help others discern if they are truly following Christ.
Lily: “You err to your own poverty and argue with God not man. The scriptures offered to Richard cover some of your errors. One day you will learn and not quote blind men as your defense.”
mcmark: I thought you were trying to arguing with me, Lily, and I was attempting to argue back, but never for a moment did I have you confused with God. Today I have quoted Smeaton and John Calvin, but course I don’t think they are God. If what God says in Romans 6 could be located in what Lutheran clergy tell us about it, then we would all need to be Lutherans.
Romans 6:3–”do you not know that all of us have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death.” RS tells us this is the regeneration by the Holy Spirit, but I do not see it in the text. For one thing, I do not think the Lord Jesus was regenerated.
Romans 6:4–”We were buried therefore with him by baptism unto death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too would walk in newness of life.” RS tells us this is the water part, but at the risk of being a “biblicist”, I do not see it. I suppose I could find myself some clergy to tell me it’s water….
Is prayer a “sacrament”? Why or why not? Is prayer God’s work, or is it a synergistic work, or is it human obedience to God’s law?
I do know I can find plenty of biblical imperatives to pray.The commands do not depend on my feeling a certain emotion.
Maybe it’s difficult to prove a negative, that baptism is not the water because water symbolizes baptism, but in that interest I want to quote Beisner, a Reformed paedobaptist, who is far as I know
is neither blind nor dead.
” I believe many of the Scripture passages on which the Federal Visionists rely for their theology of baptism use the term to denote not the rite but the spiritual reality signified by it (for instance,
Romans 6:1ff; 1 Peter 3:21). The nineteenth-century Presbyterian James Wilkinson Dale’s five-volume study on baptizo persuades me that in many instances the original readers of the New
Testament would not have taken baptize or baptism to denote the rite at all. See Dale, Christic and Patristic Baptism: An Inquiry into the Meaning of the Word as Determined by the
Usage of the Holy Scriptures and Patristic Writers (1874), Classic Baptism: An Inquiry into the Meaning of the Word as Determined by the Usage of Classical Greek Writers (1867), Johannic Baptism: An Inquiry into the Meaning of the Word as Determined by the Usage of the Holy
Scriptures (1898), and Judaic Baptism: An Inquiry into the Meaning of the Word as
Determined by the Usage of Jewish and Patristic Writers (1869) (all reprinted, Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1995, 1989, 1993, and 1991, respectively).
But Leithart asks: First, if he didn’t mean baptism, why did he say baptism? Second, how do these commentators know that Paul wasn’t referring to baptism? Third, and most fundamentally, what kind of assumptions about the world drive this interpretation? Why would anyone doubt that Paul is talking about water?” ( “Starting Before the Beginning,”, online at credenda)
Beisner: To answer Leithart’s questions: First, Paul did mean baptism–and the term baptism did not mean, primarily, a ritual application of water. Second, commentators argue in two ways that in
Romans 6:1ff baptism does not denote the rite: (a) consistent application of that sense in the immediate context (verses 1-10) would yield the conclusion (contrary to other passages of Scripture) that all, without exception, who undergo the rite are regenerate,converted, justified, sanctified, and finally glorified, and (b) Paul himself had already written in the same epistle that it was not the rite of circumcision but the spiritual reality designated by it that differentiated the true Jew from the false Jew (Romans 2:28-29). It stands to reason (waving the flag in front of lily?mm) that he would affirm the same of baptism. The commentators do not, pace Leithart’s tacit implication, simply truck
in their conclusion without reason. Third, the assumptions that drive this interpretation are founded on sober attention to Biblical teaching about the difference between rites and realities (things signified), per, e.g., Isaiah 1:10-19; 29:13; Ezekiel 33:31; Matthew 15:8-9.
mcmark: Is prayer a “sacrament”? Why or why not? Is prayer God’s work, or is it a synergistic work, or is it human obedience to God’s law? I do know I can find plenty of biblical imperatives to pray.The commands do not depend on my feeling a certain emotion.
RS: But joy is not something that is opposed to true prayer.
Philippians 1:4 always offering prayer with joy in my every prayer for you all,
Mark,
I would not go so far as Lily has in saying you are following “blind guides.” I am still leery of your low view of the sacraments but I am attracted to your interpretation of Romans in regards to what “dead to sin” means in Paul’s writings and how you exegete the imputation passages. The problem, I think, is that confessionalists do not find any support of what you are saying in the major confessional statements that came out as a result of the reformation. However, I may be wrong about that. I have not heard what those who adhere to the Reformed confessions think about your views of “dead to sin” and imputation. They have remained silent on the issues and I am not sure what to make of that.
Of course, another issue you have with Lutherans is their view of the atonement. I read the following the other day in the most recent issue of Modern Reformation magazine, Carl Trueman says this: Reformed= Christ’s death is sufficient for all, but its extent is definite and for the elect only. The effectiveness of Christ’s death is unlimited and absolute; Amyraldianism= Christ’s death is sufficient for all and its extent is unlimited (thus hypothetically universal). But in its efficacy, Christ’s death is limited to the elect alone.
I think the Lutheran view of the atonement, as expressed in the Book of Concord, would be in agreement with the Amyraldian view. You think this view of the atonement presents a “false gospel.” Carl Trueman said this, “although the Reformed Orthodox disagreed with the Amyraldians on this point and even regarded it as a serious error, they still considered them to be brothers and sisters in Christ.”
One last point, you stated in your last post in response to Lily that “because of our crucifixion with Christ, that is, our official standing now in Christ, our behavior should change…”
What exactly do you mean that our behavior should change? And how would you exegete Romans chapter 7? I do see the scriptures being clear that we cannot be comfortable without conviction in our consciences in breaking the clear commands of God’s law but we do still have the power of sin residing in us. Some behaviors that may be contrary to God’s Law get deeply ingrained in people and it is hard to break free from. Others have had traumatic experiences which make it difficult to obey some clear commands in scripture. I could go on about the “strongholds” in people’s minds which Paul talks about which do not just go away after someone is regenerated. I think you get the gist of what I am trying to say.
Richard,
I haven’t followed every single post back and forth between you and others, but your notion of ministers meddling to the degree you seem to be suggesting is likely to earn them a gentle warning and then a sharp rap on the side of their head if they keep it up. I’ve watched a couple pastors try to divine people’s intents and take action on what they sense someone is thinking or what potentially motivated someone to do or say such and such, and it always CREATED a situation(see problem) that heretofore didn’t exist. I understand children and young impressionable adults and the sundry unstable types being vulnerable to this sort of intrusion, but what kind of functioning, sensible adult puts up with that kind of nonsense. It’s kinda like with the whole theonomy/theocratic impulse, I’ll sign on when Jesus returns. ‘Till then, it seems we’d all be better off making due with the ordinary means. I think it’s Luther who said; “God is free to work beyond His ordinary means, I’m just not free to seek Him there.”
sean: Richard, I haven’t followed every single post back and forth between you and others, but your notion of ministers meddling to the degree you seem to be suggesting is likely to earn them a gentle warning and then a sharp rap on the side of their head if they keep it up. I’ve watched a couple pastors try to divine people’s intents and take action on what they sense someone is thinking or what potentially motivated someone to do or say such and such, and it always CREATED a situation(see problem) that heretofore didn’t exist…. Till then, it seems we’d all be better off making due with the ordinary means. I think it’s Luther who said; “God is free to work beyond His ordinary means, I’m just not free to seek Him there.”
RS: Perhaps there is some (once again) misunderstanding here. What I am talking about is the work of counseling souls and not just counseling external activities. I am not talking about trying to discern motives and intents to the degree of taking action on speculations. But as elders who are to watch over men’s souls, I would think that they should go deeper in helping people in their pursuits of holiness. After all, the Bible does speak of being holy in heart. It does speak of Scripture making a division between soul and spirit and even judging the thoughts and intentions of the heart. I am simply saying that elders should be able to go deeper and help people beyond their external actions.
Another way to look at it would be that elders (or others in some cases) should be able to counsel in such a way that the Scripture is used the the Spirit to show people their deepest parts. If even the intents and motives of the heart are sinful, then there should be some dealing with the intents and motives of the heart, or at least guiding people to where those things are seen. I am not advocating the elders become seers as such and try to take action on people as a result of speculation.
Richard, I can grant that there is always the danger of sacerdotalism amongst sacramentalists, but if the heart is as deceptive as you say (agreed) then it would nice for the local Edwardsean to show a lot more cognizance of the dangers in throwing us into its depths. You say the heart in its deceit will use creeds and sacraments to conjure up grace. Fine enough, but you don’t seem equally aware that it can use experience and affect the same way. And, again, the issue becomes the biblical mode of spiritual expression. And it seems to me Jesus said whom do you say that I am (i.e. creedal faith) and not do you have the joy, joy, joy down in the depths of your heart (where?!).
And I don’t know what the problem is in declaring forgiveness to those who confess. Doesn’t the Bible say if we confess our sins, he is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness? If so, don’t we also need his undershepherds to say it with their actual mouths so our actual ears and hearts can receive it? But to the extent that you continue to bring Roman Catholicism into this, I still think you have the “they can’t because they’re them” problem going on when we discuss the burning bosoms of Mormons and the ejaculatory prayer of experimentalists.
Richard,
I rest my case based on the evidence of your comments. You continue to prove you cannot parse scripture not only in dialogue with me, but with others. I haven’t witnessed this kind of twisting of scripture for a long time. Do you do this because you think/want to “win” an argument? Or are you truly this confused about the body of scripture on different doctrines? Kyrie eleison. I do pray you will be rescued from the Edwardsean La-La land soon.
Mark,
I’m not convinced that you recognize when you are arguing with scripture or not. The bulk of your comments are quotes from theologians you agree with. It is ironic that you would continue to charge me with quoting Lutheran clergy when I haven’t. Isn’t this called projection?
Re: RS. I will pass on trying to make sense of his confusion. I do “get” that you are an Anabaptist in many ways.
Re: Is prayer a “sacrament”? Why or why not? Is prayer God’s work, or is it a synergistic work, or is it human obedience to God’s law? I do know I can find plenty of biblical imperatives to pray. The commands do not depend on my feeling a certain emotion.
I do “get” that you are law oriented. Lutherans are grace oriented with the view that God speaks to us through His Word and prayer is our response to him. Our relationship with him is like a Father with his children. And, no, prayer is not considered a sacrament. Prayer is not a means of grace. Faith looks to Word and Sacrament wherein the promises are made and where we are told “yea and amen” in Christ.
Re: Maybe it’s difficult to prove a negative, that baptism is not the water because water symbolizes baptism…
Lutherans are not Reformed – your example isn’t appropriate since it is a debate on Reformed understanding. Lutherans don’t confuse the Word and the element. The certainty of faith rests upon the promises given in baptism. Simply put: God’s work of pure grace is given to the sinner in baptism. It is his Word and the water (element) according to his divine institution and God accomplishes what he says he will according to his Word. No more, no less.
“One last point, you stated in your last post that “because of our crucifixion with Christ, that is, our official standing now in Christ, our behavior should change…”
John, I was quoting Smeaton. I don’t want to review the entire “unionist” debate, but the comments from Bavinck and Berkhof indicate that they agree that forensic priority in Romans 6 is within confessional bounds. To say that God legally places the elect into the death is not a denial of our need for the Holy Spirit to regenerate. Romans 6 is not teaching about regeneration, but we can safely say that there is no justification apart from regeneration and faith in the gospel.
Of course I do deny that the word is a promise about what water will do. Saying “high view” of the church or a “high view” of sacraments is like an Amyraldian or a Torrance guy calling a five pointer a “hyper”. The relativism privileges one’s own position. Better to say, he has a different view and according to what my confession says, he does not believe in “sacraments” at all.
I do think that human obedience should not be confused with what God does, even though that obedience is enabled by God. But talk about obedience gets me to your existential question, what about when our behavior does not change?
Believe me, John, I agree with your concern. Even if we were to change, it would never be enough because it’s already too late for us to be perfect, since we were born imputed with the guilt of Adam. And besides, if I look at me, I don’t see any change worth talking about.
Let me answer this way. There is always room for improvement. Everybody SHOULD behave better, even by their own standards. To rightly divide law and gospel means not lowering the duties demanded by the law. I am not talking about extra burdens imposed by man—wear a bow tie to church, don’t watch basketball on TV.
John: I do see Romans 7 being clear that we cannot be comfortable without conviction in our consciences in breaking the clear commands of God’s law but we do still have the power of sin residing in us. Some behaviors that may be contrary to God’s Law get deeply ingrained in people and it is hard to break free from. Others have had traumatic experiences which make it difficult to obey some clear commands in scripture.
mcmark: we have no valid rationale for our sin. That we are sinners is no excuse. But that is why our only hope is what Christ did for the elect. The difference between sufficient and efficient needs to be deconstructed. As Calvin explained, that difference “will not help”. If His death is not effective to save me, then it simply is not enough for me.
Christ was never under grace and is still not under grace. Christ was under the law because of the imputed sins of the elect. Romans 6 is about Christ’s condemnation by the law and His death as satisfaction of that law. Christ after His resurrection is no longer under law.
The Romans 6 death of the justified elect is that VERY SAME legal death. The resurrection of the justified elect in Romans 6 is the result and evidence of that justification from being under law.
Christ was never under the power of sin in the sense of being unable not to sin. Christ was always unable to sin. The only way Christ was ever under the power of sin is by being under the guilt of sin. The guilt of the elect’s sin was legally transferred by God to Christ.
Christ’s death to sin was death to the guilt of sin, and since the elect are united with a death like his, the death of the elect is also a death to the guilt of sin. And this is what Romans 6:7 teaches: “For one who has died has been justified from sin.”
Romans 6:10, “For the death He died He died to sin.” When the elect consider themselves dead to sin and alive to God, they think of themselves as dead to the guilt of sin. Death to the guilt of sin
means legal life before God.
Romans 6:14 does not say, For sin shall not be your master, because the Holy Spirit has changed you so that you cannot habitually sin, but only occasionally and always with repentance. Romans 6:14 says, “For sin shall not by your master, because you are not under law but under grace.”
Lily: Richard, I rest my case based on the evidence of your comments.
RS: In that case, you have no case.
Lily: You continue to prove you cannot parse scripture not only in dialogue with me, but with others. I haven’t witnessed this kind of twisting of scripture for a long time.
RS: I am just trying to twist the Scriptures out of what you have twisted them into so they can be back to where they need to be.
Lily: Do you do this because you think/want to “win” an argument? Or are you truly this confused about the body of scripture on different doctrines? Kyrie eleison. I do pray you will be rescued from the Edwardsean La-La land soon.
RS: No need to pray that I will be delivered from Edwardsean La-La land, as I am not there. You might consider praying for a true understanding of the grace of God and what true regeneration is and how God works it. God does not wait until someone applies a little water on your head to regenerate, but He regenerates as He pleases. When God regenerates on the basis of grace alone, that means He regenerates on the basis of Himself alone and not because or any merit or work of the person or any pastor or priest. God saves to the praise of the glory of His grace alone. He will not suffer regeneration to be watered down with the works and efforts of human beings.
Re: Is prayer a “sacrament”? Why or why not? Is prayer God’s work, or is it a synergistic work, or is it human obedience to God’s law? I do know I can find plenty of biblical imperatives to pray. The commands do not depend on my feeling a certain emotion.
lily: I do “get” that you are law oriented. Lutherans are grace oriented with the view that God speaks to us through His Word and prayer is our response to him.
mark: I would think we both are “law-oriented” in the sense that we don’t think everything is grace, and that we know that some things are law and not grace. The task is to not confuse the two. I agree with you that prayer is our response and our obedience. Our prayer is fitting but it is not the gospel.
So while we cannot agree about the content of the law is (you can’t make up your mind if my problem is being anabaptist or being “reformed” instead of lutheran), Lily, we should be able to agree that the gospel is about Christ’s satisfaction of the law. God does not give grace by bypassing the category of the law. God gave grace by sending His son to satisfy the law. And we must not confuse our prayers and other obedience with what God got done in Christ.
You are right that I have been quoting guys with whom I agree. I could do this with Luther when he’s writing about the Roman mass or the bondage of the will. But I guess I will end with this quotation from Luther, since it’s an occasion when I do not agree.
“How can baptism be more grievously and disgraced than when we say that baptism given to an unbelieving man is not good and genuine baptism!…What, baptism rendered ineffective because I do not believe?…What more blasphemous and offensive doctrine could the devil invent and preach. I put forth the following: Here is a Jew that accepts baptism, as happens often enough, but does not believe, would you then say that this was not real baptism, because he does not believe? That would be to think as a fool thinks not only, but to disgrace God moreover…”
Zrim: Richard, I can grant that there is always the danger of sacerdotalism amongst sacramentalists, but if the heart is as deceptive as you say (agreed) then it would nice for the local Edwardsean to show a lot more cognizance of the dangers in throwing us into its depths.
RS: We can join hands on this one in full agreement. I recognize the great danger at this point and see it as spread wide and far in our day. Many are deceived by trusting in various experiences and feelings.
Zrim: You say the heart in its deceit will use creeds and sacraments to conjure up grace. Fine enough, but you don’t seem equally aware that it can use experience and affect the same way. And, again, the issue becomes the biblical mode of spiritual expression. And it seems to me Jesus said whom do you say that I am (i.e. creedal faith) and not do you have the joy, joy, joy down in the depths of your heart (where?!).
RS: Yes, both sides have the great danger of the deceptive heart. My point is that it is not just saying it, but a heart that beholds Him, believes Him, and the words are then descriptive of the state of the heart.
Zrim: And I don’t know what the problem is in declaring forgiveness to those who confess. Doesn’t the Bible say if we confess our sins, he is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness? If so, don’t we also need his undershepherds to say it with their actual mouths so our actual ears and hearts can receive it? But to the extent that you continue to bring Roman Catholicism into this, I still think you have the “they can’t because they’re them” problem going on when we discuss the burning bosoms of Mormons and the ejaculatory prayer of experimentalists.
RS: I have in mind some earlier comments (most likely of others) who would make their profession to their elders and rest in what the elders say. That seems parallel to resting in a priest who declares one saved. And once again, you are correct that the other side has the same problem. I would say that the problem is not just “yours” and my position has none, but all positions have some of the same problems.
Zrim: Doesn’t the Bible say if we confess our sins, he is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness?
RS: It does say that, but it does not say that you have to confess it to the elders and receive a statement from them. I would think that this is more of the life of the body. I would also argue that to truly confess sin is more than a mere statement of guilt, but that is perhaps another story.
RS: Perhaps there is some (once again) misunderstanding here. What I am talking about is the work of counseling souls and not just counseling external activities. I am not talking about trying to discern motives and intents to the degree of taking action on speculations. But as elders who are to watch over men’s souls, I would think that they should go deeper in helping people in their pursuits of holiness. After all, the Bible does speak of being holy in heart. It does speak of Scripture making a division between soul and spirit and even judging the thoughts and intentions of the heart. I am simply saying that elders should be able to go deeper and help people beyond their external actions.
sean; I really would like to understand what ‘going deeper in helping people in their pursuits of holiness’ actually means. I have no real interest in my elders playing ‘thought police’ or ‘heart helpers’ I’m good with the word preached and the Holy Spirit enlightening.
RS; Another way to look at it would be that elders (or others in some cases) should be able to counsel in such a way that the Scripture is used the the Spirit to show people their deepest parts. If even the intents and motives of the heart are sinful, then there should be some dealing with the intents and motives of the heart, or at least guiding people to where those things are seen. I am not advocating the elders become seers as such and try to take action on people as a result of speculation.
sean; I have some sympathy with the sentiment and intent, I have serious reservations as to how somebody might help the Holy Spirit do His work. I know for certain that the Holy Spirit has aligned Himself with the preached word and the sacraments administered and depending on the day and who I’m reading you can talk to me about prayer in the same breath, but beyond that is very dubious to me.
Thanks, Richard, for the concessions. But, again, if your point “is that it is not just saying it, but a heart that beholds Him, believes Him, and the words are then descriptive of the state of the heart” then you will find no argument from confessional Prots. Indeed, what you will find is a robust sense of the connection between heart and mouth, faith and practice. Confessional Reformed Prots are just as opposed ritualism as we are experientialism, one over-emphasizing the objective and the other the subjective.
As far as confessing to elders, nobody here is saying there is no forgiveness of sins unless an ordained officer says so. But for those of us with a more mediated faith, we are still created beings who do need to hear from God outside us. To act as if it’s all inward seems greatly esoteric and suggests something more Gnostic than Christan about what it means to be human. Confessional piety does greater service to not only being spiritual but also to being flesh and blood. Our bodies will rise again, right?
Too funny, Mark,
Re: (you can’t make up your mind if my problem is being anabaptist or being “reformed” instead of lutheran)
It’s the hybrid nature of the thing! It’s like trying to nail jello to a tree – lol! And I’m not concerned that you are not Lutheran nor am I trying to convert you to Lutheranism. It’s not particularly savvy to call the sacraments an abomination in a comment box and not expect some feedback.
Re: law and grace. The task is to not confuse the two.
From a Lutheran point of view, you have grossly mixed them up when it comes to baptism and the Lord’s Supper. What you see as acts of obedience we see as gospel gifts. And as far as I can tell, much of what you write seems to be: law/gospel/law not law/gospel. There’s an important difference. I’m not disparaging you. I would encourage you to continue and watch for that sandwich. It takes away with the left hand what it gave with the right hand. I would also encourage you to write with fewer quotes. Your own writing is much more interesting, imnsho.
Re: I would think we both are “law-oriented”
Which emphasis dominates your thinking and responses? Grace or Law? The law/gospel/law sandwich often points to the law.
Re: Luther and baptism
Clueless why you cite this. Is anyone proposing to baptize an unbelieving man?
Richard,
Re: He will not suffer regeneration to be watered down with the works and efforts of human beings.
I am not aware of ever supporting such. If you are referring to baptism, I have been arguing that it is the act of God, his gift of pure grace, and not an act of man. And since he ordained the institution of baptism with the invocation of his name and chose men to be his instruments, well… I think he made it plain that this is his will and not man’s.
“Is anyone proposing to baptize an unbelieving man?” Well, some Reformed think that the efficacy of infant baptism does not depend in any way on a believing infant. But to answer your question, yes, many of the “federal vision” theonomists propose to baptize unbelieving masses. What kind of “church” would we end up with if the church were only for those who confessed certain propositions?
But I would not expect you to know much about theonomists, Lily. Think Constantine.
Defending Constantine: The Twilight of an Empire and the Dawn of Christendom , Peter Leithart, IVP, 2010
Leithart thinks that a higher view of baptism will save the world. .Along with his ritualism comes a very anti 2k agenda that “the Old Testament is normative for politics”. (p131). When somebody like James Carroll (Constantine’s Sword) complains about the anti-semitism of Augustine, Leithart is quick to defend the good old days of the middle ages. The unbelieving Jews were merely not allowed to proselytize, he says. The peasants are merely not allowed to decide if they want their christened.
Leithart very much opposes the “John Locke” idea where protestants “hold opinions that divide them from the general public”. We are reminded that theonomy is not about a combination of church and state but about having one church (with bishops) which can stand up to the state. If we don’t support baptizing the masses into the church, then we will be left with “invisible churches”.
Leithart also cautions us to be patient about asking questions and using our reason.. All we need to know for now is that God is really baptizing folks. It’s “really” happening, no matter what kind of “nominalist” objections are raised by those who think that God waits for human consent..
If you won’t defend Augustine for killing Donatists who attempt to set up alternative churches, then you simply show that you believe in “freewill”. And if you object to that, you show yourself to be modernist plain and simple.
If you are patient enough, you can make a nation Christian in the same way that you make people Christians. You baptize all the people in the nation. And the great commission is for you who baptize, which is to say, first you say to a nation that it is Christian, and after you baptize it then you can talk to it like you do to Christians.
But if you do not agree that people are already baptized Christians, what could you possibly have to say to them about what they should do?
Yes, Lily, there are some folks out there who are into the law-gospel-law thing, but some of them have a gospel which is not gospel but law.
As for your accusation that perhaps I also am guilty of the “sandwich”, well, I am not the one who thinks Christians can stop being Christians if they sin in such a way as to show that they have stopped believing.
Romans 6:14—ye are not under law but under grace
Romans 7:4–you have died to the law though the body of Christ, so that you belong to another….
In the interests of agreeing with Lily where I can, I want to focus some more on that law-gospel-law sandwich. Neither Lily nor I are denying that the New Testament has commands or standards for Christians, even surely we disagree about some of the content of those laws. But I agree that our “sanctification” is no more by our law-keeping than is our justification.
Many “Reformed” folks pay lip-service to “imputation”, but they brag about being “really relational” with Christ the “person” and think that’s more important than any dull “algorithm” about imputation. They are glad that they themselves are “relevant” when it comes to their “sanctification”. To the law-gospel-law folks, their “sanctification” is their “opportunity” to succeed or fail (and thus to be rewarded or punished).
Let me quote one such law-gospel-law person
LGL: “When the preponderance of my thoughts about my daily life with God are only seen from the perspective of Christ’s substitution and my unworthiness to merit his favor, not only do I miss the joy and motivation of knowing my deeds today can actually please God, but I can be left with a distant, abstract, academic view of my relationship with him.”
MCMark responds: Like the Galatian false teachers, the sanctification by law-keeping teacher does not deny justification by imputation. But he does minimize justification as only one “perspective”.
Notice the emphasis on “my thoughts”. . No pausing to make biblical distinctions between sanctification by Christ’s blood and sanctification by Christ’s Spirit. The LGL person doesn’t say that justification isn’t actual but he wants us to be thinking less about that and more about what’s nt “real”.
Again, I am not caricaturing. I quote LG: “I can begin to assume that it is only the perfect Christ that “God sees” (as though it were all some visual reality and not a relational reality). It is as if I am now, at least theoretically, absent from the relationship and if not absent, in some way made so irrelevant that my thoughts and actions can neither please him or grieve him in any real way.”
MCMark responds: He just wants to be relevant, at least in his own “sanctification”. And of course, the thrill of victory is never so sweet unless there was a possibility of the agony of defeat. So the teacher wants to be present in his relationship with God in such a way that his “sanctification” depends on him, even though he will of course give his god the credit for his not being like those who thought they were justified but were not because they were not “sanctified”. (How is this so different from the Lutheran who thinks he has sinned away his regeneration/justification?)
Lily, the way I answer the sandwich is to say that “ grace goes all the way down”, even into my “sanctification”. Free grace. “Without a cause in me” grace.
Let me continue to quote from LGL: “Scripture tells us that his redeemed children not only have a very real opportunity to actually please him, but we also have an abiding opportunity to truly displease him.”
Mark: If I respond by asking which Christian is not sinning in their walk, doesn’t that prove that I am antinomian? Unless this preacher is making some kind of distinction between sins that we choose to sin, and sins that we sin but don’t choose, it seems to me that we all grieve the Holy Spirit by our sin.
The question I think is what happens when we fail. Is the law-gospel-law theory of “sanctification” more likely to make us fail less? If I fail in my “sanctification” and that makes me scared of the second coming of Christ (rewards and punishments you know), will that make me work more so that I won’t fail so much? I do not agree with John Piper about the “beauty of gospel threats”.
Mark,
This is beyond bizarre. Does Leithart hold much influence in Reformed circles?
Re: As for your accusation that perhaps I also am guilty of the “sandwich”, well, I am not the one who thinks Christians can stop being Christians if they sin in such a way as to show that they have stopped believing.
I appreciate your explanation, but I think we are on different pages here. I may be mistaken but, the sandwich is not related to thinking Christians stop being Christians…. or sanctification. It’s the way we present law/gospel. Think of the reaction to Paul’s gospel in Romans 6 (shall we continue in sin that grace may abound). We all seem to have a natural reaction to thinking the gospel needs to be sandwiched with law in case people think they are free to sin. The gospel of pure grace and Christian liberty seems to scare bejeebies out of some people. Makes me think of control freaks.
The problem is that we mute the gospel when we sandwich it. We all have the temptation to end the gospel with more law, especially when something is important to us. Confessional Lutheran sermons tend to preach the law in all of it’s sternness followed by the gospel in all it’s sweet fullness. It’s the Lutheran rhythm of repentance and faith. It is the gospel that frees us to love God and serve our neighbor with a merry heart.
I may be mistaken, but I keep hearing a heavy emphasis on obedience in your comments – your gospel seems sandwiched. The need to preface your last comment in a way that no one would mistake us for antinomians was interesting. Again, I’m reminded of the sandwich. Why the concern of being seen as antinomians? My guess is that one reason people think Lutherans are antinomians is because we don’t sandwich the gospel. Another one is because we tend to shun the 3rd use of the law. I hope this makes sense?
P.S. The LGL guy sounds like a pietist. Or not?
sean; I have some sympathy with the sentiment and intent, I have serious reservations as to how somebody might help the Holy Spirit do His work. I know for certain that the Holy Spirit has aligned Himself with the preached word and the sacraments administered and depending on the day and who I’m reading you can talk to me about prayer in the same breath, but beyond that is very dubious to me.
RS: Hebrews 5:14 But solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to discern good and evil.
It is helpful if those who are mature and have their senses trained by practice instruct those who are not able to discern good and evil.
Zrim: Thanks, Richard, for the concessions. But, again, if your point “is that it is not just saying it, but a heart that beholds Him, believes Him, and the words are then descriptive of the state of the heart” then you will find no argument from confessional Prots. Indeed, what you will find is a robust sense of the connection between heart and mouth, faith and practice. Confessional Reformed Prots are just as opposed ritualism as we are experientialism, one over-emphasizing the objective and the other the subjective.
RS: But do you think all those who are grow in the faith and knowledge by experience over-emphasize the subjective?
Zrim: As far as confessing to elders, nobody here is saying there is no forgiveness of sins unless an ordained officer says so. But for those of us with a more mediated faith, we are still created beings who do need to hear from God outside us. To act as if it’s all inward seems greatly esoteric and suggests something more Gnostic than Christan about what it means to be human. Confessional piety does greater service to not only being spiritual but also to being flesh and blood. Our bodies will rise again, right?
RS: There is a focus on the inner man because that is where Christ lives and because we are told to love Him from and with the heart. Part of being human is to have a heart from which our intents, motives, and desires come from. We will receive new bodies, but yes we will have bodies that will rise again.
Lily: Richard, Re: “He will not suffer regeneration to be watered down with the works and efforts of human beings.”
I am not aware of ever supporting such. If you are referring to baptism, I have been arguing that it is the act of God, his gift of pure grace, and not an act of man. And since he ordained the institution of baptism with the invocation of his name and chose men to be his instruments, well… I think he made it plain that this is his will and not man’s.
RS: Your doctrine at this point is confusing some important things, even vital things. Since baptism is an act of man, both the one doing it and the one receiving it, that makes it very clear that regeneration is not a sovereign act of God who regenerates whom He pleases and when He pleases. Baptism for regeneration makes grace no longer to be grace. Your doctrine also disregards the true nature of faith which receives grace. Your teaching at least implies that since man decides to be baptized and even when, then God must follow man’s lead in this and regenerate when man is pleased to be regenerated.
Titus 3: 4 But when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared,
5 He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, 6 whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.”
Notice the washing of regeneration of v. 7. It is the washing of regeneration and not the regeneration of washing. It is in accordance with His mercy, not our deeds of righteousness of which Baptism would be one. All of this is so that He would justify sinners by His grace. There is no cause or merit or act of sinners that can bring grace to themselves.
I want to quote approvingly the Lutheran Gerhard Forde, but only after I report that Forde (now deceased) mocked the entire idea of Christ having paid a penalty or satisfied the law by His death. I am glad that not all Lutherans agree with Forde about the cross. Forde thought that the cross was only something sinners did to Christ, and not a matter of God’s justice.
Forde: “The unconditional declaration of justification, the imputation, the flat-out declaration, offends and shocks us because it shatters all our ambitions for “something to do” –that declaration is our death and our life, the new beginning. Death, you see, is put in the position of not being able to do anything according to the ways of this world—the law, religion, the upward climb—with all its
plans and schemes. They suddenly stop, come to an end.”
And this from Luther himself— “as far as the words are concerned, everyone can understand the distinction between the Law and grace, but so far as practice, life, and application are concerned, it is the most difficult thing there is.” (Galatians 1535).
Richard:
Re: Your doctrine at this point is confusing some important things…
I’ll stick with Lutheran theology, thanks.
Lily: Richard: Re: Your doctrine at this point is confusing some important things…
I’ll stick with Lutheran theology, thanks.
RS: But not with Luther’s great teaching against ‘free-will’ and of the sovereignty of the grace of God.
Richard, wow! Still and quiet joy don’t count. Where does the Bible ever come close to saying that joy is going to be moving and loud? Don’t you see that your joy has turned you into a member of the joy police. To reverse Mencken on the Puritans, you are now saying that you fear that someone somewhere may be deficient in happiness.
Sorry, but this strikes me as odd and extreme — not the Mencken point — but the idea that joy must take a certain form to qualify as genuine.
D. G. Hart: Richard, wow! Still and quiet joy don’t count. Where does the Bible ever come close to saying that joy is going to be moving and loud? Don’t you see that your joy has turned you into a member of the joy police. To reverse Mencken on the Puritans, you are now saying that you fear that someone somewhere may be deficient in happiness.
RS: I am not sure what I said to elicit your response here. I don’t recall saying that joy had to be loud or even implying that. I argue for joy as part of the fruit of the Spirit in the believer, but have specifically said that the greatest and most exquisite joy cannot be spoken.
D.G. Hart: Sorry, but this strikes me as odd and extreme — not the Mencken point — but the idea that joy must take a certain form to qualify as genuine.
RS: But surely you would agree that there is a joy in the things of the world that is not the fruit of the HOLY Spirit. The HOLY Spirit works a holy joy in His people, and more specifically, works a joy that is a joy that is in God.
Psalm 131
A song of ascents. Of David.
1 My heart is not proud, LORD,
my eyes are not haughty;
I do not concern myself with great matters
or things too wonderful for me.
2 But I have calmed and quieted myself,
I am like a weaned child with its mother;
like a weaned child I am content.
3 Israel, put your hope in the LORD
both now and forevermore.
Richard, I may have misunderstood what you wrote: “I would not argue that a confessionalist cannot have joy in the risen Savior and it be a very still and quiet joy.” The double negative may have thrown me.
As for the joy of the Holy Spirit, what about joy in the creation of God? What if I view baseball as God’s creation? Can’t I take joy in it? Why does joy have to be religious?
D. G. Hart: Richard, I may have misunderstood what you wrote: “I would not argue that a confessionalist cannot have joy in the risen Savior and it be a very still and quiet joy.” The double negative may have thrown me.
RS: I am a very negative sort, but I have joy in being negative. Maybe this expresses what I was trying to say and yet not being so negative: “I would not argue against the fact that a confessionalist could have joy in the risen Savior and it be a very still and quiet joy.”
D. G. Hart: As for the joy of the Holy Spirit, what about joy in the creation of God? What if I view baseball as God’s creation? Can’t I take joy in it? Why does joy have to be religious?
RS: Allow me to sort of quote Augustine, though it is from memory and so I may have added something negative or a small word: “He loves Thee too little who does not love all things for Thy sake.” I would not argue that one cannot enjoy baseball as God’s creation, but stretching that to include the Phillies may be going too far.
Do you enjoy baseball on the Sabbath? I recall John Gerstner (a Pirates fan) that he prayed for them except on the Sabbath.