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
Jon, on the Lord’s Day believers meet with God and are lifted into heaven. Unbelievers stay in this world. And since wheat and chaff grow up together, one can’t tell objectively who’s being lifted and who’s staying grounded except for God and those being lifted.
AW Pink: The glorious Gospel of God reveals to us a perfect Savour. It exhibits One who has not only made complete satisfaction to the righteous Ruler and Judge, providing for His people a perfect righteousness before Him, but whose sacrifice has also fitted us to worship and serve a holy God acceptably, and to approach the Father with full confidence and love.
If the conscience be still defiled, if the eye of God rests upon us as unclean, then confidence before Him is impossible, for we feel utterly unfit for His ineffable presence. “Now where remission of sins is, no more offering for sin. Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the Holiest by the blood of Jesus” (Heb. 10:18, 19).
The same sacrifice which has procured the remission of our sins, provides the right for us to draw nigh unto God in acceptable worship. “By His own blood He entered in once into the Holy Place, having obtained eternal redemption for us” (Heb. 9:13).
The Christian is regarded not only as guiltless, but also as spotless and holy. We who believe the gospel are assured of the same welcome by God now as His beloved Son received when He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high. God views us in Christ His “Holy One”.
Darryl, wrt going back to something, I agree. That’s why I put “back” in quotes. The main point is that Al Wolters acknowledges that the coming kingdom is not just a continuity of the present Creation order but includes the eschatological reward that was to be Adam’s had he obeyed the covenant of works and now gained for us by Christ. No doubt, this won’t change your mind on the neo-Calvinist project, but I hope it clarifies that neo-Calvinists don’t necessarily deny that the future kingdom includes the eschatological reward.
Zrim, that DVD quote is one of the most disturbing in the whole book. Neo-Calvinists agree that our cultural activities are grateful response. We aren’t re-doing what Adam didn’t do, Christ did that. But as Christ followers we obediently live in Creation and work for his will to be done on earth as it is in heaven. The critical question as we have noted before and will apparently have to disagree about is whether there will be be continuity. Neo-Cals say “yes”. (“The Lord does not forsake the work of his hands” Creation Regained, p. 40.) 2K’s say “no”. What God had in mind is “back to the garden” plus eschatological reward. Don’t forget the “plus eschatological reward”. You’re putting words in my mouth if you stop with “back to the garden” because that’s not what I’m saying.
We don’t minimize the effects of the Fall on Creation, but we do acknowledge that Christ’s work reversed/will reverse those effects. Eschaton was inaugurated with Christ’s coming, his death, his resurrection, his giving of the spirit. The mustard tree continues to grow, the leaven continues to spread and will do so until the Lord returns. We won’t “usher in the new creation”–only the Lord does that. But what we do in obedience to him is not “useless in terms of holy and eternal purposes”.
Mark, John, Richard, I wonder if you all are familiar with John Murray’s notion of “definitive sanctification”. This seems to me to be what Mark and John are talking about. Although the Westminster Confession doesn’t use Murray’s language, I think it makes the same point in the chapter on effectual calling. At the point in time of effectual calling, believers have their minds enlightened, they receive a heart of flesh, and their wills are renewed. They are definitively taken out of the kingdom of darkness and brought into the kingdom of light. It’s not imputation (i.e. in Christ and outside of us), rather it happens in them.
This is distinct from “progressive sanctification” which is the subject of Chapter XIII. After receiving a new heart in effectual calling they “are further sanctified, really and personally, through the virtue of Christ’s death and resurrection, by his Word and Spirit dwelling in them”. The “really” language is the language of the Westminster Confession and I think is in contrast with the “imputation” of justification (not at all suggesting that imputed righteousness isn’t real–but whereas our imputed righteousness is “in another”, our “real and personal” righteousness is “in ourselves”). Mark and John may not like the language of the Confession and they may think that the New Testament doesn’t use the word “sanctification” in the sense of “progressive sanctification” but that’s the historical teaching of the Reformed confessions. We see the same thing in Article 24 of the Belgic Confession.
The dispute with Rome is not whether or not there is “progressive sanctification” or a work of the Holy Spirit in us, but rather is that work in us part of our justification? Rome says yes. We say no. Only Christ’s righteousness “outside of us”, an alien righteousness, makes us right with God.
Terry, grace completes nature suggests the continuity for which you argue. You say this includes “plus eschatological reward.” But lacking in the formulation — as Zrim suggests — is the fall and sin. So what could “plus eschatological reward” ever mean after the introduction of sin? We are not going back to the garden. We are going forward to what Adam would have inherited. And somehow Christ just wipes away all of the complications? Or are we helping to wipe away the disparity between a creation fallen and the “plus eschatological reward”?
I’m with Zrim. The neo-Cals haven’t considered carefully the consequences of the fall and how it disrupted “plus eschatological reward” making necessary the incarnation, cross, resurrection, ascension, and second coming. That’s a lot of humiliation for the second person of the Trinity just so we can domineer the earth and turn it into paradise, so something just short of it, so that Christ’ return will get us past the finish line.
John Murray–”While regeneration is an all-important factor in definitive sanctification, it would not be proper to subsume the latter under the topic ‘regeneration’. The reason is that what is most characteristic in definitive sanctification, namely, death to sin by union with Christ in his death and newness of life by union with him in his resurrection, cannot properly be referred to regeneration by the Spirit. There is multiformity to that which occurs at the inception of the Christian life, and each facet must be accorded its own particularity.”
mark: I would explain this as a reference to imputation and legal identification with Christ’s death to sin and to the law’s punishment. It is not the Holy Spirit who makes the imputation.
Murray: “Calling, for example, as the action of the Father, must not be defined in terms of what is specifically the action of the Holy Spirit, namely, regeneration. Definitive sanctification, likewise, must be allowed its own individuality.”
mark: I would agree with Mike Horton (and many earlier Reformed theologians) that regeneration and calling are two sides, two aspects of one event. Where there is regeneration, there is effectual call. No time-lag between, and no regeneration apart from the gospel, the Word.
Murray: We impoverish our conception of definitive grace when we fail to appreciate the distinctiveness of each aspect, or indulge in over-simplification.
Collected Writings of John Murray, Vol. 2, p. 285
John Fesko recently published a stand-alone essay on “definitive sanctification” and John Murray’s use of that concept to subvert the law-gospel antithesis in the order of salvation. In short, there are those who say that once one is “united” to Christ, and they feel exonerated by God’s law. Or to say it differently the way they would, there is no more law and gospel but only “covenant”, and those in “covenant” may not end up with life but if they sin less and love more they should feel safe, and no longer threatened by any law-gospel antithesis.
On second thought, I should let Fesko speak for himself. He’s a very good scholar with his very own Calvin and Hodge quotations. See his new book After Calvin.
http://www.v-r.de/pdf/titel_inhalt_und_leseprobe/1008686/inhaltundleseprobe_978-3-525-57022-7.pdf
http://oldlife.org/2011/03/desiring-god-enough/
I am wondering if the volume on Edwards is now published. Or if Hart’s chapter has been completed.
It seems that most Reformed folks today are more concerned about antinomianism than they are about assurance of justification based on legal union with Christ’s death. Those highly influenced by a Edwards type theology put the spotlight on their own future “experimental sanctification”. The federal visionists attempt to put this more objectively, by putting the emphasis on “covenantal obedience and curses”. But our only hope is to rely on the promise of the gospel to those who do not love enough and who sin too much.
Perhaps the following quotation from Calvin would teach us not to find the proof of our election in our own lives.
Instittues. 3:2.29 -
Free promise we make the foundation of faith, because in it faith properly consists. For though it holds that God is always true, whether in ordering or forbidding, promising or threatening; though it obediently receive his commands, observe his prohibitions, and give heed to his threatening; yet it properly begins with promise, continues with it, and ends with it. It seeks life in God, life which is not found in commands or the denunciations of punishment, but in the promise of mercy.
And this promise must be gratuitous; for a conditional promise, which throws us back upon our works, promises life only in so far as we find it existing in ourselves. Therefore, if we would not have faith to waver and tremble, we must support it with the promise of salvation, which is offered by the Lord spontaneously and freely, from a regard to our misery rather than our worth. Hence the Apostle bears this testimony to the Gospel, that it is the word of faith, (Rom. 10: 8.) This he concedes not either to the precepts or the promises of the Law, since there is nothing which can establish our faith, but that free embassy by which God reconciles the world to himself.
Dan Fuller in The Unity of the Bible (1992). p181: “In commenting on Genesis 2:17 -do not eat from that tree–Calvin said, `These words are so far from establishing faith that they do nothing but shake it.’
Dan Fuller: I argue, however, that there is much reason for regarding these words as well suited to strengthen Adam and Eve’s faith…In Calvin’s thinking, the promise made in Genesis 2:17 could never encourage faith, for its conditionality could encourage only meritorious works. `FAITH SEEKS LIFE THAT IS NOT FOUND IN COMMANDMENTS’ Consequently, the gospel by which we are saved is an unconditional covenant of grace, made such by Christ having merited it for us by his perfect fulfillment of the covenant of works.
Dan Fuller responds to Calvin: “I have yet to find anywhere in Scripture a gospel promise that is unconditional.” Fuller (p313): “Paul would have disagreed strongly with Calvin, who saw obedience and works as only accompanying genuine faith…The concern in James 2:14-26 was to urge a faith that saves a person, not simply to tell a person how they could demonstrate their saving faith…Calvin should have taught that justification depends on a persevering faith, since he regarded Abraham as already justified before Genesis 15:6.”
And then Daniel Fuller quotes Jonathan Edwards: “We are really saved by perseverance…The perseverance which belongs to faith is a fundamental ground of the congruity that faith gives to salvation…”
McMark: 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.
RS: Mark, you are taking all those verse out of context and denying the reality of what is being said. It is not that those who believe that they are new creations in Christ and that Christ dwells in them are new Cains as such, but instead that is the only way that God’s glory shines through man and strips man of his self-righteousness. It is more than the fact that man has a new legal standing, but man is a new creature. Read I John again. See below for one instance.
I John 3:10 By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother.
RS: The text does not say that the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious because of a new legal standing, but because of where they practice righteousness or not or loves his brother or not. That is what is says and that is what it means. Of course things like that can be faked and people can be deceived, but still the text says what it says.
11 For this is the message which you have heard from the beginning, that we should love one another; 12 not as Cain, who was of the evil one and slew his brother. And for what reason did he slay him? Because his deeds were evil, and his brother’s were righteous.
13 Do not be surprised, brethren, if the world hates you.
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.
RS: How does a person know that he has passed out of death into life? Because that person loves the brethren. Again, it is not because the person has a new legal standing, but because the person loves the brethren. The one that does not love abides in death. It is seen that one abides in death because one does not love, not because one does not have a new legal standing. I John 4:7-16 shows us why this is true. The one that loves is born of God and knows God and has the love of God abiding in him.
15 Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer; and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.
RS: So those who hate true Christians are murderers and no murderer has eternal life abiding in him. Where does eternal life (eternal life is Christ Himself, I John 5:20) abide? In the person. So one that has eternal life loves the brethren, but those who hate are considered murderers. The Cains of this world don’t love their righteous brothers. It is more than a legal standing alone, but the distinction has to do with eternal life dwelling in a person. Just like Jesus said in John 13:35: “By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love one another.”
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?
RS: Again, where does the love of God abide? It abides in people. A person that sees a brother in need and does nothing, the love of God does not dwell in that person. The implication, however, is that for those who have the love of God abiding in them they will not close their hearts against the brother.
18 Little children, let us not love with word or with tongue, but in deed and truth.
RS: How are we to love if the love of God abides in us? In deed and truth. But again, if the love of God dwells in a person, that will be seen by deeds and truth.
19 We will know by this that we are of the truth, and will assure our heart before Him
20 in whatever our heart condemns us; for God is greater than our heart and knows all things.
21 Beloved, if our heart does not condemn us, we have confidence before God;
22 and whatever we ask we receive from Him, because we keep His commandments and do the things that are pleasing in His sight.
23 This is His commandment, that we believe in the name of His Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, just as He commanded us.
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.
RS: How do you know that God abides in us? By the Spirit whom He has given us. How is it seen that this is true? Those that He abides in believe in Christ and love one another just as He commanded them, So the one who really keeps His commandments abide in Him and He in them. Indeed they have a new legal standing, but that is the point of this passage. Remember that the book was written so that people could know if they had eternal life or not (I John 5:13). The text above shows us one way to know that. If eternal life truly abides in a person, that person loves the brethren and does not hate the. The text is clear and hermeneutical gymnastics will not muddy it up.
mark mcculley: 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
RS: I would just like to refer you back to the quotes I gave from Calvin and Hodge who differ from Hoch on this.
II Cor 5:16 Therefore from now on we recognize no one according to the flesh; even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him in this way no longer.
RS: Is verse 16 talking about recongnizing or not recognizing single people according to the flesh or a group? Does it speak of having known Christ as a single person according to the flesh or Him as plural? So far the immediate context is talking about single (versus plural) people.
17 Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come.
RS: The anyone is singular. This shows that the one being a new creatures is also singular. To insist that to insert “he is” in the text wrongly narrows the scope is to insist that basic grammar means anything. One, it is singular. Two, it is in the middle of a phrase. If any one (singular) is in Christ, then they are all new creatures? That makes no grammatical sense or theological sense.
Galatians 6:15 For neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation.
McMark: The same sacrifice which has procured the remission of our sins, provides the right for us to draw nigh unto God in acceptable worship. “By His own blood He entered in once into the Holy Place, having obtained eternal redemption for us” (Heb. 9:13).
The Christian is regarded not only as guiltless, but also as spotless and holy. We who believe the gospel are assured of the same welcome by God now as His beloved Son received when He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high. God views us in Christ His “Holy One”.
RS: Of course the only sacrifice is that of Christ, but the believer is to strive for holy obedience by the power of God in him or her.
Hebrews 6:1 Therefore leaving the elementary teaching about the Christ, let us press on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God,
2 of instruction about washings and laying on of hands, and the resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment.
3 And this we will do, if God permits.
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,
5 and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come,
6 and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame.
7 For ground that drinks the rain which often falls on it and brings forth vegetation useful to those for whose sake it is also tilled, receives a blessing from God;
8 but if it yields thorns and thistles, it is worthless and close to being cursed, and it ends up being burned.
9 But, beloved, we are convinced of better things concerning you, and things that accompany salvation, though we are speaking in this way.
10 For God is not unjust so as to forget your work and the love which you have shown toward His name, in having ministered and in still ministering to the saints.
11 And we desire that each one of you show the same diligence so as to realize the full assurance of hope until the end,
12 so that you will not be sluggish, but imitators of those who through faith and patience inherit the promises.
Terry, correct on continuity. For 2k, what makes it into the eschaton is the imago Dei and what God is doing to sanctify right now within his justified church alone—agreed that God doesn’t forsake the works of his own hands. For neo-Calvinism it’s that plus what they do with their own hands. Maybe another sola is in order in light of neo-Calvinism.
Which leads to the point that what 2k suspects of neo-Calvinism, when it says things like “what we do in obedience to him is not useless in terms of holy and eternal purposes,” it is an example of drawing a straight line from Adam to ourselves which nothing more than a function of moralism. It circumvents Christ and seems to be a culturalist variant of law-gospel confusion. And if the previous excerpt is one of the most disturbing, this will likely qualify as the topper:
Those who hold a traditional Protestant view of justification consistently should not find a redemptive transformationist position attractive. As some of the Reformers grasped, a two-kingdoms doctrine is a proper companion to a Protestant doctrine of justification.
mark mcculley: I am wondering if the volume on Edwards is now published. Or if Hart’s chapter has been completed.
It seems that most Reformed folks today are more concerned about antinomianism than they are about assurance of justification based on legal union with Christ’s death. Those highly influenced by a Edwards type theology put the spotlight on their own future “experimental sanctification”. The federal visionists attempt to put this more objectively, by putting the emphasis on “covenantal obedience and curses”. But our only hope is to rely on the promise of the gospel to those who do not love enough and who sin too much.
RS: Remember, Jesus came to save His people from sin. That includes the power of sin in this life as well. That includes the power of self-love so that they could not live in love for God. Part of the atonement was so that He could rescue them from sin and make them zealous for good deeds. If you are going to love the atonement of Christ, then love all that He did and purchased for His people to the glory of God.
mark mcculley: Perhaps the following quotation from Calvin would teach us not to find the proof of our election in our own lives.
Instittues. 3:2.29 -
Free promise we make the foundation of faith, because in it faith properly consists. For though it holds that God is always true, whether in ordering or forbidding, promising or threatening; though it obediently receive his commands, observe his prohibitions, and give heed to his threatening; yet it properly begins with promise, continues with it, and ends with it. It seeks life in God, life which is not found in commands or the denunciations of punishment, but in the promise of mercy.
And this promise must be gratuitous; for a conditional promise, which throws us back upon our works, promises life only in so far as we find it existing in ourselves. Therefore, if we would not have faith to waver and tremble, we must support it with the promise of salvation, which is offered by the Lord spontaneously and freely, from a regard to our misery rather than our worth. Hence the Apostle bears this testimony to the Gospel, that it is the word of faith, (Rom. 10: 8.) This he concedes not either to the precepts or the promises of the Law, since there is nothing which can establish our faith, but that free embassy by which God reconciles the world to himself.
RS: I don’t think that Calvin would argue with Peter. Works do not save a person, but without them there is no faith. Seems like James talked about that one as Paul did as well. As Peters says in verse 7, the “proof of your faith.” Salvation is not conditional on our works, but if one is saved from the bondage of the devil and of sin, then one is free to obey. That obedience of love to Christ in obedience to His command is a sign of a new heart as I John declares.
I Peter 1: 6 In this you greatly rejoice, even though now for a little while, if necessary, you have been distressed by various trials,
7 so that the proof of your faith, being more precious than gold which is perishable, even though tested by fire, may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ;
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,
9 obtaining as the outcome of your faith the salvation of your souls.
McMark, the OUP book on Edwards is supposed to be in the mail.
mark mcculley: Dan Fuller in The Unity of the Bible (1992). p181: “In commenting on Genesis 2:17 -do not eat from that tree–Calvin said, `These words are so far from establishing faith that they do nothing but shake it.’
Dan Fuller: I argue, however, that there is much reason for regarding these words as well suited to strengthen Adam and Eve’s faith…In Calvin’s thinking, the promise made in Genesis 2:17 could never encourage faith, for its conditionality could encourage only meritorious works. `FAITH SEEKS LIFE THAT IS NOT FOUND IN COMMANDMENTS’ Consequently, the gospel by which we are saved is an unconditional covenant of grace, made such by Christ having merited it for us by his perfect fulfillment of the covenant of works.
Dan Fuller responds to Calvin: “I have yet to find anywhere in Scripture a gospel promise that is unconditional.” Fuller (p313): “Paul would have disagreed strongly with Calvin, who saw obedience and works as only accompanying genuine faith…The concern in James 2:14-26 was to urge a faith that saves a person, not simply to tell a person how they could demonstrate their saving faith…Calvin should have taught that justification depends on a persevering faith, since he regarded Abraham as already justified before Genesis 15:6.”
And then Daniel Fuller quotes Jonathan Edwards: “We are really saved by perseverance…The perseverance which belongs to faith is a fundamental ground of the congruity that faith gives to salvation…”
RS: But I see no context is brought into play here. I can take the words of any person and make that person say anything I want if I take them out of context. And as such we have Daniel Fuller quoting Edwards but no context. Then there is no context of Edwards. But as it happens I have read Edwards saying something like that and know that he is not saying what it appears that he is saying. However, despite our dogmatics we need to take I Peter 1:9 into account: “obtaining as the outcome of your faith the salvation of your souls.” It is interesting to note that the verse just before 1:9 (verse 8 to be sure) is the verse Edwards started his great work (which D.G. Hart says leaves him cold and does not like) on The Relgious Affections. Could it be that the eternal mind of God who views all things in one eternal view could have in mind our perseverance which is itself what He works in us? That is the context of what Edwards is dealing with. I might add that Daniel Fuller is not really a safe guide to Edwards as he may not be the safest guide to justification either.
I Peter 1: 6 In this you greatly rejoice, even though now for a little while, if necessary, you have been distressed by various trials,
7 so that the proof of your faith, being more precious than gold which is perishable, even though tested by fire, may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ;
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,
9 obtaining as the outcome of your faith the salvation of your souls.
McMark, well done those quotes from Calvin, especially for a recovering anabaptist.
Terry M. Gray: Mark, John, Richard, I wonder if you all are familiar with John Murray’s notion of “definitive sanctification”. This seems to me to be what Mark and John are talking about. Although the Westminster Confession doesn’t use Murray’s language, I think it makes the same point in the chapter on effectual calling. At the point in time of effectual calling, believers have their minds enlightened, they receive a heart of flesh, and their wills are renewed. They are definitively taken out of the kingdom of darkness and brought into the kingdom of light. It’s not imputation (i.e. in Christ and outside of us), rather it happens in them.
This is distinct from “progressive sanctification” which is the subject of Chapter XIII. After receiving a new heart in effectual calling they “are further sanctified, really and personally, through the virtue of Christ’s death and resurrection, by his Word and Spirit dwelling in them”. The “really” language is the language of the Westminster Confession and I think is in contrast with the “imputation” of justification (not at all suggesting that imputed righteousness isn’t real–but whereas our imputed righteousness is “in another”, our “real and personal” righteousness is “in ourselves”). Mark and John may not like the language of the Confession and they may think that the New Testament doesn’t use the word “sanctification” in the sense of “progressive sanctification” but that’s the historical teaching of the Reformed confessions. We see the same thing in Article 24 of the Belgic Confession.
The dispute with Rome is not whether or not there is “progressive sanctification” or a work of the Holy Spirit in us, but rather is that work in us part of our justification? Rome says yes. We say no. Only Christ’s righteousness “outside of us”, an alien righteousness, makes us right with God.
RS: Thanks for your comments. I had neglected the Belgic Confession which is so good.
Looks quite good. Crisp is an excellent scholar. Even though I do disagree with him some on the imputation of guilt, he has a good understanding of the issues and writes with fairness about both sides of arguments. Historians should be able to do that better than the rest of us.
After Jonathan Edwards
The Courses of the New England Theology
Edited by Oliver D. Crisp and Douglas A. Sweeney
Jul 2012, In Stock
Introduction – Oliver D. Crisp and Douglas A. Sweeney
Part One: New Light in the New World
Chapter One: Jonathan Edwards, The New Divinity, and Cosmopolitan Calvinism – Mark Valeri
Chapter Two: Jonathan Edwards on Education and his Educational Legacy – Kenneth P. Minkema
Chapter Three: After Edwards: Original Sin and Freedom of the Will – Allen Guelzo
Chapter Four: We Can If We Will: Regeneration and Benevolence – James P. Byrd
Chapter Five: The Moral Government of God: Jonathan Edwards and Joseph Bellamy on the Atonement – Oliver Crisp
Chapter Six: A Different Kind of Calvinism?: Edwardseanism Compared with Older Forms of Reformed Thought – Paul Helm
Part Two: Carrying the Torch
Chapter Seven: Samuel Hopkins and Hopkinsianism – Peter Jauhiainen
Chapter Eight: Nathanael Emmons and the Decline of Edwardsean Theology – Gerald R. McDermott
Chapter Nine: Edwards in the Second Great Awakening: The New Divinity Contributions of Edwards and Asahel Nettleton – David W. Kling
Chapter Ten: Taylorites and Tylerites – Douglas A. Sweeney
Chapter Eleven: Edwards Amasa Park: The Last Edwardsean – Charles Phillips
Part Three: Edwardsean Light Refracted
Chapter Twelve: The New England Theology in New England Congregationalism – Charles Hambrick-Stowe
Chapter Thirteen: Jonathan Edwards, Edwardsean Theologies, and the Presbyterians – Mark Noll
Chapter Fourteen: Great Admirers of the Transatlantic Divinity: Some Chapters in the Story of Baptist Edwardseanism – Michael A. G. Haykin
Chapter Fifteen: ”A German Professor Dropping into the American Forests”: British, French, and German Views of Jonathan Edwards, 1758-1957 – Michael J. McClymond
Chapter Sixteen: An Edwardsean Lost and Found: The Legacy of Jonathan Edwards in Asia – Anri Morimoto
Chapter Seventeen: Before the Young, Restless, and Reformed: Edwards’s Appeal to Post World War II Evangelicals – D. G. Hart
Postscript – Douglas A. Sweeney and Oliver D. Crisp
McMark: And then Daniel Fuller quotes Jonathan Edwards: “We are really saved by perseverance…The perseverance which belongs to faith is a fundamental ground of the congruity that faith gives to salvation…”
RS: Mark, read the Scriptures below and understand that these verse have to be dealt with as well. The person that endures to the end is the only one who will be saved. It is not unbiblical to think of God as having a person’s perseverance in mind when He declares a person just because He has ordained that perseverance and the whole of salvation from all eternity. This is not a denial that a person is declared just on the basis of Christ alone, but it shows that perhaps more is going on than we may realize.
Matthew 24:13 “But the one who endures to the end, he will be saved.
Matthew 10:22 “You will be hated by all because of My name, but it is the one who has endured to the end who will be saved.
Rom 2:5 But because of your stubborness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, 6 who will render to each person according to his deeds: 7 to those who by perseverance in doing good seek glory and honor and immortality, eternal life.
Rev 2:10 BE faithful until death, and I will give you the crown of life.
Rom 8:30 and those whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.
RS: “It is not unbiblical to think of God as having a person’s perseverance in mind when He declares a person just because He has ordained that perseverance and the whole of salvation from all eternity.”
mark: Well, I see you have gotten past a denial that Edwards said it. As for whether it’s biblical, it either is or isn’t. The verdict already given could have been declared on the basis of how “grace” enables us to live in the future. That is what the Roman Catholic tradition teaches, and NT Wright reminds us that the best way to get back to union with so many other “Christians” is to simply agree with what Roman Catholics teach about the gospel.
Let me quote one such professing Christian: “The person who has received righteousness by infusion knows that he still possesses concupiscence, that in comparison to the saints and angels (and God Himself) he is an unrighteous, unworthy sinner, and that he has a long, long way to go
in growing in sanctification. He knows that he sins venially at least seven times a day. The distinction between mortal and venial sin explains why mortal sin is incompatible with being in a state of grace and righteousness, while venial sin is compatible with being in a state of grace and
righteousness. And so the person who is receiving in sanctification Christ’s righteousness by infusion is, at the same time, truly righteous (because he has agape in his soul — see Romans 5:5), and yet still in continual need of conversion and repentance in turning away from
venial sin, and asking daily for the forgiveness of such sins. The sanctifying grace and
agape merited for us by Christ on the cross are infused into our souls; we have the spirit of the law in our hearts, even while concupiscence remains in our lower passions and appetites, and even
when we commit venial sins. Agape is in the will. Therefore righteousness in its essence
is in the will, while concupiscence is not in the will, but in the lower appetites. Just because a person has disorder in his lower appetites, it does not follow that he is not righteous before God,
because as long as he has agape in the will (i.e. he loves God with the supernatural love by which God loves Himself), he is truly a friend of God, even if he has disordered lower appetites which he resists with his will.. That is why if we have agape in our soul, we are truly righteous, even though we still have concupiscence. We grow in our participation in agape, from a state of friendship with God, to a state of deeper friendship with God.” (end of quotation from Called to Communion blog)
mcmark: Now, for sure that’s not how the Reformed confessions would say it, even though there is “grace” in it from beginning to end, with lots of other stuff going on as well. I guess we will have to wait for your say so, however, RS, to see if it’s biblical.
RS: “This is not a denial that a person is declared just on the basis of Christ alone, but it shows that perhaps more is going on than we may realize.”
Zrim,
When I read your comment: “2k understands that Adam’s fall had the effect of making our cultural activity useless in terms of holy and eternal purposes,” I thought it sounded an aweful lot like dispensationalism.
Also, you said: “Which leads to the point that what 2k suspects of neo-Calvinism, when it says things like “what we do in obedience to him is not useless in terms of holy and eternal purposes,” it is an example of drawing a straight line from Adam to ourselves which nothing more than a function of moralism. ” Why is obedience always equated to moralism or legalism with you? Terry is not saying that obedience SAVES us, he is saying we are saved UNTO obedience.
The two mandates that were given to us pre-fall: subdue the earth and have dominion over it, are still in effect. Christ has secured our ability to both subdue (e.g., extract precious resources out of the ground) but also exercise dominion (i.e., tend and care for the creation that God put us as stewards over). Your sharp eschatalogical break seems to cut short the original pre-fall mandates.
When I study Horton’s two covenants theology, I am also reminded of dispensationalism. I am sure I am stating the obvious here, as I am much slower to reach conclusions than the others here, but it seems apparent that this whole debate is driven by eschatology. On the one extreme are the post-mils who are mostly theonomists because they see great continuity between this age and the age to come (I find myself mostly in this camp) and on the other extreme are the 2k’ers who see a sharp break (under-realized eschatology? pseudo-dispensationalism?). Perhaps the neo-cals are somewhere in the middle. I don’t know, I am still trying to sort this all out.
I guess my question for the 2k’ers is why do you see so much continuity between the old and new covenant ages, yet such a sharp break between the current new covenant era and the eternal state? Or am I getting this completely wrong?
Jon, the neo-Calvinist read of 2k as latent dispensationalism isn’t uncommon. But all 2k is trying to do is follow Paul’s own emphasis on the eternal age to come over against the provisional age. Neo-Calvinism’s emphasis is the other way around (which is why 2k can consider neos and theos to be Calvinism’s version of liberalism).
Re obedience, recall the 2k point about the Christian life being summed up in one phrase: grateful obedience. 2k robustly affirms the third use of the law and the whole third section of the HC. 2k routinely gets shredded for esteeming civil obedience and eschewing civil disobedience. I’m not sure how any of that can be construed as “obedience always equated to moralism or legalism.”
I know that neo-Calvinist transformationalists (like Terry) explicitly affirm sola fide. The point is that, to the extent that it thinks Christ has now made it possible to carry out Adam’s pre-fall charge to a covenant of works which is connected to earning eternal life, their cultural transformationalism is getting in the way of their otherwise good confession. The cultural mandate is still in effect but it is stripped of its eternal implications. It is now only a provisional mandate. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t matter; it just means that while the temporal dignity remains, the eternal stakes are radically lowered. And the Great Commission is now the church’s new mandate.
But the spectrum extremes aren’t theonomists and 2kers, it’s post mil theonomists and liberals—both of which oppose amil 2k for emphasizing the age to come and downplaying the provisional age. Amils are also used to the suggestion of an under-realized eschatology, but it’s really just an accent on the forthcoming age.
mark mcculley: quoting RS: “It is not unbiblical to think of God as having a person’s perseverance in mind when He declares a person just because He has ordained that perseverance and the whole of salvation from all eternity.”
mark: Well, I see you have gotten past a denial that Edwards said it. As for whether it’s biblical, it either is or isn’t. The verdict already given could have been declared on the basis of how “grace” enables us to live in the future. That is what the Roman Catholic tradition teaches, and NT Wright reminds us that the best way to get back to union with so many other “Christians” is to simply agree with what Roman Catholics teach about the gospel.
RS: While not a fan or NY Wright, I am not sure he would say that in that way. Hopefully. But as to perseverance, if it is a gift of Christ and a spiritual blessing to share in the divine life (II Peter 1:4) and to be a partaker of grace and holiness, then all of those things are by grace and are given by grace. How could the eternal God who foreknows all things not take those things into account when He declares sinners just? He does not declare them just based on what they will do, but He knows what they will do because His elect are His workmanship created for good works (Eph 2:10) of which He has planned and purchased the grace for His elect to share in.
Matthew 24:13 “But the one who endures to the end, he will be saved.
Matthew 10:22 “You will be hated by all because of My name, but it is the one who has endured to the end who will be saved.
Rom 2:5 But because of your stubborness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, 6 who will render to each person according to his deeds: 7 to those who by perseverance in doing good seek glory and honor and immortality, eternal life.
Rev 2:10 BE faithful until death, and I will give you the crown of life.
Rom 8:30 and those whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.
Zrim,
“The point is that, to the extent that it thinks Christ has now made it possible to carry out Adam’s pre-fall charge to a covenant of works which is connected to earning eternal life, their cultural transformationalism is getting in the way of their otherwise good confession.” I definitely don’t agree with this, whoever says it.
D. G. Hart: McMark, the OUP book on Edwards is supposed to be in the mail.
RS: Bought the book per Amazon. Yes, I intend to read the chapters you wrote.
D. G. Hart: McMark, well done those quotes from Calvin, especially for a recovering anabaptist.
RS: What about the quote from Calvin that I gave? I guess you didn’t like that Calvin?
Help a brother out. What is the name of the OUP book on Edwards and where do I get it? Thanks
sean: Help a brother out. What is the name of the OUP book on Edwards and where do I get it? Thanks
RS: It was posted by McMark earlier in this link, but the title is just below and I obtained mine from Amazon. By the way, D.G. Hart wrote a chapter or two, so I don’t expect Edwards to get a lot of the love he wrote about better than anyone else.
After Jonathan Edwards
The Courses of the New England Theology
Edited by Oliver D. Crisp and Douglas A. Sweeney
Thanks Richard.
Richard, please repeat the quote from Calvin (though you may want to square it with McMark’s, or is Calvin having an Edwards moment?). It’s hard to keep up with you guys.
Richard, I only wrote one chapter. And I never lay a glove on Edwards.
D. G. Hart: Richard, please repeat the quote from Calvin (though you may want to square it with McMark’s, or is Calvin having an Edwards moment?). It’s hard to keep up with you guys.
RS: I guess I just wanted you to notice it so you can see that by quoting him and Hodge that I acknowledge the shoulders of the giants that we all stand on. Some lean harder than others, however.
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.”
Continuing on with this comparison of Catholic spirituality and Reformed spirituality, consider some more quotes from Horton’s COVENANT AND SALVATION-UNION WITH CHRIST:
1) Karl Adams (a Catholic) says this: “But since, according to the Catholic conception, justification does not consist in an external imputation of the merit of Christ….but in the gracious operation of the creative love of Christ within us, and in the supernatural emergence of a new love for goodness and holiness, therefore justification of its nature demands sanctification and perfection, and is only complete and finished in this sanctification”….final justification is the outcome of human cooperation with this infused grace.
2) “The real difference between Roman Catholic and confessional Protestant positions does not lie in whether the reality of the new birth and sanctification is affirmed. Rather, the difference lies in whether forensic justification is affirmed along with renewal, and whether the former is regarded as the sponsor of the latter. According to Rome, the new life ‘is a sort of overflow of the eternal and infinite life within the soul.’ Intrinisic righteousness is the basis for the external verdict, and the righteous deeds of the new life are meritorious.”
3) “At the heart of this notion of infused grace lies an ontological dualism, which assumes that there is a substantial deficiency in nature that must be supplemented by grace….In Reformed theology, however, grace justifies, sanctifies and glorifies creatures without adding anything substantial to nature.”
4) Moving on to radical orthodoxy: “Like any version of overcoming estrangement I can think of, RO offers a subjective theory of the atonement, one in which the problematic of sin and grace becomes submerged in a synergistic vision of church that heals all ontic fissures….the danger of assimilating the concrete event of the cross into a speculative philosophy.”
5) McMark- “The Bible has different senses of sanctification- both by the Spirit (2Thess. 2:13) and set apart and perfected by the blood (Hebrews 10)…..Of course, in our common language, when we say sanctification, we tend not to be talking about Christ’s death or about the Spirit causing us to hear the Gospel. We tend to think of the new birth as creating in us a new disposition which causes us to gradually get better.”
6) Although closer to the Roman Catholic understanding of justification than confessional Protestantism, Mannermaa’s provocative thesis reflects a more ‘Byzantine’ Luther. If faith is seen by Rome as an assent to truths concerning the object of love, which only becomes active by love through the infusion of grace (gratia infusia), Luther sees love as identical to law. Love striving upward to God is the same as works-righteousness. Mannermaa accurately interprets on this point. Even grace-elevated love remains human love….The fides caritate formata (faith formed by love) position of Rome ‘rests on Greek ontology, and its notion of striving love only signifies a partial, incomplete and insufficient divinization. By contrast, Luther replaced love with the grace of God in Christ as the ‘substance’ rather than the mere ‘accident.’ Thus we are always justified by Christ’s righteousness, not by our own. Even Christ in nobis (in us) is Christ extra nos (outside us).”
Richard, I don’t see how these quotations affect McMark’s quotes which deny conditionality in the declaration of the gospel. Plus, it’s interesting to see Hodge talking about union and new life in ways that Nevin was attempted to articulate, even though Hodge didn’t like such union-language applied to the Lord’s Supper, which is after a comm-union.
Jon, that’s a very astute way of boiling this issue down to the nub. I’ve always felt Zrim and Darryl’s world view was virtually the same as dispensationalists, just dressed up in “reformed” verbiage.
Doug, interesting. When I hear you I am reminded of Islam.
D. G. Hart: Richard, I don’t see how these quotations affect McMark’s quotes which deny conditionality in the declaration of the gospel. Plus, it’s interesting to see Hodge talking about union and new life in ways that Nevin was attempted to articulate, even though Hodge didn’t like such union-language applied to the Lord’s Supper, which is after a comm-union.
The topic has evolved some. There is no conditionality, however, in the writings of Edwards in terms of the Gospel. In context that comes out in what he is saying. The Bible speaks of many things and in many ways. McMark appears to want to focus on one aspect instead of taking into account the other ways the Bible speaks of things. For example, Mattthew 12: 36 “But I tell you that every careless word that people speak, they shall give an accounting for it in the day of judgment. 37 “For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.” I would not argue that this is the same justification in the same way that Paul speaks of in Romans 3 and 4, yet we must take this passage into account. Edwards’ way of doing things actually protects the doctrine of justification by grace alone through faith alone if one actually reads the whole passage rather than just take a quote from it. The charge of antinomianism is always close, but if you understand the view of God that takes it all in, and perseverance is always in mind but as a gift of God, then one can see that this actually protects the true doctrine of justification from the charge of antinomianism.
Richard, the Reformed confessions already take these biblical texts into account and the churches have put down their chips — pardon the metaphor — on the forensic, choosing to regard the conditional through the lens of promise. Those who stress the conditional have to make sense of the promise. But those who also stress the conditional and new creation have to make sense of how deep down sin goes — it will never leave us until death — not to mention how wonder-working Christ’s salvation is. He doesn’t just jump start the holiness engine so that we can complete the race and won’t finish it until we are holy.
Mind you, I think your emphasis on God’s doing it all in holiness of believers is just as prone to antinomianism as an emphasis on the promise. After all, if God is going to take care of sanctification, then I can chill.
Doug (and Jon), on top of sounding Protestant liberal and Islamist, there is good reason it’s actually you who also sound Dispy:
To put the matter in a comparative perspective, this theory of theonomic politics stands at the opposite end of the spectrum of error from Dispensationalism. The latter represents an extreme failure to do justice to the continuity between the old and new covenants. Chalcedon’s error, no less extreme or serious, is a failure to do justice to the discontinuity between the old and new covenants.
And for extended explanations:
http://www.meredithkline.com/klines-works/articles-and-essays/comments-on-an-old-new-error/
http://www.the-highway.com/theonomy-hermeneutic_Irons.html
D. G. Hart: Richard, the Reformed confessions already take these biblical texts into account and the churches have put down their chips — pardon the metaphor — on the forensic, choosing to regard the conditional through the lens of promise. Those who stress the conditional have to make sense of the promise. But those who also stress the conditional and new creation have to make sense of how deep down sin goes — it will never leave us until death — not to mention how wonder-working Christ’s salvation is. He doesn’t just jump start the holiness engine so that we can complete the race and won’t finish it until we are holy.
RS: But I am not talking about these things as if they are conditional on our part and I am certainly not speaking against the forensic. The issue was one statement of Edwards (taken out of its context) about God’s view of things. I gave Romans 8:30 as one biblical example or this, but then gave others. Romans 8:30 gives us the picture that God has (in one sense): “and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.” Glorification is as if it already happened. So of course God takes that into account or has that in view. Those whom He justifies forensically He has them in His eyes as already glorified. The fact that He takes into account their sanctification and glorification in justification says nothing against the forensic nature of justification. “These whom He justified, He also glorified.” Again, the forensic nature of the Gospel and all things depend on God and the conditions are not there for men to fulfill.
D.G. Hart: Mind you, I think your emphasis on God’s doing it all in holiness of believers is just as prone to antinomianism as an emphasis on the promise. After all, if God is going to take care of sanctification, then I can chill.
RS: We are left with two options. The sinner is given a new heart and declared just on the basis of Christ and Christ alone by grace alone. 1) Now the sinner either grows and matures by grace or 2) the sinner grows and matures by his own efforts. You seem to think that if sanctification is by grace then you can just chill. I say that grace must work in the heart in order that we may do what we do by grace. So it is not that we can chill, but we must understand that apart from Christ we can do nothing (nothing good or spiritual). I say that any spiritual fruit must come from the Spirit who alone can work love, joy, etc in the soul. That is not chilling, but recognizing our utter dependence upon Him. If our sanctification is not by grace, then it has to be by the works we come up with.
Colossians 2:6 Therefore as you have received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in Him,
Galatians 2:20 “I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me.
Doug,
Thanks.
Darryl,
Your comparison of theonomy to Islam is common, though usually I get it from my dispensational friends. Sometimes I wonder if people are embarassed of the God of the Old Testament? They say OT laws were too harsh, but do they forget they were God’s laws? Islam, like any other counterfeit, has aspects of truth mingled it with its falsity. But that doesn’t mean there aren’t slivers of truth in other worldviews. We don’t quit believing in God just because Jehovah’s witnesses believe in him.
But when I talk to non-theonomists about how they would make laws in today’s age, the answers are all over the place. Some are for corporate punishment, some against. No two people can agree. Theonomy gives an objective starting point. (This is where you jump in and discuss where theonomists disagree, but at least they have a common starting point. The disagreement comes in the application thereof.)
Doug and Jon, on top of sounding Protestant liberal and Islamist, there is good reason it’s actually you who also sound Dispy:
To put the matter in a comparative perspective, this theory of theonomic politics stands at the opposite end of the spectrum of error from Dispensationalism. The latter represents an extreme failure to do justice to the continuity between the old and new covenants. Chalcedon’s error, no less extreme or serious, is a failure to do justice to the discontinuity between the old and new covenants.
And for extended explanations:
http://www.meredithkline.com/klines-works/articles-and-essays/comments-on-an-old-new-error/
And here:
http://www.the-highway.com/theonomy-hermeneutic_Irons.html
Jon, you might wonder if 2k is embarrassed of the God of the Old Testament, but 2k wonders if theonomy understands messianic fulfillment. Or WCF 19.3 and .4:
“Besides this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a church under age, ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, His graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits; and partly, holding forth divers instructions of moral duties. All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated, under the New Testament.”
“Besides this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a church under age, ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, His graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits; and partly, holding forth divers instructions of moral duties.All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated, under the New Testament.”
Zrim,
Greg Bahnsen has already anticipated the objection of lack of discontinuity and messianic fulfillement and answered them.
http://reformed-theology.org/ice/newslet/be/be.05.80.htm
The whole argument that if you argue for abrogation of the ceremonial laws, then you have to do away with the moral and civil laws, is lutheran and I believe answered in the book:
“Five Views on Law and Gospel” edited by Stanley Gundry. I recommend anyone involved in this debate to read all five views.
All three Reformed authors disagree with the above assertion.
Jon, who said the moral law is done away with? WCF 19.5 makes it clear that, while the judicial and ceremonial laws are now abrogated in Christ, the moral law still abides and is binding on all.
And Lutherans aren’t antinomian, as Fesko demonstrates here (no love for our closest theological relatives?):
http://confessionalouthouse.wordpress.com/2009/12/29/fesko-on-the-third-use-in-lutheranism/
Zrim,
Douglas Moo takes that position in the book. He calls it the “modified Lutheran” view. I don’t lack any love for them, I’m just stating what I read in the book.
I wasn’t sure what your view of the moral law’s abiding. That’s why I asked the question.