May we have a little clarity on the nature of regeneration, puh-leeze? Sorry to pick on the neo-Calvinists again, but a common construction of regeneration among those who stress the antithesis is to attribute to the supernatural work of the Spirit the intellectual genius of believers. This interpretation is strongest among the neo-Calvinists who are philosophically inclined. Because they can unearth the epistemological roots of an idea or argument, and because they operate in what at times seems like a Manichean universe divided between the knowers (of Christ) and the ignorant, these neo-Calvinist philosophers believe they hold the keys to discerning the work of the Spirit. Regeneration removes the noetic effects of the fall and now allows Christians to interpret reality correctly, and even see the philosophical basis for all things.
Never mind that the arguments for Christian schools contradict this understanding of regeneration. If regeneration does produce a new w-w, then why is education necessary? Shouldn’t the regenerate already have the tools, by virtue of the illuminating power of the Spirit, to understand all things correctly? But if covenant children and the w-w challenged need to appropriate the value added material that comes from the w-w cognoscenti, then is the Spirit’s work in regeneration really responsible for a new outlook on the world? Or could it be that a w-w is much more the product of human instruction about the fundamental truths of epistemology and metaphysics, or Christian teachers who give a faith-based reading of the arts and sciences?
Another wrinkle here, by the way, is the folly that apparently afflicts believers not only about the world but also about the faith. Remember that Paul call the Galatians and Corinthians foolish even while considering these folks to be saints, that is, people who had experienced the work of the Spirit in regeneration. Also, consider that a w-w does very little justice to catechesis. In fact, in communions where w-w has expanded, catechesis has generally declined. At the same time, regeneration is no solution to the hard work of memorizing a three-figure set of doctrinal answers. It takes time, discipline, and memory.
So what we need is clarity about the noetic effects of regeneration. And we also need to distinguish among those effects, the native intelligence of persons that comes providentially from genes, family environments, and temperament, and academic proficiency in a particular area of human investigation. Clarity may start with a reminder about the nature of the spiritual illumination in regeneration. According to the Shorter Catechism:
Effectual calling is the work of God’s Spirit, whereby, convincing us of our sin and misery, enlightening our minds in the knowledge of Christ, and renewing our wills, he doth persuade and enable us to embrace Jesus Christ, freely offered to us in the gospel. (WSC 31)
. . . when God carries out this good pleasure in his chosen ones, or works true conversion in them, he not only sees to it that the gospel is proclaimed to them outwardly, and enlightens their minds powerfully by the Holy Spirit so that they may rightly understand and discern the things of the Spirit of God, but, by the effective operation of the same regenerating Spirit, he also penetrates into the inmost being of man, opens the closed heart, softens the hard heart, and circumcises the heart that is uncircumcised. He infuses new qualities into the will, making the dead will alive, the evil one good, the unwilling one willing, and the stubborn one compliant; he activates and strengthens the will so that, like a good tree, it may be enabled to produce the fruits of good deeds. (Dort III/IV, 11)
What sure seems clear to me is that regeneration has a narrow effect — it allows a person who had no interest in Christ to understand his need and to trust the work of Christ. It is a kind of knowledge, but it is not even necessarily knowledge of well-formulated doctrine. At the same time, regeneration does nothing to take someone from a low to a high IQ. Nor does regeneration place someone all of a sudden as a graduate of a Masters-level curriculum in western philosophy. Regeneration removes the noetic effects of sin. It does not change the brain or a person’s mastery of a body of thought.
At the same time, neo-Calvinists enraptured by western philosophy may want to remember what Calvin and Kuyper, Mr. Paleo- and Mr. Neo-Calvinist, had to say about the learning of pagans.
If we regard the Spirit of God as the sole fountain of truth, we shall neither reject the truth itself, nor despise it wherever it shall appear, unless we wish to dishonor the Spirit of God. For by holding the gifts of the Spirit in slight esteem, we contemn and reproach the Spirit himself. What then? Shall we deny that the truth shone upon the ancient jurists who established civic order and discipline with such great equity? Shall we say that the philosophers were blind in their fine observation and artful description of nature? Shall we say that those men were devoid of understanding who conceived the art of disputation and taught us to speak reasonably? Shall we say that they are insane who developed medicine, devoting their labor to our benefit? What shall we say of the mathematical sciences? Shall we consider them the ravings of madmen? No, we cannot read the writings of the ancients on these subjects without great admiration. We marvel at them because we are compelled to recognize how preeminent they are. But shall we count anything praiseworthy or noble without recognizing at the same time that it comes from God? Let us be ashamed of such ingratitude, into which not even the pagan poets fell, for they confessed that the gods had invented philosophy, laws, and all useful arts. Those men whom Scripture [I Cor. 2:14] calls “natural men” were, indeed, sharp and penetrating in their investigation of inferior things. Let us, accordingly, learn by their example how many gifts the Lord left to human nature even after it was despoiled of its true good. (Institutes II.2.15)
. . . the unbelieving world excels in many things. Precious treasures have come down to us from the old heathen civilization. In Plato you find pages which you devour. Cicero fascinates you and bears you along by his noble tone and stirs up in you holy sentiments. And if you consider your own surroundings, that which is reported to you, and that which you derive from the studies and literary productions of professed infidels, how much more there is which attracts you, with which you sympathize and which you admire. It is not exclusively the spark of genius or the splendor of talent which excites your pleasure in the words and actions of unbelievers, but it is often their beauty of character, their zeal, their devotion, their love, their candor, their faithfulness and their sense of honesty. Yea, we may not pass it over in silence, not infrequently you entertain the desire that certain believers might have more of the attractiveness, and who among us has not himself been put to the blush occasionally by being confronted with what is called the “virtues of the heathen”? (Lectures on Calvinism, 121ff)
What is important is that Calvin does attribute to the Spirit the knowledge that pagans possess. Truth, wisdom, and intelligence do not exist independent from God. At the same time, the wisdom of pagans is spiritual work that does not include regeneration. It is in effect another iteration of the doubleness that 2K tries to maintain. In the same way that Christ rules the work of redemption differently from the order of his creation, so too the Spirit works upon the minds of people differently, with the illumination of regeneration providing a knowledge distinct from understanding politics, the liberal arts, or even neo-Calvinists’ beloved philosophy.
So once again, neo-Calvinism’s failure to follow Kuyper and figure out how to affirm a common realm that exists somewhere between the holy and the profane bites them in their argumentative backsides. Without that common realm, believers — whether fundamentalist or neo-Calvinist — will try to baptize everything and turn all truth and wisdom into the blessings of redemption and special grace.
511 Comments
mark mcculley: So we are “united” to Christ LIKE the human nature is united to divine nature in Christ’s person? Where does the Confession say that? Where does the Bible say that? In what way would the union of two natures be LIKE the union of two persons?
Nobody was talking about how the two natures of Christ unite. But what other people were talking about never stopped RS yet….
RS: Perhaps you would note that we are human beings with human natures and we must be united to the Divine if we are to be saved. I would think that the unity of the two natures in the one Divine Person would certainly give some insight. Others have sure seemed to note how these things are related.
McCormack: Sanctification of the mind results in the “divine image” which consists of true knowledge of God….The Holy Spirit is very concerned with what people think (Phil 4:8, Col 3:2). The power of the Father’s declarative word is the Holy Spirit’s illumination of the human mind.”
RS: I have given several verses below. Over and over again we are told that we are the temple and the dwelling place of God. In the OT there was the tabernacle and the Temple. In the Gospels Christ was where God tabernacled. Now, the Church (the body of Christ) is the dwelling place of God and where He shines forth His glory. As in the OT tabernacle there had to be a sacrifice with blood on the mercy seat and the goat had to be led away for God to come and fill His place with glory (see Exodus 40), so now souls have to have their sins propitiated (mercy seat) by the blood of the Lamb of God and be declared just because of the imputed righteousness of Christ so that God may come in to dwell in His temple. God does not dwell in the outer places, but in the inner places which had to be washed and cleaned. He resides in glory in His dwelling place. As such, the believer is the temple of the living God. It is not just something that happens in someones mind, but it really happens.
I Cor 2:10 For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God.
11 For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God.
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God,
13 which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words.
14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.
15 But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one.
16 For WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD, THAT HE WILL INSTRUCT HIM? But we have the mind of Christ.
1 Corinthians 3:16 Do you not know that you are a temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?
1 Corinthians 6:19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own?
2 Corinthians 6:16 Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; just as God said, “I WILL DWELL IN THEM AND WALK AMONG THEM; AND I WILL BE THEIR GOD, AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE.
Romans 8:9 However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him.
Romans 8:11 But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you.
Ephesians 3:17 so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith; and that you, being rooted and grounded in love,
2 Timothy 1:14 Guard, through the Holy Spirit who dwells in us, the treasure which has been entrusted to you.
1 John 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.
1 John 4:15 Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God.
mark mcculley: Bruce Mccormack, p109, What’s at stake in current debates over Justification?
mccormack: “At first glance, the image of the vine and the branches (John 15) might be seen to connote an organic connection between Christ and the believer. Some in the early church thought of the union as an “ontological person in whom being is mixed with non-being”. On that view, why would the Holy Spirit still be needed—once the Spirit had joined our humanity to Christ’s, the life that is in Christ would flow directly.
RS: Mark, would you agree with the Bible on what true religion/Christianity is?
James 1:26 If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless. 27 Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.
Notice that James does not mention justification at this point, but he speaks of true religion in the sight of our god and Father. Since justification by grace alone through faith alone is the Gospel, which I think James goes on to address in chapter 2, the practice of true religion is at least connected with the truth of justification. Three main points of true religion is given in the text: 1) A man’s religion is worthless if he does not bridle his tongue. 2) Visititing orphans and widows in their distress. 3) Keeping oneself unstained by the world.
True justification is to be legally declared just or righteous by God on the basis of the life, cross, resurrection, and the imputed righteousness of Christ alone. But according to James there is a true religion that follows that or flows from that. As James says in chapter 2, “what good is it, my brothers, if someone says that he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?” A few verses later on he goes on: “17 Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself.
18 But someone may well say, “You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works.”
19 You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder.
20 But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless?”
RS: A soul that is justified is a soul that will love holiness and pursue it. It does not justify one and it adds nothing to the work of Christ, but it demonstrates that the work of Christ has taken place in that soul.
Zrim,
Why would you allow the secular humanist worldview to dominate public schools? It is antithetical to the Christian worldview. I am used to debating this with atheists. It’s weird to have the same debate with a Reformed Christian. That’s why 2k always leaves me scratching my head. . . .
Zrim;
“I’m sure I could cite plenty of sensationalistic stories about home schools or Xian schools (or any school) to suggest how misguided those choices can be”
Sean; How about just the offense given from a fashion perspective; I got the vision forum homeschoolers down the road and the unofficial/official uniforms are boys in knickers with knee socks and patent leather shoes, there’s probably a brass buckle somewhere on the shoe, and women in floor-length khaki skirts, and blouses with lace bibs. Apparently, the female’s uniform doubles as the work out attire, just add tennis shoes(white ones). I’m offended daily.
RS keeps talking about what’s in his “soul”. But none of them there verses in his post above ever talk about “souls”. I guess he needs a different Bible translation, where the words “in” or “indwell” always add the word “soul”.
Genesis 2:7 “then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature. ”
Now that’s certainly not going to work. That would give us the impression that living souls are persons, and we know that a “soul” is more than that.
Hint: when we say “more than that”, what we mean is “not that”.
More than imputation….
More than sanctification by the blood of Christ….
More then either being born by the Spirit or not…..
“More than that” means “I don’t deny that BUT some other thing is more real”.
And sometimes “fuller gospel” is false gospel.
The ancient Roman Catholic church has more—not only impartation but also infusion….
Jon, how can I disallow something over which I have no control? But you say “secular” and “humanist” as if those are naughty words, contra old school Protestantism. And debating this topic with Reformed Christians is as head scratching for me as debating with Fundies about substance use and worldly amusement. Legalism, whether soft or hard, sure is confusing.
Sean, my oldest will have a dress code in her new college prep public charter next year. She’s daily offended by this, but maybe I should tell her just how bad it could be: blue collared tops and khaki bottom sure beat Pollyanna polyesters.
c Rom. 6:6,14.
Is the dominion of sin eliminated by the work of the Spirit or because we are not under the law? Or both? What does Romans 6:14 say? How was the dominion of sin over Christ eliminated? Was it by gradual infusions or by His death? How did Christ “die to sin” and become “free from sin” in Romans 6?
10 For the death Christ died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God. 11 So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God IN Christ Jesus.
12 Let not sin therefore reign IN YOUR MORTAL BODY, to make you obey its passions. 13 Do not present your members to sin as instruments for unrighteousness, but present yourselves to God as those who HAVE BEEN BROUGHT FROM DEATH TO LIFE, and your members to God as instruments for righteousness. 14 For sin will have no dominion over you, since you ARE NOT under law but under grace. 15 What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! 16 Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness?
17 But thanks be to God, that you who WERE ONCE slaves of sin HAVE BECOME obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, 18 and, HAVING BEEN set free from sin, HAVE BECOME slaves of righteousness.
Zrim,
I share your daughter’s sensibilities on the issue, but at least she can look forward to a day of ‘graduating’ from such attire, the girls uniform apparently carries on into adulthood. I think the boys are probably beaten into sensibility shortly after leaving the house, and immediately start growing beards(if capable) and flaunting their ‘freedom’ in Christ(Taxes! I don’t pay no stinkin’ taxes) as they plot to inherit what the unregenerate have ‘illegitimately’ acquired.
The Vision Forum girl’s uniform carries on into adulthood, is how that’s meant.
Jon, also, here’s some more love and favor for you: you’re expressing the larger balance of the P&R world’s views, even many 2kers who may eschew worldviewism when it comes to just about any other facet of creation, but when it comes to education all of a sudden turn into neo-Calvinists.
Sean, all I know is that the dress code will save me money. Remember, in addition to being lazy, I’m also cheap.
Zrim,
Also, with all due respect, you have atheistic educational principles. You kinda suck. The blog’s startin’ to spin real fast…cuz of ….cuz of all your atheism..ism.
mark mcculley: RS keeps talking about what’s in his “soul”. But none of them there verses in his post above ever talk about “souls”. I guess he needs a different Bible translation, where the words “in” or “indwell” always add the word “soul”.
RS: But of course that is a common word for referring to man as a whole (both material and immaterial) or sometimes just the immaterial.
McMark: Genesis 2:7 “then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature. ”
RS: You might want to look at that again. In the KJV it is “man became a living soul.” The word is nephesh which means soul or living being, but of course human beings as living souls are living beings.
McMark: Now that’s certainly not going to work. That would give us the impression that living souls are persons, and we know that a “soul” is more than that.
RS: In terms of human beings, it is hard to be a person and not have a soul and it is hard to have a soul and not be a person.
McMark: Hint: when we say “more than that”, what we mean is “not that”.
More than imputation….
RS: But the Gospel is more than imputation, though it certainly includes that.
McMark: More than sanctification by the blood of Christ….
RS: Sanctification certainly includes that, but it has to do with more than those words.
McMark: More then either being born by the Spirit or not…..
RS: Of course the Gospel includes that, but it is certainly more than that.
McMark: “More than that” means “I don’t deny that BUT some other thing is more real”.
And sometimes “fuller gospel” is false gospel.
RS: And sometimes lesser gospel is a false gospel as well. We must let the Bible speak as to the wholeness of the Gospel rather than theologians that want to have a gospel that fits their systems. This is not an attempt to knock on all theologians or systematic theologies, but simply to note that one can try to condense the biblical teaching of the Gospel down more than that Bible does.
McMark: The ancient Roman Catholic church has more—not only impartation but also infusion…
RS: Indeed, but Roman Catholicism places infusion as part of justification. Reformed theologians of the past have placed infusion in sanctification. The differences are huge, like the difference between a false gospel and the true Gospel.
sean,
I’m surprised Darryl allows trolls in here. Do you have anything useful to add?
I am amazed that you are mocking sisters in Christ who are just trying to be modest. Yes, I think some homeschooler’s clothes can be outdated, but I respect what they are trying to do. It’s infinitely better than the utterly immodest dress that is so popular today. But here I am dignifying your vitriol with a reply. All you do is mock and sneer. Shame on you.
Zrim,
I do admire that you are taking a very unpopular position, and holding to it on principle. I don’t know what else you want me to do though. I can’t make myself agree with your principles. Yes, you may be the 5% that is in public schools for principled reasons, but it doesn’t mean I have to agree with those reasons. Call it legalism, but I can’t think of a single good reason to put one’s kids in the government schools (unless it’s a single mom who has no other options. Even then, she should ask her church for help.)
Jon, thanks. The point of Christian liberty is not to agree on matters indifferent. It’s to allow another his convictions or principles that lead him to zig when you zag without suggesting anything uncharitable or impious. I have to say, though, when worldviewism is as embraced as it is, that liberty on education is a matter indifferent seems virtually impossible. Again, I know you don’t care for the analogy, but when personal holiness is the starting point, it seems impossible to think of substance use and worldly amusement as a matter indifferent. I know neither P&R nor Fundamentalists care for the suggestion of legalism, but so long as either worldview and personal holiness are in overdrive, I don’t see any way to avoid the ditches.
The verses RS cited referenced us as temples and our bodies, but not something in us called “souls”. But that doesn’t keep him from claiming that “souls” are our immaterial stuff.
As for nephesh….
Genesis 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving nephesh/soul that has life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
1:21 And God created great whales, and every living nephesh/soul that moves, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living nephesh/soul after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
1:30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to everything that creeps upon the earth, in which there is living nephesh/soul, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living nephesh/soul
2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them: and whatever Adam called every living nephesh/soul, that was the name of it.
9:5 And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man’s brother will I require the nephesh/soul of man.
9:10 And with every living nephesh/soul that is with you, of the fowl, of the cattle, and of every beast of the earth with you; from all that go out of the ark, to every beast of the earth.
9:12 And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living nephesh/soul that is with you, for perpetual generations:
9:15 And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living nephesh/soul of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh.
9:16 And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living nephesh/soul of all flesh that is upon the earth.
14:21 And the king of Sodom said to Abram, Give me the nephesh/souls, and take the goods to yourself.
17:14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that nephesh/ soul shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.
Jon,
Get a sense of humor. I live half a mile away from where the Phillip’s sect congregates. I’ve talked to Doug a few times, he’s committed( to something), but fairly unlearned historically and theologically and more a political animal than a preacher much less a theologian. Their (vision forum) objective seems more to become a costumed, quaint, renaissance-fair type group harkening back to some mix of the Louis L’amour west mixed with French ideas of chivalry ( yes, an odd cocktail I know), couched in Christianese language that they claim has some grounding in ‘how God intended things to be.’ Don’t get upset with me for noticing their oddity, I assume they do it to draw just such a reaction (think Amish) and consider it a distinctive of their practice. I certainly don’t deride the younger girls or boys for that matter, but after having to deal with the residual effects of this group in our own church and these same children apostatizing from the sect, thinking this was the christian faith, I’m less than sympathetic to what their parents think they are accomplishing.
As regards your particularities, I gave you reasoned responses which you presumably found less than adequate, which is fine, and Zrim and others are more than adequate to the task of answering your inquiries and more capable of doing so.
Is there no difference between us “in Him” and Him “in us”? We do not need to deny one to affirm the other, and we certainly don’t need to give the priority to the “in us”. But RS seems to think that “in Him” means the same thing as the “in us”.
When RS claims that “He is more than just in us legally but in reality”, by good and necessary inference, he is claiming that the legal is not real, and that the real is something other than the legal. RS is also ignoring the fact that some sinners are by election “in Christ”, and by legal imputation (transfer and declaration) “in Christ”. RS flips this, interchanges the words, makes it “in us legally”.and then says there’s another “in us” which is not simply “more” real, but “but real”! In the meanwhile, he has forgotten the “in Christ”
Ephesians 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ,
Ephesians 1:4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love
Ephesians 1:6 to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved.
Ephesians 1:7 IN HIM we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace
Ephesians 1:10 with a view to an administration suitable to the fullness of the times, that is, the summing up of all things in Christ, things in the heavens and things on the earth IN HIM
Ephesians 1:13 IN HIM, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation– having also believed, you were sealed IN HIM with the Holy Spirit of promise,
mark mcculley: The verses RS cited referenced us as temples and our bodies, but not something in us called “souls”. But that doesn’t keep him from claiming that “souls” are our immaterial stuff.
RS: Remember that I said that the Bible used it as referring to both material and immaterial. At least listen to Jesus and Paul though you won’t listen to me.
Matthew 10:28 “Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.” Note that there is a body and the soul. Human beings can kill the body, but they cannot kill the soul. But only God can destroy both.
Matthew 12:18 “BEHOLD, MY SERVANT WHOM I HAVE CHOSEN; MY BELOVED IN WHOM MY SOUL is WELL-PLEASED; I WILL PUT MY SPIRIT UPON HIM, AND HE SHALL PROCLAIM JUSTICE TO THE GENTILES.
RS: God does not have a body like men, but here His soul is well-pleased.
Matthew 16:26 “For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul?
Matthew 22:37 And He said to him, “‘YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.’
Matthew 26:38 Then He said to them, “My soul is deeply grieved, to the point of death; remain here and keep watch with Me.”
Acts 2:27 BECAUSE YOU WILL NOT ABANDON MY SOUL TO HADES, NOR ALLOW YOUR HOLY ONE TO UNDERGO DECAY.
1 Corinthians 15:45 So also it is written, “The first MAN, Adam, BECAME A LIVING SOUL.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.
Acts 4:32 And the congregation of those who believed were of one heart and soul; and not one of them claimed that anything belonging to him was his own, but all things were common property to them.
1 Thessalonians 5:23 Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you entirely; and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved complete, without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
mark mcculley: Is there no difference between us “in Him” and Him “in us”? We do not need to deny one to affirm the other, and we certainly don’t need to give the priority to the “in us”. But RS seems to think that “in Him” means the same thing as the “in us”.
RS: Yes, there is a distinction. However, all that are in Christ also have Him in them. There is a mutual in-being. For there to be one there is the other.
McMark: When RS claims that “He is more than just in us legally but in reality”, by good and necessary inference, he is claiming that the legal is not real, and that the real is something other than the legal.
RS: Your inference is not good and it is certainly not necessary. The word “just” can also mean “not only” as opposed to a sneering diminishing of something. The legal is real, but it is not the only real. Sinners must be declared legally just for Christ to dwell in them as His temple.
McMark: RS is also ignoring the fact that some sinners are by election “in Christ”, and by legal imputation (transfer and declaration) “in Christ”. RS flips this, interchanges the words, makes it “in us legally”.and then says there’s another “in us” which is not simply “more” real, but “but real”! In the meanwhile, he has forgotten the “in Christ”
RS: No, overly critical sir who sees things that are not there, I have not forgetten in Christ at all. I am simply arguing for the actual and real indwelling of Christ along with an actual and real legal declaration of sinners as righteous and the actual and real location of sinners in Christ. It appears that you want everything to be either physical or a very mystical legal in which no difference is made to the sinner.
Here is something else for you to chew on Richard- I found this while reading Horton’s book COVENANT AND SALVATION this morning. It is in the chapter on Radical Orthodoxy p. 158 in a footnote:
“The Cambridge Platonists sharply rejected Reformed orthodoxy, and although Edwards represents the closest thing to a synthesis of Platonism/idealism and Reformed theology, it has been subjected to criticism within the tradition at those very points. The Protestant scholastics displayed various influences: Aristotelian-Thomist, Platonist, Ramist and a few Scotists. However, these influences do not seem to have played any significant role in their systems and certainly failed to provoke any serious debates. In any case the proscription of any magisterial role given to philosophy (adopted by all of these theologians) cautioned against anything more than an ad hoc appropriation of such terminology. Edwards, however, does seem to be an exception, giving more space to philosophical speculation in theology- and with conclusions that are more explicitly Platonic than the tradition would affirm. For example, he writes, ‘Matter….is truly nothing at all, strictly and in itself considered. The nearer in nature beings are to God, so much the more properly are they beings, and more substantial; and that spirits are as much more properly beings, and more substantial than bodies.”
This tells me that Edwards believed that the new nature the Christian has is something that changes and grows closer to God as The Trinity works on the soul. Horton is arguing in his whole series that this is different than God declaring, transfering and communicating to his elect through Law and Gospel. Does the “new nature” change and grow within us? I think this is hard to prove scripturally but perhaps someone has more insight than me on this.
It has also been argued at this site that the “new creation” talked about in 2Cor. chapter 5 is more a collective word than individual. New creation means being justified by God through imputation and then being placed in the redeemed community. But Richard has already rejected that interpretation of the passage.
Sean,
I recently watched a really good video against feminism. I noticed that all the anti-feminists (who were mostly home school moms also) were dressed in the old fashioned apparel you speak of. But I chose not to comment on it because I know their greater purpose in what they are trying to accomplish and so I don’t focus on their external appearance. That is called wisdom. Wisdom is also not chiming in with a smart allecky comment every chance you get, but really taking the time to answer questions with sincerity. I try to imagine if I would say the same thing to someone on a blog as I would if they were a fellow church member in person. This helps me when I am tempted to go overboard. Of course, I still fail sometimes.
Matthew 10:28 “Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.”
rs: “Note that there is a body and the soul. Human beings can kill the body, but they cannot kill the soul. But only God can destroy both.”
mark: You don’t believe in the inherent immortality of the “soul”? Good for you! I don’t either. But this verse still does not prove what you keep saying, that inside us there is some immaterial (union with the divine?) stuff and that the word for this is “soul”. As Genesis 2:7 teaches that the body plus God’s breath is “living soul”, so you have not proven that the body is not a necessary factor in the souls who will be “destroyed” by God in the second death. Even if other humans kill the bodies of the non-elect, those non-elect persons can and will be raised by God for the purpose of destruction.
I hope you can see that this in no way proves that we should define “soul” as non-material. Do you mean to teach that God does not destroy the bodies of the non-elect but only their non-material stuff?
Again from Horton:
“Radical Orthodoxy easily risks conflating creation and redemption, election and providence. In this view, the generic “en-gracing” of creation that is synomonous with ontological participation (methathexis) differs from salvific reconciliation only in degree. Grace is viewed as a substance rather than as God’s favor shown to those who are at fault. However, in our account creation and redemption are alike the result of Trinitarian speech-acts. I agree with Milbank’s insistence that covenant and participation are not themselves incommensurable concepts. However, I remain unconvinced that a covenantal account of participation can be assimilated into the metaphysics of Platonism/Neoplatonism.”
If I am interpreting this right than Edwards is on the fringes of Reformed theology if in the Reformed camp at all. His ideas of participation in Christ are at odds with Reformed theology.
McMark: RS is also ignoring the fact that some sinners are by election “in Christ”, and by legal imputation (transfer and declaration) “in Christ”. RS flips this, interchanges the words, makes it “in us legally”.and then says there’s another “in us” which is not simply “more” real, but “but real”! In the meanwhile, he has forgotten the “in Christ”
RS: No, overly critical sir who sees things that are not there,
mark: I don’t just copy and paste verses. I attempt to read and understand what is said. When you write “in us legally”, I would like to know what that means and what Bible verse says something like that. If indeed you are not confusing the “in us” with the “in Christ”, what does “in us legally” mean, and how is it that you think you keep your legal from being “mystical” but I can’t? Does your “legal” have some “supplement” (also real) which removes the scandal from the idea of God being just and yet justifying the ungodly?
Instead of suggesting that you are being overcritical of those who judge to be overcritical, I would remind you that the Reformation difference comes down to being accepted into God’s holy presence by the alien righteousness of Jesus Christ, and your attempt to point to what’s in the sinner is a diversion from that Reformation gospel.
RS:It appears that you want everything to be either physical or a very mystical legal in which no difference is made to the sinner.
mark: I make no apology for agreeing with Genesis 2:7 that the body is necessary along with God’s breath/life for a “living soul”. I believe in both the bodily resurrection of those who have been justified and in the “destruction” of those who have not been justified.
As for this “legal” of mine, which “makes no difference to the sinner”, well, there is this little matter of the assurance of the forgiveness of sin, joy in no condemnation before God, and no possibility of destruction at the judgment. I claim that this “difference” is considerable.
If we are not yet made perfect by the blood of Christ, all our works are dead works and an abomination to God. We can do nothing acceptable to God without assurance that what we do is not what makes us acceptable to God.
Hebrews 10:14–For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified..
The second “being sanctified” is still not “progressive”. As the elect are “being justified” one by one (one is imputed with Christ’s righteousness, then another, and so on), so also they are (at the same
time) “being sanctified”, set apart, placed into Christ, either are or are not…..
OBrien’s commentary on Hebrews 10:14, p357—
“Some have taken the present passive participle as a remark about the ongoing process of sanctification for the believer. (Attridge). But the notion of being made holy in Hebrews has to do with a definitive consecration to God through the effective cleansing from sin (Heb 2:11; 9:13-14;10:10, 29;13:12) that qualifies them for fellowship with God. It is better, therefore, to regard the participle as timeless, and thus a general designation of believers as sanctified. This is consistent with the stress on sanctification as something that has already been effected by the blood of Christ.”
Darryl, I wrote Al Wolters to inquire as to his views on the question of mere restoration vs. consummation. Here is his reply (posted with his permission):
This is how I had always understood it, but your and DVD’s questions made me want to check it out. The restoration is not “back to the garden” but “back” to the eschatologically confirmed state now attained as a result of Christ’s fulfilling the covenant that Adam failed to fulfill. I picked up the Bavink volume when it first came out in English–I’ll have to check out the details now.
John Yeazel
Posted July 3, 2012 at 8:07 am | Permalink
Here is something else for you to chew on Richard- I found this while reading Horton’s book COVENANT AND SALVATION this morning. It is in the chapter on Radical Orthodoxy p. 158 in a footnote:
“The Cambridge Platonists sharply rejected Reformed orthodoxy, and although Edwards represents the closest thing to a synthesis of Platonism/idealism and Reformed theology, it has been subjected to criticism within the tradition at those very points. The Protestant scholastics displayed various influences: Aristotelian-Thomist, Platonist, Ramist and a few Scotists. However, these influences do not seem to have played any significant role in their systems and certainly failed to provoke any serious debates. In any case the proscription of any magisterial role given to philosophy (adopted by all of these theologians) cautioned against anything more than an ad hoc appropriation of such terminology. Edwards, however, does seem to be an exception, giving more space to philosophical speculation in theology- and with conclusions that are more explicitly Platonic than the tradition would affirm. For example, he writes, ‘Matter….is truly nothing at all, strictly and in itself considered. The nearer in nature beings are to God, so much the more properly are they beings, and more substantial; and that spirits are as much more properly beings, and more substantial than bodies.”
This tells me that Edwards believed that the new nature the Christian has is something that changes and grows closer to God as The Trinity works on the soul. Horton is arguing in his whole series that this is different than God declaring, transfering and communicating to his elect through Law and Gospel. Does the “new nature” change and grow within us? I think this is hard to prove scripturally but perhaps someone has more insight than me on this.
RS: Horton has an axe to grind against Edwards, so unless he can convince me by Scripture or evident reason… It is interesting how Perry Miller thought Edwards followed John Locke and Horton things he followed Plato. Perry Miller, however, was utterly fascinated and in awe with the brilliance of Edwards and wished he had not been so enslaved to the Bible, yet Horton things Edwards had too much philosophy. I guess I will just continue to read Edwards and believe that he was a slave to the Bible even when he did philosophy. After all, if we are not to be deceived and captured by bad philosophy, we might as well read some from a man who was enslaved to the Bible.
John Yeazel: It has also been argued at this site that the “new creation” talked about in 2Cor. chapter 5 is more a collective word than individual. New creation means being justified by God through imputation and then being placed in the redeemed community. But Richard has already rejected that interpretation of the passage
RS: You are right again. I have rejected that interpretation because it does not fit the context. Indeed God justifies sinners and indeed they are to be part of a redeemed community, but that is not what the totality of what it means to be a new creature. The langage is singular rather than plural in verses 16-17. This new creature is new because (at least partially) the old things have passed away and new things have come. This is why we don’t recognize people according to the flesh any longer.
II Cor 5:13 For if we are beside ourselves, it is for God; if we are of sound mind, it is for you.
14 For the love of Christ controls us, having concluded this, that one died for all, therefore all died;
15 and He died for all, so that they who live might no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died and rose again on their behalf.
16 Therefore from now on we recognize no one [singular] according to the flesh; even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him in this way no longer.
17 Therefore if anyone [singular] is in Christ, he is a new creature [singular]; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come.
Matthew 10:28 “Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.”
McMark: I hope you can see that this in no way proves that we should define “soul” as non-material. Do you mean to teach that God does not destroy the bodies of the non-elect but only their non-material stuff?
RS: “Prove” is a rather hard thing to do, but I do consider it as very strong evidence, not to mention the many other verses that I gave you. I think we would have to come to a mutual understandig of what it means to destroy in this passage as well as a few other things. I think that the idea is something like God will give all a new body at the end of time. Some receive a body fitted to receive glory and others receive a body fitted for suffering. A body fitted for suffering and as the house of the soul (so to speak) will be destroyed, that is, like the second death which is an eternity of dying or an eternity of conscious torment.
John Yeazel: Again from Horton: “Radical Orthodoxy easily risks conflating creation and redemption, election and providence. In this view, the generic “en-gracing” of creation that is synomonous with ontological participation (methathexis) differs from salvific reconciliation only in degree. Grace is viewed as a substance rather than as God’s favor shown to those who are at fault. However, in our account creation and redemption are alike the result of Trinitarian speech-acts. I agree with Milbank’s insistence that covenant and participation are not themselves incommensurable concepts. However, I remain unconvinced that a covenantal account of participation can be assimilated into the metaphysics of Platonism/Neoplatonism.”
John Yeazel: If I am interpreting this right than Edwards is on the fringes of Reformed theology if in the Reformed camp at all. His ideas of participation in Christ are at odds with Reformed theology.
RS: You can interpret Horton as you please and will not get much response, but be careful about interpreting Edwards as you please based on what Horton says. You might also remember that Horton is on the Continental side of theology and by no means speaks for all of Reformed theology. Edward may be at odds with what Horton believes, but that is not the same thing as putting him at odds with the Reformed theology that came from the English Puritans and some Dutch Puritans as well.
McMark: Instead of suggesting that you are being overcritical of those who judge to be overcritical, I would remind you that the Reformation difference comes down to being accepted into God’s holy presence by the alien righteousness of Jesus Christ, and your attempt to point to what’s in the sinner is a diversion from that Reformation gospel.
RS: My attempt to point to what happens in the sinner is not a diversion from the Gospel of Jesus Christ and His grace. Allow me to quote from Calvin on Ephesians 3:17. “He explains the nature of the strength of the inward man. For since the Father placed in Christ the fulness of all gifts, so he who has Christ dwelling in him can want nothing…Paul well defines those who are endowed with the spiritual power of God as those in whom Christ dwells. Also, he points out that part which is the true seat of Christ, our hearts, to show that it is not enough for Him to be on our tongues or flutter in our brains.”
“He dwells, he says, by faith. He also expresses the method by which so great a benefit is obtained. A remarkable praise of faith, that through it the Son of God is made our own, and has His dwelling with us…The substance of it is that Christ is not be be viewed from afar by faith but to be received by the embrace of our minds, so that He may dwell in us, and so it is that we are filled with the Spirit of God.”
RS: I hope you can see that what is in a sinner is not a diversion from the Reformation Gospel, but instead Calvin teaches this. I might in reading the whole context that the above quote came from makes that point even more clear. I hope John Yeazel reads this and also sees that Calvin and Edwards were at the very least not that far apart about participating in Christ. Nevertheless, the Bible does clearly teach this.
McMark: As for this “legal” of mine, which “makes no difference to the sinner”, well, there is this little matter of the assurance of the forgiveness of sin, joy in no condemnation before God, and no possibility of destruction at the judgment. I claim that this “difference” is considerable.
RS: But apart from Christ in you there is no way to have assurance of sin and apart from the fruit of the Spirit who works in sinners there is no joy. Many heathens could have great joy based on what is in their own minds and what they believe to be true. Jesus told a parable about those who received the word with great joy, and we can safely make the deduction that they believed they were really saved. But if there is no new creation and no indwelling of Christ, then how can one really believe that he is saved if there are no signs of the work of God in him?
McMark: If we are not yet made perfect by the blood of Christ, all our works are dead works and an abomination to God. We can do nothing acceptable to God without assurance that what we do is not what makes us acceptable to God.
RS: But again, how is one to have that assurance? Assurance cannot be a belief based on my belief, but instead it is to be a real and true faith in Christ alone. How does one know that he has Christ other than his own belief of some propositional facts if one does not look to see the evidence of Christ in him? II Cor 13:5
McMark: The second “being sanctified” is still not “progressive”. As the elect are “being justified” one by one (one is imputed with Christ’s righteousness, then another, and so on), so also they are (at the same time) “being sanctified”, set apart, placed into Christ, either are or are not…..
RS: It sounds like you are asserting that there is no progressive growth in the believer. But the Bible does speak of growth and a maturing process in the believer.
1 Corinthians 2:6 Yet we do speak wisdom among those who are mature; a wisdom, however, not of this age nor of the rulers of this age, who are passing away;
1 Corinthians 14:20 Brethren, do not be children in your thinking; yet in evil be infants, but in your thinking be mature.
Ephesians 4:13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ.15 but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, even Christ,
Hebrews 5:14 But solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to discern good and evil.
1 Peter 2:2 like newborn babies, long for the pure milk of the word, so that by it you may grow in respect to salvation,
2 Peter 3:18 but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory, both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.
Craig Blomberg on II Cor 5:17;
Paul regularly looks forward not just to individuals becoming new creatures but to the arrival of a new creation (see esp. Rom. 8:19-23). How, then, would Paul have expected his audience to understand his meaning at the end of verse 17?—presumably by his language in the first part of the verse. The Greek does not actually supply a subject and verb before “new creation/creature,” which is unusual for Paul if he is saying simply that anyone who is in Christ is a new creation. It is more likely that he is getting his readers’ attention by a staccato-like construction that makes them realize that he is talking about more than just the expected results of conversion—personal transformation—but about the arrival, even if only in part, of a whole new creation. Thus the Holman Christian Standard Bible writes, “there is a new creation,” as does the New Revised Standard Version and the New Century Version. Clearer still is the updated NIV: “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here!”
The KJV, the NKJV, the old American Standard Version, and the New American Standard Bible all put “he is” in italics to show that they were adding something that corresponded to nothing in the Greek.
Aside from the singular vs plural question, the context of II Cor 5 is forensic reconciliation by Christ’s atonement, God not imputing sin. But of course RS has determined apriori that any “creation” must not be legal imputation but must be some other real thing, like, for example, regeneration.
RS: The word “just” can also mean “not only” as opposed to a sneering diminishing of something.
mark: would that be something like a “sola” but without any antithesis? As in by faith alone, but never in antithesis to faith which is not alone?
II Corinthians 13:5 “Examine yourselves, to see whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Or do you not realize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?—unless indeed you fail to meet the test!”
rs: How does one know that he has Christ other than his own belief of some propositional facts if one does not look to see the evidence of Christ in him?
mark: I take it that RS is not denying that the gospel consists of propositional fact and meaning, information and news about Jesus Christ and His death and resurrection. So if RS is not denying that assurance is of the essence of agreement and trust in propositions, what is this other evidence inside us which RS wants to test?
I am not denying a test or a need for examination. I myself had a false faith and assurance for a long time. I am asking what the test is. RS seems to assume that the test is some kind of “practical syllogism” in which God’s work for the elect is held hostage to future confirmations of God’s work inside the elect. If the elect have come to believe the gospel, is not that effectual call evidence enough?
If we must work to show that we believe, how much must we work? if we must decrease our sin, how much we stop our sinning before we know that our other sins are forgiven? To quote Augustine from his exposition of Psalm 32, the beginning of wisdom is to know oneself as a sinner.
That David fellow, he must have been self-deceived, not only about sin but about being already a justified saint!
McMark: The second “being sanctified” in Hebrews 10:14 is still not “progressive”. As the elect are “being justified” one by one (one is imputed with Christ’s righteousness, then another, and so on), so also they are (at the same time) “being sanctified”, set apart, placed into Christ, either are or are not…..
RS: It sounds like you are asserting that there is no progressive growth in the believer. But the Bible does speak of growth and a maturing process in the believer.
mark: well, maybe you need to read what I wrote. It sounds to me like I am trying to figure out what Hebrews 10:14 is saying. I never denied growth. I simply denied that the word “sanctification” in most Bible contexts means “progress”. I denied that Hebrews 10:14 is talking about growth. I denied that growth is sanctification.
I paid attention to a specific text, Hebrews 10, which talks about being perfected, holy, qualified for access by Christ’s death. I would move on to Hebrews 11 and 12, but I think it would be a waste of time. You assume growth means “sanctification”. I agree that it does in the Confessional language and in the common language of most professing Christians. But with scholars like O Brian (and David Petersen, Possessed by God) I point to the actual use of the word “sanctification” in the Bible where it doesn’t mean “growth”.
That doesn’t mean I deny growth. Some Christians grow faster or more than others.
Justification doesn’t mean growth. On that we all agree.
Therefore, some protestants say, “sanctification” does mean growth. With that I disagree.
We are either holy or not, acceptable with access to God, or not.
And God commands us to be holy. We who are sinners are commanded not to sin.
I always meant to ask you, RS, how are you doing on your test? Do you find enough evidence in yourself to be pretty sure that you have believed the gospel? If your sinning would happen to go on the increase tomorrow, what would that do to your faith that you have faith?
mark mcculley: Craig Blomberg on II Cor 5:17;
Paul regularly looks forward not just to individuals becoming new creatures but to the arrival of a new creation (see esp. Rom. 8:19-23). How, then, would Paul have expected his audience to understand his meaning at the end of verse 17?—presumably by his language in the first part of the verse. The Greek does not actually supply a subject and verb before “new creation/creature,” which is unusual for Paul if he is saying simply that anyone who is in Christ is a new creation. It is more likely that he is getting his readers’ attention by a staccato-like construction that makes them realize that he is talking about more than just the expected results of conversion—personal transformation—but about the arrival, even if only in part, of a whole new creation. Thus the Holman Christian Standard Bible writes, “there is a new creation,” as does the New Revised Standard Version and the New Century Version. Clearer still is the updated NIV: “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here!”
The KJV, the NKJV, the old American Standard Version, and the New American Standard Bible all put “he is” in italics to show that they were adding something that corresponded to nothing in the Greek.
Aside from the singular vs plural question, the context of II Cor 5 is forensic reconciliation by Christ’s atonement, God not imputing sin. But of course RS has determined apriori that any “creation” must not be legal imputation but must be some other real thing, like, for example, regeneration.
RS: A priori? Of course not. The new birth means that the person is a new creature. But if you want to speak of a priori, then where do you find imputation taught being given to individuals (following your pluralistic thinking versus singular) in that passage of Scripture apart from a person being a new creature? If the new creature is by being part of a group, then wouldn’t the imputation also be part of a group? Nevertheless, regardless of how one translates the phrase (new creature), it is still singular.” If anyone is in Christ”, it is that one that is in Christ. Blomberg may be trying to prove something rather than dealing with the text at hand.
Calvin: “If any man desires to obtain a place in Christ, that is, in His Kingdom of His Church, let him be a new creature.” “Let us therefore bear in mind this warning that all who have not been renewed by the Spirit of God should be nothing in the Church, whatever claims to distinction they may otherwise possess.” Since the kingdom of Christ is spiritual, this conversion must take place chiefly in the spirit and so Paul is right to begin with this. Paul is therefore making a most elegant and fitting illusion to this prophecy and adapting it to extol regeneration.”
Charles Hodge: “If the revelation of Christ, the apprehension of his glory and love, had wrought such a change in him, the same illumination must produce a like change in others. He therefore says, If any may be in Christ he is a new creature. …To be in Christ is the common scriptural pharase to express the saving connection or union between him and his people. They are in him by covenant, as all men were in Adam; they are in him as members of his body, through the indwelling of his Spirit; and they are in him by faith, which lays hold of and appropriates him as the life and portion of the soul. Romans 8:1, 9; Gal 5, 6 etc. This union is transforming. It imparts a new life. It effects a new creation. This expression indicates no only the greatness and radical nature of the change effected, but also its divine origin. It is a divine work, i.e. one due to the mighty power of God. It is therefore called a creation, the commencement of a new state of being, Eph 1:19.In Gal 6:15; Rom 8,9, and elsewhere, the same effects are ascribed to union with Christ. If we are united to him so as to be intersted in the merits of his death, we must also be partakers of his life. This is the foundation on which the apostle builds his whole doctrine of sanctification as developed in the sixth and seventh chapter of his epistel to the Romans.”
mark: I take it that RS is not denying that the gospel consists of propositional fact and meaning, information and news about Jesus Christ and His death and resurrection. So if RS is not denying that assurance is of the essence of agreement and trust in propositions, what is this other evidence inside us which RS wants to test?
RS: The whole book of I John is written for that purpose. 1 John 5:13 “These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life.”
1 John 2:3 By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments .4 The one who says, “I have come to know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him; 5 but whoever keeps His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected. By this we know that we are in Him:
1 John 3:14 We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brethren. He who does not love abides in death.
1 John 3:24 The one who keeps His commandments abides in Him, and He in him. We know by this that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He has given us.
1 John 4:2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God;
1 John 4:8 The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love.
1 John 4:13 By this we know that we abide in Him and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit.
1 John 4:16 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.
1 John 5:18 We know that no one who is born of God sins; but He who was born of God keeps him, and the evil one does not touch him.
1 John 5:20 And we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us understanding so that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.
McMark: I am not denying a test or a need for examination. I myself had a false faith and assurance for a long time. I am asking what the test is. RS seems to assume that the test is some kind of “practical syllogism” in which God’s work for the elect is held hostage to future confirmations of God’s work inside the elect. If the elect have come to believe the gospel, is not that effectual call evidence enough?
RS: Just read I John over and over.
McMark: If we must work to show that we believe, how much must we work? if we must decrease our sin, how much we stop our sinning before we know that our other sins are forgiven? To quote Augustine from his exposition of Psalm 32, the beginning of wisdom is to know oneself as a sinner.
RS: Read I John over and over.
McMark: That David fellow, he must have been self-deceived, not only about sin but about being already a justified saint!
RS: No claim to perfection here, but still less sin and more love than before. Read I John over and over.
McMark: I always meant to ask you, RS, how are you doing on your test? Do you find enough evidence in yourself to be pretty sure that you have believed the gospel?
RS: I do find enough evidence that Christ lives in me. After all, what does it mean to believe if faith does not receive Christ Himself? If you think that faith is something other than receiving Christ or receiving grace, then you end up believing in your belief or having faith in your faith. Romans 4:16 is quite clear that the reason it is by faith is in order that it may be by grace. The doctrine of justification by faith alone is meant to safeguard the teaching that justification is by grace alone. When the focus becomes our faith, the focus is wrong. The focus must always be on Christ and His grace or faith is no longer faith and is a work.
McMark: If your sinning would happen to go on the increase tomorrow, what would that do to your faith that you have faith?
RS: Those who have Christ persevere to the end because Christ is a persevering Savior. However, one can lose assurance which is a gift by grace and sustained at the mere pleasure of God. We cannot earn or obtain assurance by our works.
Terry, thanks for this. I’m not sure everyone would agree with Bavinck on grace and nature. But be that as it may, I’m not sure how any of us go “back” to anything after the fall or after the resurrection. Nature even with grace only goes so far. Lazarus, after his resurrection, still died. The water that the Samaritan woman gave Jesus was not the same as his living water. There has to be a way to say that grace goes beyond nature.
Who wound Richard up?
II Cor 5: 4 For while we are still in this tent, we groan, being burdened—not that we would be unclothed, but that we would be further clothed, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life.
mark: The hope is not for a non-material infusion in us, but to be immortal persons with new resurrected bodies
v10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil
mark: RS claims that I apriori read forensic categories, but the context of I Cor 5 is the judgment of God. This is why we need to be ambassadors of reconciliation. Because every person not justified before death will have to appear before the judgment, to receive forensic consequences, our vocation and duty as Christians is to tell people how God does not impute sins to some sinners because God has imputed those sins to Christ. This is what the chapter is about, not about some Christians being better or more grown up than other Christians. It’s about persuading others to fear God enough to know that the only satisfaction God accepts is Christ’s death.
11 Therefore, knowing the fear of the Lord, we persuade others. But what we are is known to God, and I hope it is known also to your conscience. 12 We are not commending ourselves to you again but giving you cause to boast about us, so that you may be able to answer those who boast about outward appearance and not about what is in the heart. 13 For if we are beside ourselves, it is for God; if we are in our right mind, it is for you. 14 For the love of Christ controls us, because we have concluded this: that one has died for all, therefore all have died; 15 and he died for all, that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised.
mark: Again, I do not deny Christ’s indwelling by His Holy Spirit, but that is not what this chapter is about. Even though verse 14 does not use the word “imputation”, how is it that it can be said that the all have died for whom Christ died? Because of legal identification with Christ’s death. Christ was substitute for the elect, and in time the elect are legally counted into Christ’s death.
16 From now on, therefore, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh, we regard him thus no longer. 17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, new creation.
mark: I am not denying that individuals are elected or justified or regenerated. I am denying that the “whole new creation” is an individual. For anyone imputed with Christ’s righteousness, there is new creation. This is a relatively common observation, and could be made even by those who would claim regeneration has the priority. Nor do I deny that regeneration is the immediate effect of God’s imputation. Indeed, I insist on it, since God’s legal declarations are effective, performative.
My main point is that the ambassadors, already justified before God, have been legally identified with Christ’s death. Christ’s presence in us, which is not the topic of this chapter, is a result of being legally united with Christ’s historical forensic work. Reconciliation by imputed righteousness is what it means to be “in Christ”. The last verse of chapter five ends with “become the righteousness” and that is parallel to Christ’s being “made sin”. Christ was not made sin by infusion or corruption, but only by imputation. Christ legally bore both the guilt and the punishment of His people. So the context is all about forensic realities, about being linked to redemptive history.
“The old has passed away; behold, the new has come. 18 All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; 19 that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. 20 Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. 21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that IN HIM we would become the righteousness of God.”
II Corinthians 5:10—“For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each of us will receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or bad.”
Since the judgment for all whom God loves (the elect) has already happened at the cross, there will no future side-judgment for Christians where extra goodies and rewards are passed out.
Why then is this text, II Corinthians 5, which is talking to Christians, bringing up the judgment? Christians are being told in this text that they are “ambassadors”. Some of those who are still “in their sins” are the elect, who even though God loves them, are right now ignorant of the gospel. Their ignorance and their legal fears are evidence that these elect have not yet been justified by God.
And since the ambassadors to whom Paul is talking don’t know which of the lost are elect or not, they are to present the good news to all sinners, and to command all sinners to “ be reconciled”. The ambassadors don’t say: some of you have already received the reconciliation but just don’t know it.
The reconciliation is received passively (by imputation) and that has not yet happened for those who are still living in legalism. Paul brings up “the fear of God” (verse:11) because the ambassadors need to remember that there are lost people around them who have not yet been justified who need to be commanded to be reconciled.
We do NOT say—well if Christ died for them, then they are already reconciled and justified. They are NOT. Nor do we say: well, anyway, it’s sure to happen. God works in history. God imputes in time Christ’s death in time. And God uses the gospel as that which is heard by the elect as they are justified. So we “make it our aim to please Him.” (verse 9)
Zrim,
I just re-read Noe’s article and it made me think of a question: He says there is no such thing as Christian-anything, except Sunday worship. But you have also said that in doing theology it makes no difference if the subject is Christian or not (Noe makes the same point that a good philosopher could come to better conclusions about the incarnation than a dumb Christian). So what would be the difference in what believers and unbelievers do on Sunday? Wouldn’t they be objectively equal according to your reasoning? What changes on Sunday?
I claim “perfection” by Christ’s blood, but RS tells me if I read I John long enough I will see that the proper evidence is “less sin and more love”. His hope is that he is less sinful and more loving than other humans. Mine is not. Nor does I John teach any such thing.
I John 4: 7 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. 8 Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love. 9 In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we would live through him. 10 In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.
mark: My hope is not my more love and less sin, but Christ’s love. And this love is named in I John as His propitiation for our sins. To the extent we sin less, we have less need of propitiation. To paraphrase Romans 6, that does not mean that we need to sin more to get more propitiation. Rather, there is only one propitiation for the elect alone, and either sinners are identified with Christ’s death or they are not. Those now identified with Christ’s death are now saints, and they are not more or less holy depending on them sinning more or less.
I John 4 goes on to explain why sin does not have dominion over the saints. The reason is not they sin less now than they used to. Rather, the reason sin does not control us that we no longer fear God’s punishment for our sins. We tell those outside of Christ to fear God’s punishment for the same sins we commit.
I John 4: 17 By this is love perfected with us, so that we may have confidence for the day of judgment, because as he is so also are we in this world. 18 There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not been perfected in love.
I John 4:17 is not talking about our love becoming more perfected, but about God’s love for us (the propitiation) giving us confidence for the day of judgment. BECAUSE AS HE IS SO ALSO ARE WE IN THE WORLD
Legal justification is the ONLY (sola, with antithesis) way the elect can be as Christ is in the world. God’s love for the elect results in legal union with Christ and His propitiatory death.
I John 3 is about the difference between a Nicodemus and a prodigal publican, about the difference between a sincere and religious Cain and a sincere and religious Abel. Think of the context. This is not about Abel having better insides than another person! The religion of Cain is nothing but evil deeds.
The reason Cain hated Abel was that Cain wanted to glory in/ rejoice in (Phil 3:3) the deeds done in himself. Cain refused to put to death (not count) those deeds (Rom 8:13) but instead wanted to worship a god who would accept Cain’s credit for producing “less sin and more love” in Cain’s life.
To pass over from death to life is to be put into the new creation and be given a new legal state in which one’s confidence is not in what God does in you but rather in what God has done in Christ outside you. Only in this way can we be in the world as Christ was in the world.
The Cains of this world are ready for a self-examination and contrast with other sinners in terms of their sin and love. They are Pharisees who contrast well with alcoholics and other such sinners. But these Cains “do not practice righteousness” (I John 3;10). These Cains will not come to the light of the gospel, because they love their present darkness in which they flatter themselves about their love and their sin. The light of the true gospel (God forgives sinners by Christ’s death) keeps telling these Cains that their deeds are evil. They are self-deceived, both about their love and their sin. All their deeds, even moral and religious deeds, are nothing but more sins.
John 3:19–.”And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil.”
Terry, here is DVD (LG2K):
Because Jesus has fulfilled the first Adam’s commission, those who belong to Christ by faith are no longer given that commission. Christians already possess eternal life and claim an everlasting inheritance. God does not call them to engage in cultural labors so as to earn their place in the world to come. We are not little Adams. Instead, God gives us a share in the world to come as a gift of free grace in Christ and then calls us to live obediently in this world as a grateful response. Our cultural activities do not in any sense usher in the new creation. The new creation has been earned and attained once and for all by Christ, the last Adam. Cultural activity remains important for Christians, but it will come to an abrupt end, along with this present world as a whole, when Christ returns and cataclysmically ushers in the new heaven and new earth.
In a word, redemption is not so much creation re-gained, but re-creation gained, which seems different from “God will restore creation to the consummated state that he had always had in mind for it.” You say that the point isn’t “back to the garden,” but that’s what “what he always had in mind” seems to imply. In other words, redemption is something that both lies ahead and, more to the point, is something that actually super-abounds what God originally had in mind.
This is where neo-Calvinism and 2k diverge: in terms of cultural activity, 2k understands that Adam’s fall had the effect of making our cultural activity useless in terms of holy and eternal purposes. Neo-Calvinism doesn’t seem so sure that the fall had such drastic consequences and that somehow Christ’s work has restored our pre-fall situation in such a way as to extend the kingdom of God.
D. G. Hart: Who wound Richard up?
RS: Mark did. It is all his fault, but he was aided by John Yeazel.
Carl Hoch Jr: “The background of the “new creation language is Isaiah 43:16-21, Isaiah 65:17, and Isaiah 66:22…Should “he is” be supplied in II Cor 5:17a? No–if any person is in Christ, new creation. To insert “he is” in 5:17 wrongly narrows the scope of the new creation to an individual.” , p161, The Significance of Newness for Biblical Theology: All Things New, Baker, 1995