As I continue to come across Edwards’ writings — his Faithful Narrative is part of the reader for American Heritage at Hillsdale College — I continue to be amazed at the Northampton pastor’s broad appeal, even down to the “Jonathan Edwards is my homeboy” T-shirts. Granted, Edwards has much to admire. The thought of a pastor on the frontier of the British colonies, cut off from books and libraries, living with the constant threat of Native American attacks, writing philosophical works that continue to attract regular and academic readers is indeed remarkable. But has the warm glow surrounding Edwards obscured other aspects that his admirers and expert interpreters have neglected? One topic that has recently generated a little attention is Edwards and slavery. Since he owned slaves, and since slaveholders are only a few steps up the chain of wickedness from child molesters for modern Americans, I can’t help but wonder why more of the evangelical fans of Edwards have not had a reaction to him similar to their regard for nineteenth-century southern Protestants.
Another oddity about the Edwards phenomenon is the way that few of his admirers seem to comment on his descriptions of converts in A Faithful Narrative. Not only do these accounts raise questions about the propriety of revealing the identities of specific church members — think confidentiality. But they also raise doubts about Edwards’ capacity to acknowledge the excess to which his own brand of revivalism ran. I am thinking in particular of the case of the four-year old convert, Phebe Bartlet. Why would anyone put any stock in the spiritual labyrinth of a child’s soul? More important, why would any pastor or mother let a child go through what Edwards describes:
She was born in March, in the year 1731. About the latter end of April, or the beginning of May 1735 she was greatly affected by the talk of her brother, who had been hopefully converted a little before, at about eleven years of age, and then seriously talked to her about the great things of religion. Her parents did not know of it at the that time, and were not wont, in the counsels they gave to their children, particularly to direct themselves to her, by reason of her being so young, and as they supposed, not capable of understanding: but after her brother had talked to her, they observed her very earnestly to listen to the advice they gave to the other children; and she was observed very constantly to retire, several times in a day, as was concluded, for secret prayer, and grew more and more engaged in religion, and was more frequent in her closet, till at last she was wont to visit it five or six times in a day; and was so engaged in it , that nothing would at any time divert her from her stated closet exercises. . . .
She once of her own accord spoke of her unsuccessfulness, in that she could not find God, or to that purpose. But on Thursday, the last day of July, about the middle of the day, the child being in the closet, where it used to retire, its mother heard it speaking aloud, which was unusual, and never had been observed before: and her voice seemed to be as of one exceedingly importunate and engaged; but her mother could distinctly hear only these words . . . “Pray, blessed Lord, give me salvation! I pray, beg, pardon, all my sins!” When the child had done prayer, she came out of the closet, and sat down by her mother, and cried out aloud. Her mother very earnestly asked her several times, what the matter was, before she could make any answer; but she continued crying exceedingly, and writhing her body to and fro, like one in anguish of spirit. Her mother then asked her, whether she was afraid that God could not give her salvation. She answered, “Yes, I am afraid I shall go to hell!” Her mother then endeavored to quiet her; and told her she would not have her cry; she must be a good girl, and prayer every day, and she hoped God would give her salvation. But this did not quiet her at all; but she continued thus earnestly crying, and taking on for some time, till at length she suddenly ceased crying, and began to smile, and presently said with a smiling countenance, “Mother, the kingdom of heaven is come to me!” Her mother was surprised at the sudden alteration, and at the speech; and knew not what to make of it, but at first said nothing to her. The child presently spoke again, and said, “There is another come to me, and there is another, there is three;” and being asked what she meant, she answered, “One is, Thy will be done, and there is another Enjoy him forever;” by which it seems, that when the child said, “there is three comes to me,” she meant three passages of her Catechism that came to her mind.
Huh (on SO MANY!!! levels)!?!
Mind you, the problem is not simply for the evangelical advocates of Edwards. The scholarly community does not appear to be troubled by these truly bizarre reports. I will be more than happy to be corrected either by the fans or scholars of Edwards.
But in the meantime, I couldn’t resist seeing what the leading guru on rearing children among conservative Presbyterians, Paul Tripp, considers the age appropriate level of moral awareness and spiritual discernment. Here’s one example:
Our children were too young to grasp the abstract, strategic, and often theological purposes underlying my instruction. Even if I explained everything in as age-appropriate a way as I could, they would still have no actual understanding. They just didn’t yet have the categories or the capacity to grasp the parental logic behind the plan or command.
So I did the same thing again and again. I would kneel down in front of them at eye level and say, “Please look at Daddy’s face. Do you know how much I love you? Do you know that your Daddy isn’t a mean, bad man? Do you know that I would never ask you to do anything that would hurt you or make you sick? I’m sorry that you can’t understand why Daddy is asking you to do this. I wish I could explain it to you, but you are too young to understand. So I’m going to ask you to do something—trust Daddy. When you walk down the hallway to do what Daddy has asked you to do, say to yourself, ‘My Daddy loves me. My Daddy would never ask me to do something bad. I’m going to trust my Daddy and stop trying to be the Daddy of my Daddy.’”
I know, I know. Eighteenth-century expectations for children were different from ours. Even so, to consider Edwards’ willingness to see little Phebe go through this spiritual anguish, along with his use of Phebe’s example to promote revivals, is hard to square with the pastor-theologian’s alleged brilliance and spiritual insight.
266 Comments
Richard, when I suggested that conversionism isn’t Reformed you then claimed that conversion is a great doctrine of Reformed people. But it seems that conversionists have the same problem unionists do, namely that if these things are such great doctrines of Reformed people then wouldn’t we be able to locate evidence of that in Reformed people’s doctrinal formulations? But as with union, conversion doesn’t loom large enough in Reformed ecclesial formulations. Heidelberg 88 has already been mentioned and conversion gets a passing mention in WLC 159. So conversion is certainly there, but it’s hardly clear how such modest mention sprouts into “a great doctrine.” How about a whole chapter or section before we start assigning greatness?
D.G. Hart: Richard, good, but a passion is not an emotion. Come on, do you not see that Edwards is one way to read these passages but not the only way? You seem to have more than a man-crush.
RS: That is precisely the way way the word “emotion” is used in the modern day. A person that cries uncontrollably is said to be emotional. A person who has an angry outburst is said to be emotional. A person that is said to smile with joy is said to show emotion. The word “emotion” used to mean a motion in the soul, but today it is used to refer to what Edwards and the older writers referred to as passions and affections. I like Edwards because he spoke of a God-centered God and how that God glorifies Himself. No one else that I ever read is so God-centered. It is not so much Edwards that I have a crush on, but the God that he spoke and wrote of.
D.G. Hart: RS, and Edwards was disappointed when they waxed, no? That was a sign that God was not as much at work.
RS: Disappointed is not quite the right word, or at least I don’t think so. God is constantly at work either softening hearts or hardening them. If one sign of Christ in the soul is the fruit of the Spirit, then a lack of true and peaceful joy can be a sign that God is withdrawing His presence. A sign of true love for God is to seek His presence.
D.G. Hart: And so if I don’t “feel” or “affect” it, I should start fretting, right?
RS: Not fretting, but perhaps praying that the Lord would reveal secret sin in the heart so that you could repent of it. Perhaps one could realize that one has not been seeking the Lord with all the heart but instead has turned to other things. But fretting is far removed as an option. Humility and repentance that turns to seeking is the real option.
D.G. Hart: Why can’t you see that Edwards may have turned the interior life of saints into a law?
RS: Because he didn’t. However, Paul did teach us that we should be damned if we don’t love Christ. The Greatest Commandment is that we are to love God with all of our being, and that does include the affections and desires. I Cor 13 teaches that apart from love nothing we do is of any benefit. Love, as a fruit of the Spirit, is not a cold commitment to doing things. It is also not a rapturous feeling. But all true love which only comes from the Spirit includes joy as well. I Peter 1:8, as seen below, describes a joy that cannot be expressed and is full of glory. The implication (at least) is that those who believe and love Christ have this at times. Again, it is not a cold commitment. We would never tell our wives that we love them with only a cold (no affections) commitment and expect them to believe it or even accept it. God does not accept that either.
1 Peter 1:8 and though you have not seen Him, you love Him, and though you do not see Him now, but believe in Him, you greatly rejoice with joy inexpressible and full of glory,
John 16:22 “Therefore you too have grief now; but I will see you again, and your heart will rejoice, and no one will take your joy away from you.
John 8:42 Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and have come from God, for I have not even come on My own initiative, but He sent Me.
Zrim: Richard, when I suggested that conversionism isn’t Reformed you then claimed that conversion is a great doctrine of Reformed people. But it seems that conversionists have the same problem unionists do, namely that if these things are such great doctrines of Reformed people then wouldn’t we be able to locate evidence of that in Reformed people’s doctrinal formulations? But as with union, conversion doesn’t loom large enough in Reformed ecclesial formulations. Heidelberg 88 has already been mentioned and conversion gets a passing mention in WLC 159. So conversion is certainly there, but it’s hardly clear how such modest mention sprouts into “a great doctrine.” How about a whole chapter or section before we start assigning greatness?
RS: The term “conversion” is often used as shorthand to refer to salvation from the conviction of sin that comes before regeneration and including all the doctrines of salvation. It is much like the word “Trinity” is not found in the Bible, but the concept is. Conversion includes effectual calling, regeneration, justification, and so on. It is simply a shorthand term that refers to the whole of salvation. For example, Solomon Stoddard wrote a book on The Nature of Saving Conversion. He says this: “People are said in Scripture to be converted when they are turned from heathenism to the profession of the truth. So they are said to be turned when there is some notable reformation made among them. But then persons are said to be savingly converted when they are turned from the power of Satan unto God, when they have a work of regeneration wrought in them, when they are made holy, and so are justified and made heirs of the kingdom of heaven.”
Darryl wrote:
Why can’t you see that Edwards may have turned the interior life of saints into a law?
Amen. Therein lies the problem with requiring any subjective experience in the believer as necessary in the Christian life. Legalism doesn’t just come along with outward standards that some would insist must be done in order to get saved or stay saved. Man is a law creature and will insinuate himself as an ingredient into his salvation if given an opening. And the inward species of law is, I would suggest, is even more insidious than the outward.
My son-in-law is a PCA pastor (and a godly man, I might add). In discussing conversion, he has told me that he couldn’t remember a time when he didn’t believe, having been raised in the covenant by godly parents, i.e. no conversion experience. I was “converted” rather powerfully at age 19, yet, interestingly, with little or no emotional response. Yet at the moment everything changed as God called me out of my darkness and sin and saved me through my initial weak yet true faith.
So a subjective experience, an emotional response, or compelling inward affection may or may not be there (not necessary), not only at “conversion” but at any particular time in our walk of faith. To insist otherwise, I think, begins to chip away at free justification through faith.
cheers…
Jack Miller quoting D.G. Hart: Why can’t you see that Edwards may have turned the interior life of saints into a law?
Jack Miller: Amen. Therein lies the problem with requiring any subjective experience in the believer as necessary in the Christian life.
RS: Is love necessary for the Christian life? Is Christ dwelling in the believer necessary for the Christian life? Yes, they are absolutely necessary and they are objectively necessary. However, it is because they are objectively necessary that there must be a subjective response in some way. The objective reality requires that there be a subjective reality as well. Something must really and actually happen to the sinner if there is a real change in the sinner.
JM: Legalism doesn’t just come along with outward standards that some would insist must be done in order to get saved or stay saved. Man is a law creature and will insinuate himself as an ingredient into his salvation if given an opening. And the inward species of law is, I would suggest, is even more insidious than the outward.
RS: We could debate the issue of legalism, but the least we could say is that a person keeping the commandments is neccesary if the person has been truly converted. So it is not legalism to insist that a converted/saved person must keep the commandments. But the commandments also reach the spiritual man, which includes the desires and loves of the heart and what a person has joy in. In fact, there is no keeping of the commandments apart from the affections of the heart. There is no way to truly love God with all of the heart and soul if the affections are not involved.
JM: My son-in-law is a PCA pastor (and a godly man, I might add). In discussing conversion, he has told me that he couldn’t remember a time when he didn’t believe, having been raised in the covenant by godly parents, i.e. no conversion experience. I was “converted” rather powerfully at age 19, yet, interestingly, with little or no emotional response. Yet at the moment everything changed as God called me out of my darkness and sin and saved me through my initial weak yet true faith.
RS: I am not trying to be rude or to question the conversion of you or you son-in-law, but you have brought them up as subjective evidence in the discussion. People (generally speaking) can be wrong as to the time of their conversion and they can be wrong as to whether they are converted or not. People can be wrong in thinking that they had no “emotional response.” In other words, at this point you are giving me subjective evidence and treating it as objective evidence. My argument (from above) is that if something objective happens to the soul, then there will be subjective evidence. Did Christ save sinners from love of the world to love of Himself? Yes, He has done that. When God translates sinners from the domain of darkness to the kingdom of the beloved Son and the triune God dwells in them, every aspect of their being is redeemed. Their affections, loves, and joys are changed. I say there must be subjective evidence if the objective really happened. Sometimes people use different words, don’t remember, or there can be other reasons.
JM: So a subjective experience, an emotional response, or compelling inward affection may or may
not be there (not necessary), not only at “conversion” but at any particular time in our walk of faith.
RS: Notice the word “so” here is used to conclude your argument. You used a subjective argument (you and your son-in-law) to demonstrate that a subjective experience is not necessary. What is conversion? Is the soul (including love, affection, joy) transformed or not? Does the soul become the dwelling place and temple of the infinitely joyful Jesus Christ or not? Does the soul become the temple of the Holy Spirit who works His fruit (including love and joy) in the souls of those He dwells in or not? How can the affections not be converted as well? How can the soul of a truly converted person not have joy in Christ and some degree of pleasure as s/he beholds the glory of God in the face of Christ?
JM: To insist otherwise, I think, begins to chip away at free justification through faith.
RS: Not in the slightest. The basis for justification is a real and vital unity with Christ. If one is united to Christ, who is Eternal Life Himself, then the quality of eternal life flows in and through that person. Will eternal life in heaven be with or without joy? Will we be cold people with cold hearts in heaven forever or will we praise Him with joy and pleasure for eternity? Well, I say, though it is far from what it will be then, that eternal life starts now because Christ Himself is in the saved soul. How can a sinner that has been declared just by God based on unity with Christ not have the joy of Christ? How can a sinner that has truly had his sins removed from his soul (WCF sin brings misery and death) and now has eternal life in his soul not have the misery removed and given some degree of joy? Does God remove the misery of sin and just leave the soul in neutral or does He share His joy with His children?
1 John 1:4 These things we write, so that our joy may be made complete.
JM: cheers…
RS: I thought affections were not necessary? Ah
2 Corinthians 9:7 Each one must do just as he has purposed in his heart, not grudgingly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.
WCF 10.3: Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit, who works when, and where, and how He pleases: so also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.
Where is the subjective experience? Where’s the conversion experience?
I guess we can say that faith or assurance or conviction are subjective experiences, but those are gifts of the Spirit. The context of the ‘subjective’ in this discussion, I thought, was that of a little 4 year old girl and her “affected” conversion experience and a believer’s necessary outward shows of anguish, emotion, joy, etc. as evidences of those inward gifts.
Breathing is a necessary subjective experience in order to be alive, without which one cannot be saved!
Richard, ecclesiastical faith agrees with experiential faith that a sign of true love for God is to seek his presence. But it holds that that is done by attending his appointed means of grace on his appointed day, not by diving inward and summoning him forth 24/7. Do you see the important difference in terms of who does what, when and how?
But instead of it being a mere aspect of salvation, I rather think “the great doctrine of Reformed people” is justification, something both unionists and conversionists seem to have a hard time seeing.
Darryl
I made allowance for different temperaments. But even introverts have emotions – machines don’t but people do. I made no comment about the confession. I would suspect the writers (only two, so less reliable anyway than one with ‘many counsellors’ judging by recent comments) assumed the missing adverbs, they must have done if they were truly biblical. After all the bible is clear that as a result of justification we rejoice and the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts. In Gals 3 Paul assumes that the Galatians remember receiving the Holy Spirit – presumably experiential. Assurance of salvation is emotional as well as intellectual. At least part of the fruit of the indwelling Spirit is affective.
By the way Darryl surely you are not using ‘quiet and peaceable’ as a text to refute excited emotions. Firstly, both times of quiet and times of strong emotions are not incompatable, simply human experience. However, secondly, and more importantly ‘quiet and peaceable’ refers to the external circumstances of our lives with no reference to the inner emotions of our hearts. People whose external circumstances are ‘quiet and peaceable’ may have all kinds of engaged emotions.
My main concern difficulty however, is conceiving that conversion can take place without being aware of it. By its very nature it is conscious, cognitive, affective and volitional.
Darryl,
I’m grateful that you quoted the section in some length, because it points to the fact that the child soon found comfort not in her experience, but in the objective promises of the Word of God as communicated to her in the catechism. If you want to say with the one hand that Edwards’ was ill-advised to use a small child’s experience as a public example, fine (you would have that in common with Isaac Watts), but you cannot with the other hand say that he was a revivalist like Finney having no room for catechetical nurture. It is an advertisement for the benefits of catechetical nurture.
Bill
Jack Miller: WCF 10.3: Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit, who works when, and where, and how He pleases: so also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.
Where is the subjective experience? Where’s the conversion experience?
RS: Yes, but where is the faith and evidences of faith? Were they ever catechized or nurtured in the covenant? However, John the Baptist leaped in the womb upon Mary’s greetings. It is my position that all elect infants leap in the womb when they are regenerated.
JM: I guess we can say that faith or assurance or conviction are subjective experiences, but those are gifts of the Spirit. The context of the ‘subjective’ in this discussion, I thought, was that of a little 4 year old girl and her “affected” conversion experience and a believer’s necessary outward shows of anguish, emotion, joy, etc. as evidences of those inward gifts.
RS: What is wrong with anyone having some anguish when the Spirit illumines the Word to show someone that s/he is lost and has some joy when the soul has the presence of the Holy Spirit which is holy joy?
JM: Breathing is a necessary subjective experience in order to be alive, without which one cannot be saved!
RS: But does one know if one is breathing or not? Christ is the very life of the living soul. Can the soul have the joy of Christ in the soul?
Zrim: Richard, ecclesiastical faith agrees with experiential faith that a sign of true love for God is to seek his presence. But it holds that that is done by attending his appointed means of grace on his appointed day, not by diving inward and summoning him forth 24/7. Do you see the important difference in terms of who does what, when and how?
RS: I see what you are saying, but biblical faith is one that receives Christ Himself on a continual basis. Christ does live in the believer and the believer is the temple of the Holy Spirit. There is a sense where we must dive inward as such, but it is as the soul bows in submission to Christ and God is pleased to show grace that the soul receives grace. You think I am saying we can do inward to get as we please, yet I think your position seems to say that as long as you apply the means of grace you obtain grace. I am actually saying that all grace is as God pleases and when He pleases and no one has a right to grace and nothing we do obligates God to give grace.
Zrim: But instead of it being a mere aspect of salvation, I rather think “the great doctrine of Reformed people” is justification, something both unionists and conversionists seem to have a hard time seeing.
RS: Just to be clear, what to you mean by “unionists” and “conversionists” in your statements?
RS,
Leaping infants… leaping lizards!
RS: RS: What is wrong with anyone having some anguish when the Spirit illumines the Word to show someone that s/he is lost and has some joy when the soul has the presence of the Holy Spirit which is holy joy?
Jack: Nothing wrong with it at all. In fact, it is a good thing, a biblical thing… The question is: Is anguish a necessary component of regeneration, without which there can be no salvation? In other words, without an emotional, experiential moment of “anguish for my sin” can there be no effectual calling and saving faith? If it’s there, then praise the Lord. If it’s not, then praise the Lord. In both cases a lost lamb has been found and saved by Christ alone. What is necessary for salvation?
RS: But does one know if one is breathing or not?
Jack: I think, therefore I am?
Richard, ecclesiastical faith does not say there is a guarantee between attending the means of grace and obtaining grace anymore than experiential faith says that there is a guarantee between cultivating the interior life and obtaining grace. But the real difference lies in who does what, when and how. We’re both after the presence of God, and we both know that our respective methodologies don’t guarantee or obligate God to anything (though I would contend that there is something inherent to experiential faith that does seem to lend itself to it). But how we get there is very different.
Unionists and conversionists are those who prioritize union and conversion in way that competes with or otherwise diminishes justification or how sinners are made right with God. But confessionalists deem how we are made right with God to be the great doctrine of Reformed faith.
Jack
Thanks for comment over at TT’s blog. Good to agree where we do.
I would make two points regarding children of believers who die in infancy. If regenerate clearly they have no personal faith nor the indwelling Spirit. They have no conscious existence at least in a way parallel to ours. We cannot use them as any kind of parallel. They have no faith at an either emotional, cognitive, or volitional level.
But the bigger question is where is the proof that the children of believers are regenerate/saved? Where is such a promise given? After all even in terms of the OC ‘not all Israel are of Israel’. The only ones we are assured are are those of Abraham’s faith. When we come to the NC the notion of covenant children is on an even greater level of tenuousness but that is another issue.
My point is not that they are not the objects of God’s mercy but that we have very little proof that they are.
Jack Miller: RS, Leaping infants… leaping lizards!
RS: I hope you know that I said that for two reasons: 1) Infants with the Spirit can have a reaction. 2) Just thought a little humor wouldn’t be such a bad thing.
Jack: The question is: Is anguish a necessary component of regeneration, without which there can be no salvation? In other words, without an emotional, experiential moment of “anguish for my sin” can there be no effectual calling and saving faith? If it’s there, then praise the Lord. If it’s not, then praise the Lord. In both cases a lost lamb has been found and saved by Christ alone. What is necessary for salvation?
RS: Surely one has not seen sin for what it is if one does not see it as against God (Psa 51:4-5). If that is true, then what is the response of one who understands sin and knows that s/he is under His wrath? It is hard for me to understand how one cannot have some degree of sorrow or horror. When reading the conversions that we have listed in the Scriptures, that seems to be the pattern. Jesus came to call sinners, not the righteous. People need to see themselves as undone sinners and when that happens, something like Isaiah 6 is not out of the question.
RS: But does one know if one is breathing or not?
Jack: I think, therefore I am?
RS: If you think you are breathing, then most likely you are.
Jack Miller: What is necessary for salvation?
RS: One must have Christ in reality to really be saved. But of course to have Christ one just be regenerated, united to Him, and declared just based on the fact that the believer is one with Christ. The question, then, at least in this context, is if King Jesus can come in, take away the misery of sin, take away the dominion of darkness, and then take His throne in the soul and be its life without making a stir in the person’s heart. It is rather hard for me to see it that way.
Zrim: Richard, ecclesiastical faith does not say there is a guarantee between attending the means of grace and obtaining grace anymore than experiential faith says that there is a guarantee between cultivating the interior life and obtaining grace. But the real difference lies in who does what, when and how. We’re both after the presence of God, and we both know that our respective methodologies don’t guarantee or obligate God to anything (though I would contend that there is something inherent to experiential faith that does seem to lend itself to it). But how we get there is very different.
RS: Experiential faith, at least as I am using it in this case and in this sense, means that anything and everything that is spiritual in the soul is by the grace of God. Every spiritual thought must come from Him and every spiritual joy must come from Him. Therefore, if I have true spiritual joy it is not because I have done something to obtain it, but God has done something that I may share in His joy.
Zrim: Unionists and conversionists are those who prioritize union and conversion in way that competes with or otherwise diminishes justification or how sinners are made right with God. But confessionalists deem how we are made right with God to be the great doctrine of Reformed faith.
RS: Well, what a place to start. There is no justification apart from union with Christ, so it is not that union with Christ competes with justification. In fact, union with Christ makes justification possible. The believing soul must be united to Christ so that the sin of the believer is legally counted as Christ and so that the righteousness of Christ may be legally the believers. Matthew 18:3 gives us the worsd of Jesus on conversion:, “Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.”
WCF ch XI
II. Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and His righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification:[4] yet is it not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but works by love.[5]
RS: Faith receives Christ Himself. Faith is always accompanied by all other saving graces. Faith is not a dead faith, but always works by love.
WCF: IV. God did, from all eternity, decree to justify all the elect,[11] and Christ did, in the fullness of time, die for their sins, and rise again for their justification:[12] nevertheless, they are not justified, until the Holy Spirit does, in due time, actually apply Christ unto them.[13]
RS: Sinners are not actually justified until the Holy Spirit actually applies Christ unto them.
WCF XXVI I. All saints, that are united to Jesus Christ their Head, by His Spirit, and by faith, have fellowship with Him in His grace, sufferings, death, resurrection, and glory:[1] and, being united to one another in love, they have communion in each other’s gifts and graces,[2] and are obliged to the performance of such duties, public and private, as do conduce to their mutual good, both in the inward and outward man.
RS: All that are truly saints are united to Jesus Christ by His Spirit. They do all that they do to their mutual good, “both in the inward and outward man.”
The Confession teaches union with Christ as well and teaches that we are to seek the good of other believers which includes their inward man. Paul spoke (II Cor 1:24) of being workers together with the church at Corinth for their joy.
Deut 28 speaks of the great danger of not serving the Lord with joy: 47 “Because you did not serve the LORD your God with joy and a glad heart, for the abundance of all things; 48 therefore you shall serve your enemies whom the LORD will send against you, in hunger, in thirst, in nakedness, and in the lack of all things; and He will put an iron yoke on your neck until He has destroyed you.
JT,
you wrote: But the bigger question is where is the proof that the children of believers are regenerate/saved? Where is such a promise given?
This has to do with God’s election. The promise of salvation is not to children of believers per se, but to those infants who die and are elect of God. Those could include elect infants of believers as well as unbelievers. It depends solely on God’s sovereign and secret choosing, not flesh and blood. So those God elects he regenerates and saves as he wills (Rom. 8:30; 9:11; 11:29)
Even in this life, when a person is “converted” and “becomes” a believer (or grows up in a Christian family as a believing child), that person may walk away from Christ, possibly never to return to faith. Was he saved? Was he elect? This much we know, all that are Christ’s God sovereignly “chose in him before the foundation of the world, that [they] should be holy and without blemish before him in love” (Eph 1:4) and “this is the will of him that sent me, that of all that which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day” (John 6:39).
Thus the WCF article I quoted above states: “Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit, who works when, and where, and how He pleases: so also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.”
Notice how I used a little scripture to defend and explain the confessional article?
blessings…
Richard,
I asked: What is necessary for salvation?
you answered: RS: One must have Christ in reality to really be saved. But of course to have Christ one just be regenerated, united to Him, and declared just based on the fact that the believer is one with Christ.
How about faith, the alone receiving instrument of salvation? WCF 14.I: The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls, is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts…
And 14.2: … But the principle acts of saving faith are, accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace…
blessings…
RS: you asked, “How can a sinner that has been declared just by God based on unity with Christ not have the joy of Christ? How can a sinner that has truly had his sins removed from his soul (WCF sin brings misery and death) and now has eternal life in his soul not have the misery removed and given some degree of joy? Does God remove the misery of sin and just leave the soul in neutral or does He share His joy with His children?”
Could it be because saints are still schlubs? Could it be that we sin, doubt, still try to be God? Is there room in Edwards’ piety for people of little joy and love? BTW,whatever happened to faith, which looks outward, rather than a piety that examines to see if the believer has enough affection?
You’re not really helping your case. It’s all Edwards, all the time. And if you don’t hallow the man, then there is no where to go for comfort.
John, you know, when Paul talks about the traits that are fitting sound doctrine, in Titus 2, he doesn’t mention emotion, affection, or passion, once, as I recall. It all about moderation, control, discipline, order. Critics of the revivals saw an excess of subjectivity. They had a point. But the revivalist crowd has yet to take the counsel to head or heart.
Bill, Edwards may have kept catechesis and earnestness together. He may have had the benefit of those saints who went before. But did the Edwardseans keep the two together? Does Piper (just an example of the leading Edwards proponent)? So isn’t it possible that Edwards let the genie of subjectivity out so that Finney wouldn’t need it?
mcmark: Did i see the word “union”?
RS: There is no justification apart from union with Christ, so it is not that union with Christ competes with justification. In fact, union with Christ makes justification possible.
mcmark: Some of us have been this through this topic before and I think it important enough to discuss again. And again. 1. “Union” needs to be defined. There are different aspects of union, or different “unions”, and the definition a writer uses needs to be clarified. In the sentence above, it seems assumed that “union” is not legal union, that “union” is not the “in Christ”, but rather “Christ in us”. And us is assumed to be “the inward man”. 2. So there are competing definitions even of the word “union”. Many assume that “union” is not by election or by the transfer of Christ’s righteousness, but by the Holy Spirit. In other words, it’s difficult to see the difference between their idea of “union” and “regeneration”. 3. If “union” is defined as “the indwelling of Christ” and this is something other than the faith given to the elect so that they trust Christ”, then that definition must also be stipulated. As also the definition of faith. If emotion alone toward an idol Christ results in changes of life and other effects, does this “faith” need to have as its object the gospel doctrine of justification by the imputation of Christ’s atonement?
I am not being abstract or scholastic. John denies that there is any competition between “union” and “justification” and then promptly informs us that justification depends on “union”. Not only does this assume a certain definition of “union”, but it also gives priority to the work of the Spirit over the election of God the Father and the atonement made for the elect by God the Son. Those who think they honor Christ by teaching that Christ died for everyone with no regard for election, and then have the Spirit “apply” this atonement only to the elect, are teaching a false gospel which compromises God’s justice and Christ’s satisfaction of God’s law.
My point is not at all to say that justification is eternal or to deny the need for regeneration and the work of the Holy Spirit. No elect person is justified apart from faith in the gospel. This of course does not mean that a certain emotional quality needs to be attached to this faith. But my main point is that Christ was given an elect people, and that the righteousness Christ merited for these elect people is legally imputed by God. If RS denies that this legal imputation is an “union”, or “one aspect of union”, then what we have are COMPETING definitions of the relationship between justification and “union”.
WCF: IV. God did, from all eternity, decree to justify all the elect,[11] and Christ did, in the fullness of time, die for their sins, and rise again for their justification:[12] nevertheless, they are not justified, until the Holy Spirit does, in due time, actually apply Christ unto them.[13]
Darryl,
I very much appreciate your admission that Edwards held these things together personally.
As for those who followed him or who now claim him, well, let’s just say that I would join with you in critiquing many of them. To what extent is Edwards to blame for this? Hard to say; every Barthian I have met wants to claim Calvin as father. However, perhaps there are some ways that Edwards could have better safeguarded the tradition. Mainly, I doubt that he would have imagined that people would be reading him in isolation from the larger body of the confessional orthodoxy that he took for granted. I think I say something along these lines in my book: http://www.continuumbooks.com/books/detail.aspx?BookId=163642&SubjectId=1080&Subject2Id=1740.
Bill
Richard,
You wrote: RS: Yes, but where is the faith and evidences of faith? Were they ever catechized or nurtured in the covenant?
Regarding my son-in-law, obviously… The evidence consist in the good works that do follow, not in the emotional response.
Jack Miller: Richard, I asked: What is necessary for salvation?
you answered: RS: One must have Christ in reality to really be saved. But of course to have Christ one just be regenerated, united to Him, and declared just based on the fact that the believer is one with Christ.
Jack Miller: How about faith, the alone receiving instrument of salvation? WCF 14.I: The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls, is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts…
And 14.2: … But the principle acts of saving faith are, accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace…
RS: Yes, but faith itself does not save, Christ saves. One cannot have faith without Christ and one cannot have Christ without faith. The regenerate soul responds in faith and yet there is no life in the soul without Christ. The soul must have Christ to be saved.
D. G. Hart: RS: you asked, “How can a sinner that has been declared just by God based on unity with Christ not have the joy of Christ? How can a sinner that has truly had his sins removed from his soul (WCF sin brings misery and death) and now has eternal life in his soul not have the misery removed and given some degree of joy? Does God remove the misery of sin and just leave the soul in neutral or does He share His joy with His children?”
Could it be because saints are still schlubs? Could it be that we sin, doubt, still try to be God? Is there room in Edwards’ piety for people of little joy and love?
RS: You did not answer the questions at all. If sin leads to misery and God removes the sin and the misery and the Spirit of love and joy dwells in that soul, something has to change. The discussion, as I have been understanding it, is not that people have to have rapturous joy, but whether something has to change if Christ is in the soul. It started off with Phebe and her initial misery which you basically mocked and thought questioned Edwards’ intelligence and wisdom. I argued that what you read there was simply the Puritan way of evangelism. But I thought it had moved where people were basically arguing that virtually nothing had to happen and I have been arguing against that. Sure people can have differing amounts of love and joy, but there has to be something there.
D.G. Hart: BTW,whatever happened to faith, which looks outward, rather than a piety that examines to see if the believer has enough affection?
RS: Are you so sure faith has to look outward? Where is Christ right now? Sure He is at the right hand of the Father, but isn’t He also in all true believers? The question is not to see if one has enough affection, but whether one has Christ Himself.
Hebrews 3:14 For we have become partakers of Christ, if we hold fast the beginning of our assurance firm until the end,
Hebrews 6:4 For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit,
2 Peter 1:4 For by these He has granted to us His precious and magnificent promises, so that by them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world by lust.
RS: Believers are partakers of Christ, partakers of the Holy Spirit, and are partakers of the divine nature. They are new creatures in Christ and Christ is in them. Faith is not just looking way up in the heavens, it is beholding the glory of God in the face of Christ. What is a sign of a believer having Christ? Is it to look to himself to see if s/he has faith or if s/he has Christ? II Cor 13:5 says that we are to examine ourselves. What for? To see if Jesus Christ is in you. I think people should look in themselves rather than looking in outer space. It is biblical more to do that.
D.J. Hart: You’re not really helping your case. It’s all Edwards, all the time. And if you don’t hallow the man, then there is no where to go for comfort.
RS: How am I not helping my case? You made the post about Edwards and my argument is that Edwards’ position is more biblical than the opposing view. It is not about hallowing him, it is about hallowing the God that he preached and exalted.
Richard,
You seem to play with words. The soul acquires Christ through faith, a gift of God. Faith is the instrument by which the believer receives Christ and is saved.
Westminster Shorter Catechism:
Q. 86. What is faith in Jesus Christ?
A. Faith in Jesus Christ is a saving grace, whereby we receive and rest upon him alone for salvation, as he is offered to us in the gospel.
“The true reason why faith is given such an exclusive place by the New Testament, so far as the attainment of salvation is concerned, over against love and over against everything else in man…is that faith means receiving something, not doing something or even being something. To say, therefore, that our faith saves us means that we do not save ourselves even in slightest measure, but that God saves us.”
— J. Gresham Machen (What Is Faith?)
Old Post: RS: There is no justification apart from union with Christ, so it is not that union with Christ competes with justification. In fact, union with Christ makes justification possible.
McMark: In the sentence above, it seems assumed that “union” is not legal union, that “union” is not the “in Christ”, but rather “Christ in us”. And us is assumed to be “the inward man”.
RS: That is not assumed by me. In fact, union with Christ is a legal union but it is also one in which Christ is in the person and the person is in Christ. All spiritual blessings are given in Christ and yet Christ Himself is the very life of the believer.
McMark: If RS denies that this legal imputation is an “union”, or “one aspect of union”, then what we have are COMPETING definitions of the relationship between justification and “union”.
RS: God will not declare anyone just unless that person is legally one with Christ. The dual imputation of sin (believer’s sin to Christ and the righteousness of Christ to the believer) can only happen in a legal way and the way that happens is by a real union of Christ and the believer. These are not competting views at all.
Jack Miller: Richard, You wrote: RS: Yes, but where is the faith and evidences of faith? Were they ever catechized or nurtured in the covenant?
JM: Regarding my son-in-law, obviously… The evidence consist in the good works that do follow, not in the emotional response.
RS: Jack, this is not against your son-in-law, but is dealing with your position. If good works are an evidence of faith, then are all good works evidence of faith? The Pharisees did a lot of good works.
Jack Miller: Richard, You seem to play with words. The soul acquires Christ through faith, a gift of God. Faith is the instrument by which the believer receives Christ and is saved.
RS: I am not playing with words. though if it appears that I am I will try to stop. The word “by” has different meanings, and one is as you noted above is that faith is an instrument. But even that does not get at the whole issue. The evidence of true faith, then, is Christ Himself. What is the evidence that one has Christ Himself in the soul? Surely something in the soul changes if Christ is there. The soul will have the loves, desires, and joys of Christ rather than the loves, desires, and joys of the world.
JM: Westminster Shorter Catechism:
Q. 86. What is faith in Jesus Christ?
A. Faith in Jesus Christ is a saving grace, whereby we receive and rest upon him alone for salvation, as he is offered to us in the gospel.
RS: Yes, but then again there are all those false types of faith. Believing that the facts are true is a historical faith. Notice again, however, that according to the WSC faith itself is a saving grace and that true faith will receive Christ alone. Christ Himself is received by grace through faith.
JM: “The true reason why faith is given such an exclusive place by the New Testament, so far as the attainment of salvation is concerned, over against love and over against everything else in man…is that faith means receiving something, not doing something or even being something. To say, therefore, that our faith saves us means that we do not save ourselves even in slightest measure, but that God saves us.”
— J. Gresham Machen (What Is Faith?)
RS: We need to go one step more, however. The true reason that God saves sinners apart from anything they are and anything the can do is to the praise of the glory of His grace. So what is the evidence of that grace in the soul of human beings? If God delights in Himself and His own glory above all things, then wouldn’t an evidence of that grace in the soul and of Christ in the soul be that the soul would have some joy or perhaps delight in the glory of God?
D.G. Hart: BTW,whatever happened to faith, which looks outward, rather than a piety that examines to see if the believer has enough affection?
Rom 14:17 for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.
Romans 5:1 Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, 2 through whom also we have obtained our introduction by faith into this grace in which we stand; and we exult in hope of the glory of God. 3 And not only this, but we also exult in our tribulations, knowing that tribulation brings about perseverance; 4 and perseverance, proven character; and proven character, hope; 5 and hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out within our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us.
Romans 15:13 Now may the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, so that you will abound in hope by the power of the Holy Spirit.
Philippians 4:4 Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, rejoice!
Col 1:11 strengthened with all power, according to His glorious might, for the attaining of all steadfastness and patience; joyously 12 giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified us to share in the inheritance of the saints in Light.
1 Peter 1:8 and though you have not seen Him, you love Him, and though you do not see Him now, but believe in Him, you greatly rejoice with joy inexpressible and full of glory,
But Darryl an excesss of emphasis on emotion is not best countered by a denial of emotion. To be sure the stress in Titus is not on emotion but elsewhere emotion is mentioned. It is a case of holding the whole counsel of God on this matter as all else.
Jack… good… I like the use of Scripture… only I don’t think the Scriptures quoted say anything about whether children are elect or not. But as my instincts are with you on this I don’t have the heart to argue the point. I merely comment it is mostly conjecture. There is little revelation on this matter.
‘D.G. Hart: BTW,whatever happened to faith, which looks outward, rather than a piety that examines to see if the believer has enough affection?
Darryl, The problem here is the straw man you employ. Firsly, looking outward and inward are not mutually exclusive. At times one is called for and at times the other. Few today would call for a piety that is absorbed by self-examination. I certainly wouldn’t. I would argue that ‘looking out’ is the normal and proper way of piety. I would say this very looking out is what creates the emotional, moral and intellectual responses that are part of the life of faith.
RS repeats himself, and I will try not to do that.
Old Post: RS: There is no justification apart from union with Christ, so it is not that union with Christ competes with justification. In fact, union with Christ makes justification possible. McMark: In the sentence above, it seems assumed that “union” is not legal union, that “union” is not the “in Christ”, but rather “Christ in us”. And us is assumed to be “the inward man”.
RS: That is not assumed by me. In fact, union with Christ is a legal union but it is also one in which Christ is in the person and the person is in Christ
mcmark: The bare assertion is not convincing. The “but it is also” is evidence that RS, despite the formal nod to legal imputation, continues to assume that “Christ in the inward man” is the “real” union. An person being IN CHRIST is either by election or by legal justification, and not by the indwelling.
RS: All spiritual blessings are given in Christ and yet Christ Himself is the very life of the believer.
mark: Notice the “yet”. Nobody is saying that one excludes the other. The question is priority. And RS assumes that imputation is conditioned on the “real union”
RS: God will not declare anyone just unless that person is legally one with Christ. The dual imputation of sin (believer’s sin to Christ and the righteousness of Christ to the believer) can only happen in a legal way and the way that happens is by a real union of Christ and the believer. These are not competting views at all.
mcmark: This is a typical two step. First, it is agreed that the indwelling and faith is a logical part of the “union”, but second that formal agreement is soon forgotten so that the work of the Spirit in the elect sinner becomes the prerequisite for imputation.
I want to offer a bit of “subjective evidence”. I myself experienced a “real”, sincere conversion to the false Arminian gospel when I was 12 years old. I went three days and three nights without sleep or food, because I was a very serious and sincere person convinced that Christ’s death for all sinners depended on the sinner to make it work, and that I had to make a decision. After three days, the decision was emotional, cathartic. Now I had signed the check and so “jesus” would save me, and my faith I did not consider a work, but I knew that my faith was the difference between saved and lost.
About 12 years, when I was 45 years, I learned what the true gospel was. I learned that God had either already imputed the sins of a sinner to Christ or not. I learned that Christ’s death saves the elect. Over a process of time, I came to repent of my idolatry. I grew to become ashamed of the things I once gloried in. I never gloried in my immorality. I never thought my immorality recommended me to God’s favor. But from the time I was 12 I had gloried in my “conversion”.
In analogy to Paul’s testimony in Philippians 3, I learned to “flush” my old emotional conversion. I don’t try to reform it, redeem it, explain, re-narrate it, polish it. I count it as nothing. I count it as dung. Surely my repentance from Arminianism has not been without emotion. It cannot be dismissed as “mere assent”. But God’s effectual calling always has its object the true gospel and effects a turning away from the false gospel.
My story doesn’t prove anything. I don’t think anybody on this list is saying that “conversion” to a Mormon gospel or a Roman Catholic gospel results in eternal life. Rather the question assumes a true gospel, and then asks about the emotional effects. But the “what gospel” can never be escaped. If we tell our children that they are already in the new covenant, that’s one thing, and if we tell them they are already in the church, that’s another thing, But if we tell them a false gospel conditioned on the sinner, and promise them that they will be saved if they believe it, then we have not told the truth and we have not given the glory to the God revealed in the Scriptures.
The true good news is not first of all about what happens in my heart to cause me to be believe the true good news. Even though Christ indwells the justified elect, they do not look inside themselves for the righteousness. THIS IS AN EITHER OR. They look for a righteousness that is in heaven, they look for the righteousness which is the merit (value) of Christ’s work outside them. They look to Christ’s death and resurrection.
If I look inside, despair. If you tell me to look both out and inside, despair. If you tell those who look out to look in, and those who look in to look out, despair. Assurance is found in Christ’s finished work.
ok, I knew I shouldn’t be writing this early in the morning!
I wrote: “First, it is agreed that the indwelling and faith is a logical part of the “union”, but second that formal agreement is soon forgotten so that the work of the Spirit in the elect sinner becomes the prerequisite for imputation.”
I should have written: “first it is agreed that election and imputation are logical aspects of the “union” but….
Perhaps some will think that I have unwittingly revealed the truth about myself–that I mcmark only give formal assent to indwelling and faith. But let me remind you that I do NOT think faith is merely a recognition of an already pre-existing state. I deny that we are born justified. When I learned to understand and believe the gospel, it was not as a person who already had the righteousness but as a person who needed the righteousness! I deny that there can be any justification apart from faith in the true gospel.
Richard – you say that kids brought up in a covenantal and nurturing context can be duped. And kids brought up in a conversionist and revivalist context can’t? ! I walked the freakin aisle 5 or 6 times add a kid into adulthood. This stuff drives people insane and it doesn’t square with how the Bible presents our kids.
RS, you’re not helping because you can’t admit that believers have flaws, or that Edwards has flaws. So perhaps the links between Edwards and Finney’s perfectionism are not so thin.
From you I get no relief. Is Christ in your heart? I answer, yes, but sometimes it does feel like it. Sorry, at that point I’d turn someone to look to Christ.
BTW, as for change in the converts lives, little Phebe was not all that bad a person before she went through the agony of conversion. She was going to church, obeying her parents, and learning the catechism. You want that to change?
RS, so do I have to be joyful to be saved? (Do you were a happy face on your lapel?) Are not there other fruit of the Spirit? And is not faith in Jesus Christ and repentance what one must do to be saved? Yes, joy will follow, as will good works. But other stuff also follows and that’s why faith points us back to Christ. If we were constantly looking to see if we were joyful or good, we (or at least I) would be up a creek.
John T., but with Edwardseans, the emphasis is all on emotion and internal inspection. See Richard’s unrelenting defense of Edwards. I am actually trying to bring balance. And what do I get for my trouble? I’m extreme. Huh?
If the Edwardseans could pot it down, and if evangelicals had not turned JE into a sacred cow, then no reason for critique would exist.
Like Fox News, we’re fair and balance all the time.
DJ and McMark, as much as I don’t like emotion or personal feelings, I do think it is important for Edwards defenders to hear other “conversion” narratives. And these raise the question of why Phebe’s narrative is any more compelling than yours. The answer appears to be that yours aren’t as important because Edwards didn’t write about them. Of course, being only a man (I’m hoping Richard will not disagree), he could not write about 21st century believers. But why didn’t he try to understand people who were godly and did not convert because they grew up in the faith? Richard might say it’s because Edwards was only doing what Puritans had been doing in their requirements for conversion and preparation. Great. Then let’s also get rid of that little black hole of Puritanism.
This is an onion and the more you peel the layers, the more you weep.
Most of the obvious immorality in my life was after the experience as a twelve year old. And now? It seems that I am not yet a “better person”…. But if dgh were to write about my conversion from my conversion, my de-conversion from “evangelicalism”, would not Hart’s celebrity status make my little narrative a bit more weighty?
The irony of a choice against my choosing is not lost on me. But neither is the idea that we have but no choice but to choose. Not all “conversions” are to (and from) the damnable doctrines of Arminianism, but to my shame I confess that I was flattered enough by puritan legalism to become even more self-righteous after I became a “Calvinist” who never needed to repent of “evangelicalism”
That stuff about imputation and election, well it was only the extra, the cherry on top of my ice cream sundae experiences. “Becoming a Calvinist” was like having a “second work”, an exciting “more” added on to my other s—-.
I flushed. I flush.
Phil 3:8–”I am counting them as rubbish to gain Christ and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness.”
Romans 6:17—”You have become obedient from the heart to the standard of doctrine to which you were handed over, and having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness…
Romans 6:21–”But what fruit were you getting at that time from the things of which you are now ashamed”.
JT,
wrote: Jack… good… I like the use of Scripture… only I don’t think the Scriptures quoted say anything about whether children are elect or not. But as my instincts are with you on this I don’t have the heart to argue the point. I merely comment it is mostly conjecture. There is little revelation on this matter.
John, the issue is the mystery of God’s election, not about children. We don’t know all the whys and hows, but Scripture does affirm certain things.
I’ll leave you with this: Are you a believer who truly trusts in Christ for your salvation? You answer, Yes! Therefore you would agree that God chose you in Christ (election) before the foundation of the world? Yes! That occurred before you were born, right? Right. Were you ever an infant? Of course. As an infant were you one of God’s elect? It must be so… Is God’s purpose of election sure?… His gifts and callings irrevocable? Yes If you had died as an infant, would God’s sure election (foreordained in Christ) have held and would He still bring you to salvation as He purposed eons before? Or would you not be saved because you missed out on a moment in time of a conversion experience?
Romans 9:
11 for the children being not yet born, neither having done anything good or bad, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth,
12 it was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
13 Even as it is written, Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.
14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.
16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that hath mercy.
23 and that he might make known the riches of his glory upon vessels of mercy, which he afore prepared unto glory…
Our trust for salvation is wholly in God’s certain purposes and mercy freely (He needs nothing from us) poured out upon his people. We are mere recipients of His gratuitous grace.
Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition…
mcmark: The bare assertion is not convincing. The “but it is also” is evidence that RS, despite the formal nod to legal imputation, continues to assume that “Christ in the inward man” is the “real” union. An person being IN CHRIST is either by election or by legal justification, and not by the indwelling.
mark: Notice the “yet”. Nobody is saying that one excludes the other. The question is priority. And RS assumes that imputation is conditioned on the “real union”
RS: It is true that I belive that imputation cannot happen apart from a real union with Christ. I don’t assume a legal union apart from a real union. I believe that when God declares a sinner righteous in His eyes that sinner is really and truly righteous because of Christ. When the soul is regenerated by grace alone that creates a believing soul, yet what is a believing soul that is not receiving Christ? The legal declaration is not a legal fiction (as Roman Catholicism claims) because it is not fiction but is based on the real and perfect imputation of the righteousness of Christ which is given to all sinners who are married to Christ.
McMark: My story doesn’t prove anything. I don’t think anybody on this list is saying that “conversion” to a Mormon gospel or a Roman Catholic gospel results in eternal life. Rather the question assumes a true gospel, and then asks about the emotional effects. But the “what gospel” can never be escaped. If we tell our children that they are already in the new covenant, that’s one thing, and if we tell them they are already in the church, that’s another thing, But if we tell them a false gospel conditioned on the sinner, and promise them that they will be saved if they believe it, then we have not told the truth and we have not given the glory to the God revealed in the Scriptures.
RS: Part of the true Gospel, however, is the kingdom of God. Where does God reign and rule? In the hearts of His people. Colossians 1 gives us part of this picture: “25 Of this church I was made a minister according to the stewardship from God bestowed on me for your benefit, so that I might fully carry out the preaching of the word of God, 26 that is, the mystery which has been hidden from the past ages and generations, but has now been manifested to His saints, 27 to whom God willed to make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.”
The great mystery that was hidden for so long is a major part of the Gospel which Paul was to preach. This mystery and the riches of the glory of this mystery is Christ in you, the hope of glory. It is not that there is a Gospel and then there is Christ in you, this is part and parcel of the good news. This is the kingdom of God in His people after they have been delivered from the dominion of darkness.
mcmark: The true good news is not first of all about what happens in my heart to cause me to be believe the true good news.
RS: So Jesus was wrong when He told Nicodemus that he must be born from above to see or enter the kingdom? It is not good news that God gives faith by grace? It is not good news that regeneration of dead sinners is by grace alone and that I don’t have to work up this faith by myself?
mcmark: Even though Christ indwells the justified elect, they do not look inside themselves for the righteousness.
RS: But Christ dwells in them and they live in Him.
mcmark: THIS IS AN EITHER OR. They look for a righteousness that is in heaven, they look for the righteousness which is the merit (value) of Christ’s work outside them.
RS: Where is heaven that we are to look to? God is everywhere and He is especially in the hearts of His people. Sure enough Christ earned the perfect righteousness outside of the sinner, but how does the sinner become united to Christ in order for that righteousness to be legally his? It is not based on fiction, but on truth and reality. When Christ is united to the soul that soul is really and truly in unity with Christ (marriage) and the sinner and Christ are really and truly (as well as legally) one. God legally declares the sinner righteous because the sinner is married to Christ and all the righteousness of Christ is imputed to the sinner.
Romans 8:10 If Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, yet the spirit is alive because of righteousness.
1 Corinthians 1:30 But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption,
mcmark: They look to Christ’s death and resurrection.
RS: But why was Christ resurrected? While there are many reasons, at least one of them is so that the living Christ could be the very life of His people.
mcmark: If I look inside, despair. If you tell me to look both out and inside, despair. If you tell those who look out to look in, and those who look in to look out, despair. Assurance is found in Christ’s finished work.
RS: But the work of Christ is applied by the Holy Spirit. Assurance is found, according to Scripture, by examining yourself to see if Christ is in you II Cor 13:5. We are told how assurance is found in several places in I John as well. But notice how it all refers to the God who abides in you.
I Jn 3: 9 No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
3:15 Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer; and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.
16 We know love by this, that He laid down His life for us; and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.
17 But whoever has the world’s goods, and sees his brother in need and closes his heart against him, how does the love of God abide in him?
4:12 No one has seen God at any time; if we love one another, God abides in us, and His love is perfected in us. 13 By this we know that we abide in Him and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit.
14 We have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son to be the Savior of the world.
15 Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God.
16 We have come to know and have believed the love which God has for us. God is love, and the one who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him.
DJ cimino: Richard – you say that kids brought up in a covenantal and nurturing context can be duped. And kids brought up in a conversionist and revivalist context can’t? ! I walked the freakin aisle 5 or 6 times add a kid into adulthood. This stuff drives people insane and it doesn’t square with how the Bible presents our kids.
RS: Yes, people brought up in the hyper-conversionist context can certainly be duped. The Bible says that all are born dead in sin and by nature are children of wrath. The Bible says that all must be regenerated and born again. Walking the aisle is almost always (if not always) a denial of that, but the covenantal and nurturing context can be as well.
D. G. Hart: RS, you’re not helping because you can’t admit that believers have flaws, or that Edwards has flaws. So perhaps the links between Edwards and Finney’s perfectionism are not so thin.
RS: I have not denied that every single individual that has ever been born (including Edwards) or will ever be born other than Christ will have flaws. What is thin is your effort to tie Edwards who believed in total depravity with Finney who denied original sin.
D. G. Hart:From you I get no relief. Is Christ in your heart? I answer, yes, but sometimes it does feel like it. Sorry, at that point I’d turn someone to look to Christ.
RS: But Scripture specifically and clearly tells people to examine themselves to see if Christ is in them (II Cor 13:5). How are you going to have them see Christ? Where will you tell them to look? It is more than just feelings, but it is also more than just an intellectual look.
D. G. Hart: BTW, as for change in the converts lives, little Phebe was not all that bad a person before she went through the agony of conversion. She was going to church, obeying her parents, and learning the catechism. You want that to change?
RS: As the Scripture so clearly teaches, anyone can do all of those things without love for God in the soul. Apart from love for God, the best things that a person does is wicked and enmity against God. The Pharisees went to chruch and obeyed their parents. The Pharisees memorized large portions of the Bible, but none of that saved them. As Jesus told Nicodemus, “you must be born from above.” Yes, I would want her heart to be changed.
D. G. Hart: RS, so do I have to be joyful to be saved? (Do you were a happy face on your lapel?)
RS: Does one have to be saved from the misery of sin to be saved from sin? The issue is not what one wears on the lapel, but what one has in the heart.
D. G. Hart: Are not there other fruit of the Spirit?
RS: No, there is only one fruit, or at least that is what the grammar of Galatians 5:22 indicates. The nine things that follow are simply descriptions of what the fruit of the Spirit is. “The fruit of the Spirit” is singular. In other words, for one to have one then one must have them all to some degree.
D. G. Hart: And is not faith in Jesus Christ and repentance what one must do to be saved?
RS: One must have faith in Christ and there must be repentance, yes. But true faith works by love and there is no love without some degree of joy. There is nothing that a person can do apart from love that is truly Christian. In fact, true repentance is being turned from self-love and self-centeredness to the love of God and God-centeredness.
D. G. Hart: Yes, joy will follow, as will good works. But other stuff also follows and that’s why faith points us back to Christ. If we were constantly looking to see if we were joyful or good, we (or at least I) would be up a creek.
RS: But I continue to argue that we must always look to Christ. The question, however, is how one looks for Christ and how does one see Christ. We are not to look to idols or images of a physical form, so we must be looking for Him in another way. Scripture tells us to examine ourselves to see if Christ is in us (II Cor 13:5) and we are told that the way we can know we are saved is if the love of God abides in us (I John). So how are you going to direct people to look to Christ if not as the Bible teaches which is to look inside of ourselves to see if He is there exerting His life and power? So what do you mean when you tell people to look to Christ?
D. G. Hart: John T., but with Edwardseans, the emphasis is all on emotion and internal inspection. See Richard’s unrelenting defense of Edwards. I am actually trying to bring balance. And what do I get for my trouble? I’m extreme. Huh?
RS: But you are not bringing balance at all, and yes your position is extreme. The emphasis of this Edwardsean is not an emphasis on some kind of emotion, but that there must be the life of Christ in the soul which is the temple of the Holy Spirit and that this can be understood and known. This started over your criticism of Edwards over the Phebe Bartlet case. Your statement on that was not balanced at all. I would also say that I am not some much defending Edwards as the biblical position of the vital importance of the indwelling of Christ.
D. G. Hart: If the Edwardseans could pot it down, and if evangelicals had not turned JE into a sacred cow, then no reason for critique would exist.
RS: Edwards is no sacred cow.
D. G. Hart: Like Fox News, we’re fair and balance all the time.
RS: Maybe most of the time, but not with Edwards, Phebe Bartlet, and the necessity of Christ dwelling in the soul.
One Trackback