The new issue of Credo Magazine is out and it is dedicated almost entirely to the bi-centennial of Princeton Theological Seminary. Here’s an excerpt from Christopher Cooper:
While the Princeton theologians did not oppose the possibility of revival and welcomed them on occasion, they believed that it was neither the common, best, nor desirable mode available for the advancement of the Christian religion. Princeton’s Charles Hodge, for instance, pointed out several problems with revival. First, revivals tend to produce pastors and lay people who envision conversion as always sudden and sensible. Such revivalists take it for granted that children grow up unconverted and in need of the drama of a revival experience in order to enter the Christian fold. According to Hodge, such a scheme does not allow for the more regular, scriptural, and desirable method of Christian nurture. Under this system, parents immerse their children in prayers, catechesis, and Christian encouragement, so that they may be quietly, although no less supernaturally, converted without the pomp and circumstance of revival.
Second, Hodge argued that revivals generate an unscriptural form of piety that makes the exercise of strong emotions essential to true religion and worship. Such an opinion produces unstable Christians whose religious stability is gauged by their emotional state. This approach also demeans the ordinary means of grace that are given by God not to foster great emotional highs that are inevitably followed by lows, but to serve as a more constant encouragement to Christian pilgrims.
Hodge pointed out that revivals are, by their very nature, extraordinary occasions and are not meant to be relied upon by pastors and laypersons to whom God has given the task of parental nurture and pastoral ministry. Likewise, pastors today ought not to rely upon revival or the vestiges of revivalism, but would do well to instill within themselves confidence in the ordinary means of pastoral ministry and into their congregants a sense of responsibility for the nurture and edification of their children.
And in case readers are wondering, Old Lifers do make an appearance in this issue.
241 Comments
No wonder no one can stomach your “strong” Calvinism Richard- you take away the good news of the Gospel with your doctrine of the Holy Spirit and sanctification.
John Yeazel wrote: “God’s imputing Christ’s righteousness to us causes a “circumcised heart and the work of the Spirit. Faith is the result of Christ’s indwelling which happens at the same time as the Spirits indwelling. The imputation of Christ’s righteousness has logical priority to the Spirit’s indwelling. Galatians chapter 4 tells us that because you are sons (imputation of righteousness) you receive the gift of the Spirit.”
GW: John, help me out here. No doubt you would agree that we are justified by (the instrumental means of) faith in Christ alone, right? That is to say, faith in Jesus Christ is the instrumental means by which God legally imputes (credits to our account) the perfect righteousness of Christ (that righteousness which serves as the legal ground and basis of our justification and hence our title to heaven). Would you not agree that this justifying faith is the result, not the cause, of being regenerated by the Holy Spirit (or, to use OT language, being “circumcised in heart”)? Would you not agree that first we (who in ourselves are spiritually dead in sin) must first be born again (regenerated, spiritually resurrected, circumcised in heart) before we can savingly believe upon Christ for justification? And if you deny this and instead believe that the logical order is faith > justification > regeneration/ circumcision of heart, then do you not realize this is an Arminian view, not a Reformed one?
Please forgive me if I’ve misread or misunderstood your comments. Clarification is appreciated.
Regards,
Geoff W.
Richard says: “Since there is not one shred of evidence in the NT of an infant being baptized and certainly not one command to do so, followers of the Regulative Principle don’t baptize them. Yes, I just threw a few provocative thoughts out there.”
Erik: If baptism replaces circumcision I think that the NT writers would have made it explicit if believers were not supposed to baptize their children.
Richard,
See Zrim’s comment on Belgic 34.
John Y: Berkhof, p. 452, Systematic Theology:
“It is sometimes said that the merits of Christ cannot be imputed to us as long as we are not in Christ, since it is only on the basis of our oneness with Him that such an imputation could be reasonable. But this view fails to distinguish between our legal unity with Christ and our spiritual oneness with Him, and is a falsification of the fundamental element in the doctrine of redemption, namely, of the doctrine of justification.”
” Justification is always a declaration of God, not on the basis of an existing (or future) condition, but on that of a gracious imputation- a declaration which is not in harmony with the existing condition of the sinner. The judicial ground for all the grace we receive lies in the fact that the righteousness of Christ is freely imputed to us.”
John Y: God’s imputing Christ’s righteousness to us causes a “circumcised heart and the work of the Spirit. Faith is the result of Christ’s indwelling which happens at the same time as the Spirits indwelling. The imputation of Christ’s righteousness has logical priority to the Spirit’s indwelling.
RS: Quoting from Monergism.com: “In the Reformed camp, the ordo salutis is 1) election, 2) predestination, 3) gospel call 4) inward call 5) regeneration, 6) conversion (faith & repentance), 7) justification, 8) sanctification, and 9) glorification. (Rom 8:29-30). In other words, the imputation of the righteousness of Christ does not cause a a circumcised heart. “Election is the superstructure of our ordo salutis, but not itself the application of redemption. Regeneration, the work of the Holy Spirit which brings us into a living union with Christ, has a causal priority over the other aspects of the process of salvation.”
John Y: Galatians chapter 4 tells us that because you are sons (imputation of righteousness) you receive the gift of the Spirit. 2 Peter 1:1- To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ, ie., faith as a result of the imputation. Romans 8:10- But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness (logical priority of the imputed righteousness). It is because of the imputed righteousness that the Spirit gives life. And, as McMark stated, the life and newness of life is because we are not under the curse of the Law anymore- guilt for our sin and disobedience is done away with for the elect (past, present and future sins). Now this is really good news!! Not the conditional good news of Richard and Roman Catholocism.
RS: John Y, if you cannot see the difference between what I am saying and Roman Catholicism, I am not sure how to respond to you very well other than to say it is very sad. Believe it or not, what I am saying to you in this context is in line with the history of Reformed theology. Read carefully the Westminster Larger Catechism and notice the order in it.
Q. 65. What special benefits do the members of the invisible church enjoy by Christ?
A. The members of the invisible church by Christ enjoy union and communion with him in grace and glory.[269]
Q. 66. What is that union which the elect have with Christ?
A. The union which the elect have with Christ is the work of God’s grace,[270] whereby they are spiritually and mystically, yet really and inseparably, joined to Christ as their head and husband;[271] which is done in their effectual calling.[272]
RS: Note that the elect have a spiritual and mystical union with Christ wherein they are really and inseparably joined to Christ. When is this done? It is done in their effectual calling.
Q. 67. What is effectual calling?
A. Effectual calling is the work of God’s almighty power and grace,[273] whereby (out of his free and special love to his elect, and from nothing in them moving him thereunto)[274] he doth, in his accepted time, invite and draw them to Jesus Christ, by his Word and Spirit;[275] savingly enlightening their minds,[276] renewing and powerfully determining their wills,[277] so as they (although in themselves dead in sin) are hereby made willing and able freely to answer his call, and to accept and embrace the grace offered and conveyed therein.[278]
RS: Effectual calling and regeneration are at the very least tied together. But remember, union with Christ happens (according to the WLC) in effectual calling.
Q. 68. Are the elect only effectually called?
A. All the elect, and they only, are effectually called:[279] although others may be, and often are, outwardly called by the ministry of the Word,[280] and have some common operations of the Spirit;[281] who, for their wilful neglect and contempt of the grace offered to them, being justly left in their unbelief, do never truly come to Jesus Christ.[282]
Q. 69. What is the communion in grace which the members of the invisible church have with Christ?
A. The communion in grace which the members of the invisible church have with Christ, is their partaking of the virtue of his mediation, in their justification,[283] adoption,[284] sanctification, and whatever else, in this life, manifests their union with him.[285]
Q. 70. What is justification?
A. Justification is an act of God’s free grace unto sinners,[286] in which he pardoneth all their sins, accepteth and accounteth their persons righteous in his sight;[287] not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them,[288] but only for the perfect obedience and full satisfaction of Christ, by God imputed to them,[289] and received by faith alone.[290]
RS: Notice the order of the WLC. It is effectual calling/regeneration and then union with Christ. Then there is justification.
Q. 71. How is justification an act of God’s free grace?
A. Although Christ, by his obedience and death, did make a proper, real, and full satisfaction to God’s justice in the behalf of them that are justified;[291] yet in as much as God accepteth the satisfaction from a surety, which he might have demanded of them, and did provide this surety, his own only Son,[292] imputing his righteousness to them,[293] and requiring nothing of them for their justification but faith,[294] which also is his gift,[295] their justification is to them of free grace.[296]
Q. 72. What is justifying faith?
A. Justifying faith is a saving grace,[297] wrought in the heart of a sinner by the Spirit[298] and Word of God,[299] whereby he, being convinced of his sin and misery, and of the disability in himself and all other creatures to recover him out of his lost condition,[300] not only assenteth to the truth of the promise of the gospel,[301] but receiveth and resteth upon Christ and his righteousness, therein held forth, for pardon of sin,[302] and for the accepting and accounting of his person righteous in the sight of God for salvation.[303]
RS: A soul cannot be united to Christ apart from faith and yet regeneration must happen for faith to occur. But there is no imputation of the righteousness of Christ to anyone that is not regenerate and who is not united to Christ. The WLC is my basic position. It is not the position of Rome.
Zrim: So ministers, as far as their work is concerned, give us the sacrament and what is visible, but our Lord gives what the sacrament signifies– namely the invisible gifts and graces; washing, purifying, and cleansing our souls of all filth and unrighteousness; renewing our hearts and filling them with all comfort; giving us true assurance of his fatherly goodness; clothing us with the “new man” and stripping off the “old,” with all its works.
So baptism does wash away sin, insofar as it visibly signifies what is invisibly done spiritually by the Spirit. And in so doing, while it certainly doesn’t save, it fills believers with all comfort and true assurance. This is not unreformed ex opere operato. This is real presence, which is to say the Spirit is at work in the administration of the sacraments, which is to say truly present, edifying his people by using the visible signs and seals to point us to the work of Christ.
RS: In other words, God responds to what is being done by human hands and gives grace when human hands carry out the application of water. Sorry, but I cannot see that as pure grace which does not respond to what human beings do, but instead is God acting of Himself and for Himself.
John Yeazel: You still did not answer my question of who decides if one is elect and can receive baptism Richard. And how does one go about decided if someone is really elect or not?
RS: Since baptism is something a church should do to true believers (the command of Jesus in Matthew 28 was to baptize disciples), a person would certainly need to be convinced himself and then have a credible profession and confession to the elders in the church.
John Yeazel: was typing fast with fangs and claws. I am still reeling over the fact that Richard was questioning whether I was really converted or not according to the evidences that he deems appropriate. So, if you would’nt baptize me Richard could I go to McMarks church and have that church baptize me.
RS: I didn’t realize that I was questioning your conversion. Unless a person is clearly and obviously denying the Gospel of grace alone, I wouldn’t think that would be appropriate in an internet situation. I was attempting to speak in an objective way, and upon going back, I still cannot see where I questioned your conversion in a direct way.
John Yeazel: No wonder no one can stomach your “strong” Calvinism Richard- you take away the good news of the Gospel with your doctrine of the Holy Spirit and sanctification.
RS: Sorry you see it that way. Christ purchased the Holy Spirit for His people and sanctification is His gift to His people. Holiness is not so much as against His people, but it is for them that they may share in His holiness. Holiness is a great and glorious thing by which the glory of God shines through His people.
Erik Charter: Richard says: “Since there is not one shred of evidence in the NT of an infant being baptized and certainly not one command to do so, followers of the Regulative Principle don’t baptize them. Yes, I just threw a few provocative thoughts out there.”
Erik: If baptism replaces circumcision I think that the NT writers would have made it explicit if believers were not supposed to baptize their children.
RS: But why do you “demand” that they make this explicit? Remember, we have a different covenant and a different High Priest. Could it be that baptism does not replace circumcision, but instead circumcision was a picture to teach us that the people needed a new or circumcised heart? In the NT, then, all who are in Christ have circumcised hearts and that happens when a person is placed into Christ.
Colossians 2:9-14 speaks of this, but the circumicision spoken of there is one done without hands. The baptism, then, is one that is done without hands. So instead of the NT being silent about not baptizing infants, it just instructs us on those who are in the New Covenant.
Geoff,
You understood me right and I do not agree with those who are saying that the Arminians say the same thing. That is the argument that is coming out of Westminster in Philadelphia too. I say there is a lot of confusion on when the imputation of Christ righteousness takes place (before or after regeneration- actually, I think they occur at the same time but the imputation of righteousness takes logical priority or else it is not a justification of the ungodly). I do not believe that someone is justified without the work of the spirit and faith. But it is the imputation of righteousness which is the cause of regeneration and faith. The effectual call are better words than regeneration because regeneration implies an ontological change of substance in the human agent. Horton comes close to saying the same thing but because the confessions say what Richard showed them to say he kind of vascillates back and forth on the issue.
Horton does think highly of Bruce McCormack’s argument in his essay “What is at Stake in the Justification Debates” and critiques the essay in his book COVENANT AND SALVATION. McCormack says this about the issue:
“I think it is accurate to say that there are no hotter topics in Protestant theology today, than the themes of theosis, union with Christ, the de Lubacian axiom ‘the Eucharist makes the church,’ etc……In the process, the churches are slowly coming under the influence of a concept of ’participation’ in Christ that owes a great deal to the ancient Greek ontologies of pure being…..In truth, forensicism (rightly understood!) provides the basis for an alternative theological ontology to the one presupposed in Roman and Eastern soteriology. Where this is not seen, the result has almost always been the abondonment of the Reformation doctrine of justification on the mistaken assumption that the charge of a ‘legal fiction’ has a weight, which in truth, it does not.”
I learned this from McMark over a period of about 8 months dialoging with him. It took me a long time to see what he was saying but I think he is right. He has thought about it longer than I have and can defend it better than I.
sean: Richard, See Zrim’s comment on Belgic 34.
RS: Sean, I think I gave a short answer to that already. While I really, really like most of the Belgic Confession, this is one of those places that I think it contradicts itself in articles 21-23. I simply see the vast majority of the NT given to preaching the Gospel and urging people to Christ for salvation or sanctification by grace alone. For the moment, I cannot see the efficacy of the sacraments as being of such importance when the NT places the importance on preaching and of bowing in submission to grace in the soul.
Erik Charter: Richard says: “Since there is not one shred of evidence in the NT of an infant being baptized and certainly not one command to do so, followers of the Regulative Principle don’t baptize them. Yes, I just threw a few provocative thoughts out there.”
Erik: If baptism replaces circumcision I think that the NT writers would have made it explicit if believers were not supposed to baptize their children.
RS: Erik, I was going to add something to my first post to you on this and then was sidetracked. Below are two questions and answers from the WLC that I fully agree with.
WLC, Q.31, With whom is the covenant of grace made?
A. The covenant of grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in him with all the elect as his seed.
RS: The covenant of grace was made with Christ and in Him all the elect of His seed. Okay, so the covenant is with Christ and all the elect. That is what I am trying to assert. If the covenant of grace is with Christ and all the elect, then what does it mean for infants to be in the covenant and then out of the covenant?
WLC, Q.32, How is the grace of God manifested in the second covenant?
A. The grace of God is manifested in the second covenant, in that he freely provideth and offereth to sinners a Mediator, and life and salvation by him; and requiring faith as the condition to interest them in him, promiseth and giveth his Holy Spirit to all his elect, to work in them that faith, with all other saving graces; and to enable them unto all holy obedience, as the evidence of the truth of their faith and thankfulness to God, and as the way which he hath appointed them to salvation.”
RS: To those who are elect in the covenant of grace God promises and gives His Holy Spirit who works faith in them along with all other saving graces. So if only the elect are in the covenant of grace and it is to the elect that God makes these promises, I am not sure why all infants of believers are presumed to be in this covenant. It seems to be that the writers of the NT are not silent about those to be baptized, and at this point the WLC is not silent about those in the covenant of grace. As a Baptist in that sense, I cannot see how we are authorized to baptize anyone until God shows them to be in His covenant of grace.
RS: Sorry you see it that way. Christ purchased the Holy Spirit for His people and sanctification is His gift to His people. Holiness is not so much as against His people, but it is for them that they may share in His holiness. Holiness is a great and glorious thing by which the glory of God shines through His people
John Y: I don’t know about the statement Christ “purchased” the Holy Spirit for his people. The Holy Spirit comes to the elect because of the imputed righteousness to the elect which Christ won by his perfect law keeping. Christ righteousness then becomes our righteousness after the imputation. I too think holiness is a great and glorious thing but you think it is worked into us by the Holy Spirit making us Holy. I think holiness and sanctification is a result of the imputation of righteousness even as we remain simul iestus et peccator. We are perfectly holy and righteousness while remaining sinful in our bodies. Romans 8:10- But if Christ is in you (imputation of righteousness), although the body is dead because of sin, the spirit is life because of righteousness.” We receive the Spirit because of the imputation of righteousness even though we remain sinful in our bodies.
John Yeazel : You understood me right and I do not agree with those who are saying that the Arminians say the same thing. That is the argument that is coming out of Westminster in Philadelphia too. I say there is a lot of confusion on when the imputation of Christ righteousness takes place (before or after regeneration- actually, I think they occur at the same time but the imputation of righteousness takes logical priority or else it is not a justification of the ungodly). I do not believe that someone is justified without the work of the spirit and faith. But it is the imputation of righteousness which is the cause of regeneration and faith. The effectual call are better words than regeneration because regeneration implies an ontological change of substance in the human agent. Horton comes close to saying the same thing but because the confessions say what Richard showed them to say he kind of vascillates back and forth on the issue.
RS: John, please go back and carefully read what Geoff Willour said. He says a lot in a short space, but it really is good. Note also the order of things in salvation as listed below.
In the Reformed camp, the ordo salutis is 1) election, 2) predestination, 3) gospel call 4) inward call 5) regeneration, 6) conversion (faith & repentance), 7) justification, 8) sanctification, and 9) glorification. (Rom 8:29-30)
In the Arminian camp, the ordo salutis is 1) outward call 2) faith/election, 3) repentance, 4) regeneration, 5) justification, 6) perseverance, 7) glorification.
John Yaezel wrote: You understood me right and I do not agree with those who are saying that the Arminians say the same thing…I do not believe that someone is justified without the work of the spirit and faith. But it is the imputation of righteousness which is the cause of regeneration and faith.”
GW: Thanks, John, for the clarification. But for further clarification (since I’m new to this particular debate) let me ask: Wouldn’t the implication of your position be that “faith is by justification” rather than the biblical-reformational view that “justification is by faith”? I think we would agree that Christ’s righteousness alone serves as the meritorious ground and basis of our justification, and that all aspects of our salvation are grounded solely in God’s gracious action in Christ. But from my vantage point you seem to be contradicting yourself. On the one hand you (correctly) affirm that our justification cannot take place apart from the work of the Spirit and faith. On the other hand, you seem to say that we must be justified before we can be regenerated and thus exercise faith in Christ. Unless there are some nuances that I’m missing, that sounds to me like a plain contradiction. What am I missing here, brother? And how does your position comport with the historic Reformed (and reformational) view that we sinners are justified “by” (the instrumental means of) faith (a faith wrought in the hearts of sinners by the work of the Holy Spirit)?
Like I said, McMark can defend the position better than I but I will a make an attempt to answer your inquiries. First of all, Richard does not listen to anyone closely who disagrees with him. Union with Christ has to be defined carefully. There are 3 different unions with Christ. There is the decretal union, the forensic union and the mystical union by the Holy Spirit (which Richard and the confessions want to call the “real” union- like the decretal union and forensic union are not “real.”). The Arminians do not think that the imputation of Christ’s righteousness (baptized by God into Christ- Romans 6:3) is what starts the whole process of effectual call rolling. They think that their own faith is what starts the process. From what I understand McMark telling me is that the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to the elect person is what causes them to hear the Gospel. The Holy Spirit is then given along with the gift of faith and the effectual call. Then the person is justified. It is the imputation of Christ’s righteousness which causes the receiving of the Spirit, faith, repetance and justification. If the effectual call occurs before the imputation it is no longer the justification of the ungodly. So, it is the imputation of Christ’s righteousness (the forensic union) which occurs first in logical priority even though the imputation of righteousness, effectual call and justification occur simultaneously.
I find it odd that Richard uses the confession to bolster his own point of view when he wants but disregards the confessions view of the sacraments. A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.
So, I am objecting to Richards view of the logical order of the ordo salutis and his view about evidences of justification and conversion. I never said that his view and the Catholic view were the same. The Catholics reject imputation altogether and then view sancfication as grace being ontological infused into the human agent until they have enough infusion of grace to be considered justified. Richard has a hard time listening to others.
Richard – I think you (and other Reformed Baptists) err in a way similar to how Roman Cathlolics err. You want certainty in areas where it you cannot demand certainty. They look to history to find certainty, Baptists look to baptism to find certainty. Baptists say we cannot baptize infants because we do not know if they are a Christian until they make a profession of faith. But all kinds of people make profession of faith, are baptized, and then go on to abandon the faith and live like pagans. What are we to make of their baptism? I think the Federal Vision guys make the same error – “Well, if we tell people they are saved by faith in what Christ has done for them they might take it for granted and not live right so let’s tell them they are saved not by faith, but by faithfulness. We need to see it to know they’re saved.” When David’s infant son died David was confident that “I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.” David knew God and trusted Him and had faith he would be with his son again after death. As Reformed people we can have a similar trust in Christ for our own salvation and the salvation of our children. Will it always happen for every child? No. Can we guarantee it? No. Will circumcision guarantee it? No. Will baptism guarantee it? No. But we have hope that if we trust in Christ and if they trust in Christ it will all work out in the end.
Geoff said: “Unless there are some nuances that I’m missing, that sounds to me like a plain contradiction. What am I missing here, brother? And how does your position comport with the historic Reformed (and reformational) view that we sinners are justified “by” (the instrumental means of) faith (a faith wrought in the hearts of sinners by the work of the Holy Spirit)?”
John Y: Do you see how I avoided the contradiction? It is the imputation of Christ’s righteousness (the forensic union) which results in the giving of the Spirit (the mystical union), faith and effectual call. The end result is justification. It is the forensic union which calls into existence that which did not exist before (the ungodly becomes godly by the forensic righteousness imputed). The forensic has priority over the mystical union of the Spirit. However, the elect need the decretal union, the forensic union and the mystical union to be considered justified.
So, it is the forensic union which brings the benefits of Christ” work to the elect. The mystical union is the seal and deposit which guarantees the elects heavenly inheritance and seals his salvation (Eph. 1:4; 4:30). The Spirit enables the elect to continue to see, believe, trust and hope in Christ and his work for the elect. The Spirit illumines the mind and reassures the elect that he is part of the new creation in Christ (part of the family of God). The Spirit does not make us Holy- it is the forensic union which makes us Holy.
Erik Charter: Richard – I think you (and other Reformed Baptists) err in a way similar to how Roman Cathlolics err. You want certainty in areas where it you cannot demand certainty. They look to history to find certainty, Baptists look to baptism to find certainty.
RS: Interesting comment.
Erik Charter: Baptists say we cannot baptize infants because we do not know if they are a Christian until they make a profession of faith. But all kinds of people make profession of faith, are baptized, and then go on to abandon the faith and live like pagans. What are we to make of their baptism?
RS: I cannot speak for others, but I don’t think that is the motivation. I think what I am saying is that in the New Covenant he only people in that covenant are the elect and the promises of the covenant are only to the elect. There is no certainty when a person is baptized that the person is of the elect, but I can say with certainty that if one baptizes all the infants of the many churches they will baptize many of the non-elect. I am concerned that the claim that these people are in the covenant and have the promises of God make Him to look untruthful and as if He is waiting on them to make a decision.
Erik Charter: I think the Federal Vision guys make the same error – “Well, if we tell people they are saved by faith in what Christ has done for them they might take it for granted and not live right so let’s tell them they are saved not by faith, but by faithfulness. We need to see it to know they’re saved.” When David’s infant son died David was confident that “I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.” David knew God and trusted Him and had faith he would be with his son again after death. As Reformed people we can have a similar trust in Christ for our own salvation and the salvation of our children. Will it always happen for every child? No. Can we guarantee it? No. Will circumcision guarantee it? No. Will baptism guarantee it? No. But we have hope that if we trust in Christ and if they trust in Christ it will all work out in the end.
RS: I don’t think that I look for certainty and I think I am fairly certain that I don’t fall into the FV error. I do think it has to do with the idea of who is in the covenant and what that means. I am not concerned that those with true faith will take it for granted and just like like the devil, because it is God who will keep them persevering in the faith.
John Yeazel: Like I said, McMark can defend the position better than I but I will a make an attempt to answer your inquiries. First of all, Richard does not listen to anyone closely who disagrees with him.
RS: You sound like my wife. But if you mean by listen closely that I have to agree, then no. Disagreement is a good thing and helps people to discover truth.
John Yeazel: So, I am objecting to Richards view of the logical order of the ordo salutis and his view about evidences of justification and conversion.
RS: I hate to disappoint you but the ordo salutis was not mine. I thought that I mentioned that I was quoting it from monergism.com I might add that it is really just what the Reformed have thought for a long time. Since you like Horton, read what he says at the site below.
http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/questions/horton/union.html
Richard – In the Old Testament God commanded all Israelite men (many of who were presumably not elect) to be circumcised. Why would it be inconsistent for Him to command believing parents to baptize their children? (some of whom are presumably not elect). I just don’t think there is anything we can do to try to make the invisible church and the visible church one (which is in essence what I see the Roman Catholics & the Federal Vision guys doing). Arminians don’t struggle with this since they don’t believe in election. I’ll say it again – being a Reformed Baptist makes one an oddball. But I still like you!
John, here is another article you could read.
http://www.monergism.com/union_augustus.html
Erik Charter: Richard – In the Old Testament God commanded all Israelite men (many of who were presumably not elect) to be circumcised. Why would it be inconsistent for Him to command believing parents to baptize their children? (some of whom are presumably not elect).
RS: True enough that He did that in the Old Testament, but it was the Old Covenant. We are now under a New Covenant, so it does not seem strange that things are different. For example, if a man in your church married a woman with adult children who were not believers and yet they wanted to be baptized, would you baptize them? In the Old Covenant they would be circumcised. In the Old Testamnt the covenant was with the physical seed of Abraham, but now that the physical seed of Abraham to whom the promises were made (Christ) has come, there is now a spiritual seed of Abraham. So many of the promises of the OT were to the physical seed, but now the promises are to the spiritual seed.
Erik Charter: I just don’t think there is anything we can do to try to make the invisible church and the visible church one (which is in essence what I see the Roman Catholics & the Federal Vision guys doing). Arminians don’t struggle with this since they don’t believe in election. I’ll say it again – being a Reformed Baptist makes one an oddball. But I still like you!
RS: I confess that I am guilty of being an oddball. You still like me? I just may have to come to Des Moines someday and teach you about the Baptist way. I know, you were one for 20 yrs. Any resturants around there serve gluten free, dairy free, egg free, corn free, high fructose sugar free, and corn syrup free food?
Richard,
I already said that Horton vascillates on the issue and that I do not agree with the ordo in that monergism link. I explained why I believe what I do. There are a lot more scriptures I could appeal to once the forensic union is given priority over the mystical union. The forensic rocks the mystical tweets.
Richard,
It is true that only believers partake of the essence of the covenant. No paedo-baptist denies that. But the question is: Does the covenant, in its administration, embrace the children of believers?
But the promises are to believers and their children, as many as the Lord our God will call (even if the call does not ultimately prove to have been effectual). Abraham is the father of the faithful and the covenant embraced all his children, yet some of them, e.g., Ishmael and Esau, etc. were ultimately cast out. New Testament Christians are grafted into the same olive tree in place of the natural branches that were cut off for their unbelief, but if they do not hold fast to the promise by faith, they too are threatened with being cut off. Doesn’t this suggest that there is an administration of the covenant distinct from the essence? Or do you not hold to the perseverance of the saints?
The principle is one of parental authority, so adult children would not be candidates for baptism or church membership apart from a credible profession of faith.
David R. quoitng Richard: “I think what I am saying is that in the New Covenant he only people in that covenant are the elect and the promises of the covenant are only to the elect. There is no certainty when a person is baptized that the person is of the elect, but I can say with certainty that if one baptizes all the infants of the many churches they will baptize many of the non-elect.”
David R: It is true that only believers partake of the essence of the covenant. No paedo-baptist denies that. But the question is: Does the covenant, in its administration, embrace the children of believers?
RS: Remember, we are speaking of the covenant of grace and/or the New Covenant. I know you know that, but simply trying to point out that the administration will be different in the New Covenant.
Daivd R quoting RS: “I am concerned that the claim that these people are in the covenant and have the promises of God make Him to look untruthful and as if He is waiting on them to make a decision.”
David R: But the promises are to believers and their children, as many as the Lord our God will call (even if the call does not ultimately prove to have been effectual). Abraham is the father of the faithful and the covenant embraced all his children, yet some of them, e.g., Ishmael and Esau, etc. were ultimately cast out.
RS: The promise (New Covenant) was to those who would repent and be baptized and the promise was of the Holy Spirit. The promise of the Holy Spirit was a promise to regenerate all of the spiritual seed of Abraham. The Old Covenant is to the physical seed of Abraham and so a physical birth was enough
David R: New Testament Christians are grafted into the same olive tree in place of the natural branches that were cut off for their unbelief, but if they do not hold fast to the promise by faith, they too are threatened with being cut off. Doesn’t this suggest that there is an administration of the covenant distinct from the essence? Or do you not hold to the perseverance of the saints?
RS: I do hold to God’s work in keeping His people persevering, but that is part of the New Covenant promise. The Old Covenant did not have that promise. So at this point, though I will admit to being thick between the ears at times, I don’t see the physical seed of believers as being the same as the physical seed of Abraham. A believer is the spiritual seed of Abraham so I am not sure how that is passed on to a physical seen when the spiritual seed comes not by physical descent by the grace of God and the promise of the Father to Christ.
David R quoting RS: We are now under a New Covenant, so it does not seem strange that things are different. For example, if a man in your church married a woman with adult children who were not believers and yet they wanted to be baptized, would you baptize them?
David R: The principle is one of parental authority, so adult children would not be candidates for baptism or church membership apart from a credible profession of faith.
RS: But all the men of the household of Abraham (even slaves or servants) were circumcised because they were of the household of Abraham. So if an adult child lives in the same home of the parents and wants to be baptized because s/he desires the blessing of the covenant, why wouldn’t that be permissible from the principles of baptism simply replacing circumcision? Something has changed.
Richard – You are welcome in Des Moines any time. I do not know of any Reformed Baptist churches in central Iowa. Plenty of Evangelical Baptists, though.
I don’t think we would baptize adult children. When I joined a URC we did baptize my two youngest. I think the older of the two was 7. My 11-year-old had been baptized in an E-Free church (as a believer). I have had one since joining and he was baptized as a ute (as Joe Pesci would say…)
mark: Perhaps I should make a couple of comments, but I don’t plan to waste any time repeating myself to RS, since he has never listened before and I have no reason to think he would now. Simply pasting in some texts and then assuming that those texts say what you think they
obviously mean is not really dialogue.
Q. 70. What is justification?
A. Justification is an act of God’s free grace unto sinners, in which he pardoneth all their sins, accepteth and accounteth their persons righteous in his sight; not for any thing wrought in
them, or done by them, but only for the perfect obedience and full satisfaction of Christ, by God imputed to them, and received by faith alone.
RS: Notice the order of the WLC. It is effectual calling/regeneration and then union with Christ. Then there is justification.
mark: First, be clear that nobody here is denying that regeneration comes before faith. Only if you have decided that all credobaptists are Arminians (and no paedobaptists are Arminians!) , would you assume that differences about the subjects of baptism inherently says something about the priority of regeneration to faith. The question is rather about the priority of the imputation
of Christ’s righteousness. Does God justify the ungodly, or does God justify the regenerate?
I think there can be differences of opinion about this between people who believe the gospel. But nobody should assume that there has been one and only one Reformed view of the
order. To think that your view is “the Reformed view” simply betrays ignorance of the history of the debate.
Second, notice how RS assumes that the order of the question topics proves some kind of logical order in the application of salvation. But of course that begs the question. RS quotes answer 70 and assumes that it speaks to his concern about the priority between imputation and regeneration. But the answer does not address that concern. The answer does deny that the basis of justification is ANYTHING WROUGHT IN THEM.
We all agree that regeneration is wrought in us, and we all probably even agree that the order we are debating is not temporal but logical. In other words, all these benefits come together, so the discussion is about the basis of justification. On this question, answer 70 denies that the imputation of righteousness is based on regeneration.
I am not saying of course that this decides for us the question about if regeneration is before imputation. If it has not been quoted yet, somebody will surely trot out the Calvin quotiation used by Torrance and Gaffin in every essay—”as long as He is outside us”, in an attempt to say that “union” with the person must become before “union with the legal benefits” Of course most of the folks on one side won’t even say “union with the legal benefits” or “union with the death” or “union with the righteousness”. They will say that “union” is first, and that justification is one result of that, all the time assuming they know what “real union” is.
And to be fair, somebody on my side of things will quote Berkhof (I think John Y already has) and fair warning, my Bavinck quotation is coming up. Even though I concede that the majority view is that faith comes before imputation, nothing in answer 70 speaks to that. I certainly agree that
justification is received by faith, and that regeneration is wrought within before faith. But my point, along with folks like Boehl, McCormack, and Horton is about righteousness first being RECEIVED BY IMPUTATION. Texts like II Peter 1:1 and Romans 5:11, 17 certainly suggest that, and I have rehearsed the arguments, but RS has never bothered to listen to them, because he already knows what’s obvious.
Third, for the sake of completeness, as a guest among the Reformed, I try to avoid debates about water baptism, and what I am concerned about here is the meaning of texts like Romans 6 and II Cor 5:15-21 and Galatians 3:4, and the conclusions are not in the least predetermined by one’s view on the nature or subjects of water baptism (nor should one side call the other “gnostic”, as if some of us were denying creation, incarnation, and bodily resurrection)
Also I don’t care to discuss now the history of the distinction between regeneration and effectual calling (John Murray makes much of it, Gaffin and Horton question it), or the distinction between justification and adoption. I do think it’s important to remember that imputation is not itself the righteousness. Christ obtained the righteousness. God imputes the righteousness. God transfer the value of Christ’s work to the elect, and on the basis of that righteousness God declares the elect to be just. Before justification, the elect are not Christians,. Before the righteousness is imputed ,the elect are not justified.
Fourth, I think it’s possible in theory for those who teach regeneration and faith before imputation to make it clear that righteousness is not given on the basis of regeneration and faith. But to do this, we need to be careful to define what we mean by “instrumental condition” or “instrumental cause”. Faith is whose “instrument”? A lot of folks use the phrase as if it the meaning were self-evident. Not all have thought too much about “fourfold causes”. Is faith the sinner’s instrument? Is faith God’s instrument? Or is it possibly 100% human instrument and also at the same time 100% divine instrument?
It’s bedtime: Bavinck: “It is not we who approach the judgment of God, with the sincerity of our faith, in order to receive there the forgiveness of our sins; God does not sit in judgment by himself in
heaven to hear the parties and to pronounce sentence, a representation which is according to Comrie, too anthropomorphic and unworthy of God. God Himself comes to us in the gospel. The foundation of faith lie outside ourselves in the promise of God; whoever builds thereupon shall not be ashamed.
“It is possible for us to conceive of faith at the same time as a receptive organ and as an active force. If justification in every respect comes about after faith, faith becomes a condition, an
activity, which must be performed by man beforehand, and it cannot be purely receptive. (mark: according to the “federal version”, there is no difference between faith and works of faith after faith)
Bavinck: “But if the righteousness, on the ground of which we are justified, lies wholly outside of us in Christ Jesus, then faith is not a “material cause” or a “formal cause.” Faith is not even a condition or instrument of justification, for it stands in relation to justification not as, for example, the eye to
seeing or the ear to hearing. Faith is not a condition through which we receive this benefit, but
it is the acceptance itself of Christ and all his benefits, as He presents Himself to us through word and Spirit, and it includes therefore also the consciousness, that He is my Lord and I am his
possession. Faith is therefore not an instrument in the proper sense, of which man makes use in order to accept Christ.”
This faith forms a contrast to the works of faith (infused righteousness, obedience, love)
the moment these are to any degree viewed as the ground of justification, as forming as a whole or in part that righteousness on the ground of which God justifies us; for that is Christ and Christ
alone; faith itself is not the ground of justification and thus also neither are the good works which come forth from it.”
BAVINCK , Gereformeerde Dogmatiek, Vol. IV
from Clair David from his essay, “Systematics, Spirituality and the Christian Life”, in the volume The Pattern of Sound Doctrine.
p276– “Did they intend to say that people could be regenerate unbelievers, in the sense that they became regenerate years before becoming believers? It sounded that way.But when the theologians had discussed the order of salvation, they were thinking of a logical sequence, not an experiential one. Since one is truly dead in sin, of course he must first be brought to life before anything else can happen.But that does not mean that new life could be present before faith was exercised. It definitely was not intending to send the message that before you even begin thinking about trusting Christ, you need to first determine that you are able to.The order,which in its original form in Romans 8 was intended to provide encouragement during persecution and suffering, had been turned on its head, twisted, and had become a threatening word: don’t you dare try to trust Christ until you’re sure you have a transformed heart.”
John Owen: “1. Regeneration doth not in order of time precede the soul’s interest in the forgiveness that is with God, or its being made partaker of the pardon of sin. I say no more but that it doth not precede it in order of time, not determining which hath precedence in order of nature. Faith is the radical grace which we receive in our regeneration, for it is by faith that our hearts are purified in the hand of the great purifier, the Spirit of God, I place these two together, and shall not dispute as to their priority in nature; but in time the one doth not precede the other.
2. It is hence evident, that an assurance of being regenerate is no way previously necessary unto the believing of an interest in forgiveness. When convinced persons cried out, “What shall we do to be saved?” the answer was, “Believe, and ye shall be so.” “Believe in Christ, and in the remission of sin by his blood,” is the first thing that convinced sinners are called unto. They are not directed first to secure themselves that they are born again, and then afterward to believe; but they are first to believe that the remission of sin is in the blood of Christ, and that “by him they may be justified from all things from which they could not be justified by the law.” Nor upon this proposition is it the duty of men to question whether they have faith or no, but actually to believe. (Owen, Volume 6, pages 597-598.)
Richard,
Right, I was speaking of the covenant of grace, which (as you point out) is differently administered under the NC (the age of fulfillment) than it was under the OC (the age of type and shadow), yet it is essentially the same covenant in both dispensations, with essentially the same membership. As to its essence, its members are the regenerate, but as to its administration, those who profess the true religion and their children.
Sorry, I guess I botched the formatting. I’ll try it again the old fashioned way….
RS: Remember, we are speaking of the covenant of grace and/or the New Covenant. I know you know that, but simply trying to point out that the administration will be different in the New Covenant.
David R: Right, I was speaking of the covenant of grace, which (as you point out) is differently administered under the NC (the age of fulfillment) than it was under the OC (the age of type and shadow), yet it is essentially the same covenant in both dispensations, with essentially the same membership. As to its essence, its members are the regenerate, but as to its administration, those who profess the true religion and their children.
RS.The Old Covenant is to the physical seed of Abraham and so a physical birth was enough
David R: I’m not sure what you can mean by this, since I’m sure you realize that spiritual seed of Abraham existed under the Old Covenant too. Certainly it’s true that the promises of the covenant were limited to one family under the OC, whereas under the NC, they embrace all the families of the earth. And certainly the NC age is preeminently the age of the Spirit. But as you realize, there were children of the promise (and not just of the flesh) in OC times too. And if what you’re saying is true, then how can circumcision be said to be a sign and seal of the righteousness that is by faith? Shouldn’t it merely be a sign of descent from Abraham?
RS: I do hold to God’s work in keeping His people persevering, but that is part of the New Covenant promise. The Old Covenant did not have that promise.
David R: By way of clarification, are you saying that OT believers like Abraham and David had no promise that they would persevere?
RS: So at this point, though I will admit to being thick between the ears at times, I don’t see the physical seed of believers as being the same as the physical seed of Abraham.
David R: Well, Paul speaks of those who are merely the physical seed of Abraham as natural branches who are cut off. And likewise he says those who are merely the physical seed of believers will also be cut off. Same olive tree, and same reasons for being cut off under both dispensations.
RS: A believer is the spiritual seed of Abraham so I am not sure how that is passed on to a physical seen when the spiritual seed comes not by physical descent by the grace of God and the promise of the Father to Christ.
David R: Well, it’s true that physical descent carries no guarantees, but neither does God ordinarily effect regeneration apart from the use of means, and one of the primary means He uses is covenant nurture from one generation to the next.
mark mcculley: Perhaps I should make a couple of comments, but I don’t plan to waste any time repeating myself to RS, since he has never listened before and I have no reason to think he would now. Simply pasting in some texts and then assuming that those texts say what you think they
obviously mean is not really dialogue.
RS: Mark, until you can demonstrate from Scripture that your word is authoritative and/or that the people you quote (in or out of context) are authoritative, I am not under obligation to believe what you say just because you say it. Throw in the fact that the major confessions also don’t agree with what you are saying, then try to understand that someone would have to move from their believing that the confessions are for the most part very accurate to believing what you say against them and (in my view) the Bible.
Mark McCulley:
Q. 70. What is justification?
A. Justification is an act of God’s free grace unto sinners, in which he pardoneth all their sins, accepteth and accounteth their persons righteous in his sight; not for any thing wrought in
them, or done by them, but only for the perfect obedience and full satisfaction of Christ, by God imputed to them, and received by faith alone.
Mark quoting RS: Notice the order of the WLC. It is effectual calling/regeneration and then union with Christ. Then there is justification.
mark: First, be clear that nobody here is denying that regeneration comes before faith. Only if you have decided that all credobaptists are Arminians (and no paedobaptists are Arminians!) , would you assume that differences about the subjects of baptism inherently says something about the priority of regeneration to faith. The question is rather about the priority of the imputation
of Christ’s righteousness. Does God justify the ungodly, or does God justify the regenerate?
RS: God justifies the ungodly, but regeneration does not make a person godly.
McMark: I think there can be differences of opinion about this between people who believe the gospel. But nobody should assume that there has been one and only one Reformed view of the
order. To think that your view is “the Reformed view” simply betrays ignorance of the history of the debate.
RS: Not exactly. It is the view of the the major confessions. I would not argue that no one in history before you has ever believed what you say, but it has not been a major view.
McMark: Second, notice how RS assumes that the order of the question topics proves some kind of logical order in the application of salvation. But of course that begs the question. RS quotes answer 70 and assumes that it speaks to his concern about the priority between imputation and regeneration. But the answer does not address that concern. The answer does deny that the basis of justification is ANYTHING WROUGHT IN THEM.
RS: But remember I also gave other parts of WLC and the ordo salutis.
WLC Q. 66. What is that union which the elect have with Christ?
A. The union which the elect have with Christ is the work of God’s grace,[270] whereby they are spiritually and mystically, yet really and inseparably, joined to Christ as their head and husband;[271] which is done in their effectual calling.[272]
Q. 67. What is effectual calling?
A. Effectual calling is the work of God’s almighty power and grace,[273] whereby (out of his free and special love to his elect, and from nothing in them moving him thereunto)[274] he doth, in his accepted time, invite and draw them to Jesus Christ, by his Word and Spirit;[275] savingly enlightening their minds,[276] renewing and powerfully determining their wills,[277] so as they (although in themselves dead in sin) are hereby made willing and able freely to answer his call, and to accept and embrace the grace offered and conveyed therein.[278]
Q. 72. What is justifying faith?
A. Justifying faith is a saving grace,[297] wrought in the heart of a sinner by the Spirit[298] and Word of God,[299] whereby he, being convinced of his sin and misery, and of the disability in himself and all other creatures to recover him out of his lost condition,[300] not only assenteth to the truth of the promise of the gospel,[301] but receiveth and resteth upon Christ and his righteousness, therein held forth, for pardon of sin,[302] and for the accepting and accounting of his person righteous in the sight of God for salvation.[303]
Q. 73. How doth faith justify a sinner in the sight of God?
A. Faith justifies a sinner in the sight of God, not because of those other graces which do always accompany it, or of good works that are the fruits of it,[304] nor as if the grace of faith, or any act thereof, were imputed to him for his justification;[305] but only as it is an instrument by which he receiveth and applieth Christ and his righteousness.[306]
McMark: We all agree that regeneration is wrought in us, and we all probably even agree that the order we are debating is not temporal but logical. In other words, all these benefits come together, so the discussion is about the basis of justification. On this question, answer 70 denies that the imputation of righteousness is based on regeneration.
I am not saying of course that this decides for us the question about if regeneration is before imputation. If it has not been quoted yet, somebody will surely trot out the Calvin quotiation used by Torrance and Gaffin in every essay—”as long as He is outside us”, in an attempt to say that “union” with the person must become before “union with the legal benefits” Of course most of the folks on one side won’t even say “union with the legal benefits” or “union with the death” or “union with the righteousness”. They will say that “union” is first, and that justification is one result of that, all the time assuming they know what “real union” is.
RS: For you to prove your position, as far as I can see, you will have to prove that a person can have the righteousness of Christ without having Christ. Regeneration precedes faith at least logically, and indeed one could never have a spiritual faith apart from the spiritual nature given in regeneration. But we receive Christ Himself through faith. So can one have the righteousness of Christ before having Christ? It appears to me that Westminster says that we have the righteousness of Christ when we have Christ Himself.
McMark: And to be fair, somebody on my side of things will quote Berkhof (I think John Y already has) and fair warning, my Bavinck quotation is coming up. Even though I concede that the majority view is that faith comes before imputation, nothing in answer 70 speaks to that. I certainly agree that justification is received by faith, and that regeneration is wrought within before faith. But my point, along with folks like Boehl, McCormack, and Horton is about righteousness first being RECEIVED BY IMPUTATION. Texts like II Peter 1:1 and Romans 5:11, 17 certainly suggest that, and I have rehearsed the arguments, but RS has never bothered to listen to them, because he already knows what’s obvious.
RS: Indeed you have rehearsed some arguments, but I believe Scripture (yes, as I see it) and Westminster. Why is it so bad that I don’t believe what you are saying? I believe that the Westminster view is what is obvious, obviously.
McMark: Also I don’t care to discuss now the history of the distinction between regeneration and effectual calling (John Murray makes much of it, Gaffin and Horton question it), or the distinction between justification and adoption. I do think it’s important to remember that imputation is not itself the righteousness. Christ obtained the righteousness. God imputes the righteousness. God transfer the value of Christ’s work to the elect, and on the basis of that righteousness God declares the elect to be just. Before justification, the elect are not Christians,. Before the righteousness is imputed ,the elect are not justified.
RS: Christ Himself is our righteousness. There is no objective thing out there called the righteousness of Christ, but it is Christ Himself who earned it as the Federal Head for His people. This righteousness cannot be obtained apart from having Christ Himself. Here is a major difference between your view and the Westminster view. You think of the righteousness of Christ as a value that can be separated from Christ and given to people. Westminster sees the righteousness of Christ as inseperable from Christ and so a person must have Christ to be declared righteous. At least that is how I am reading you. This is why Westminster states the importance of union with Christ both legally and mystically. One must be married to Christ in order for what is His to be imputed to the one that must have righteousness to be saved. Westminster is not arguing that people are declared just apart from the righteousness of Christ, but that the way (only way) one obtains the imputation of the righteousness of Christ is to be one with Christ.
McMark: Fourth, I think it’s possible in theory for those who teach regeneration and faith before imputation to make it clear that righteousness is not given on the basis of regeneration and faith. But to do this, we need to be careful to define what we mean by “instrumental condition” or “instrumental cause”. Faith is whose “instrument”? A lot of folks use the phrase as if it the meaning were self-evident. Not all have thought too much about “fourfold causes”. Is faith the sinner’s instrument? Is faith God’s instrument? Or is it possibly 100% human instrument and also at the same time 100% divine instrument?
RS: “The reason that it is by faith is in order that it may be by grace” (Rom 4:16). Faith is the instrument that God gives in regeneration (makes an unbelieving soul a believing soul) and yet the human soul must receive when strengthened by the Spirit to do so. But again, faith receives Christ Himself who is the righteousness of God. It is impossible to please God without faith and yet if the imputed righteousness comes before faith one has to believe that God is pleased with people before they have faith.
McMark: It’s bedtime: Bavinck: “It is not we who approach the judgment of God, with the sincerity of our faith, in order to receive there the forgiveness of our sins; God does not sit in judgment by himself in heaven to hear the parties and to pronounce sentence, a representation which is according to Comrie, too anthropomorphic and unworthy of God. God Himself comes to us in the gospel. The foundation of faith lie outside ourselves in the promise of God; whoever builds thereupon shall not be ashamed.
RS: Absolutely correct.
McMark quoting Bavinck: It is possible for us to conceive of faith at the same time as a receptive organ and as an active force. If justification in every respect comes about after faith, faith becomes a condition, an activity, which must be performed by man beforehand, and it cannot be purely receptive. (mark: according to the “federal version”, there is no difference between faith and works of faith after faith)
RS: But a perfect righteousness is also a condition of entering heaven. God provides that condition Himself, which is grace. So faith can be considered a condition for salvation as long as God Himself gives faith as a gift of grace. This still does not do away with the concept of faith as the activity of the soul in receiving. Faith, as the way the soul receives grace, must receive Christ by that faith as there is no other way to receive Christ. So recieving Christ by faith who is our righteousness is no problem at all. This is the view of Westminster. However, boil it down, the soul receives Christ by faith and He is our righteousness. We must also remember that Christ purchased the Holy Spirit for His people who applies the work of Christ to the soul.
McMark quoting Bavinck: “But if the righteousness, on the ground of which we are justified, lies wholly outside of us in Christ Jesus, then faith is not a “material cause” or a “formal cause.” Faith is not even a condition or instrument of justification, for it stands in relation to justification not as, for example, the eye to seeing or the ear to hearing. Faith is not a condition through which we receive this benefit, but it is the acceptance itself of Christ and all his benefits, as He presents Himself to us through word and Spirit, and it includes therefore also the consciousness, that He is my Lord and I am his possession. Faith is therefore not an instrument in the proper sense, of which man makes use in order to accept Christ.”
RS: However, apart from faith no one can please God. So there is nothing in man that can please God until man has faith. This faith is a work of God’s grace in the soul and it is not pleasing to God apart from its being united to Christ. It is Christ that pleases God. Bavinck virtually admits that one has to have faith to receive Christ since it is faith that receives Christ. While he does not like the word “condition” as is clear, one must have faith in order to receive Christ. I am also not sure what the problem is in calling it a condition since God Himself fulfills the condition as a free gift of grace. One condition of entering heaven is that our sins be punished in a way consistent with perfect justice. God fulfilled that condition in Christ. One condition of entering heaven is a perfect righteousness. God has fulfilled that condition as well. Bavinck appears to be trying to escape the notion of faith as a work, which it is not the work man, so since it is a work of God there is no need to do gymnastics to avoid calling it a condition.
McMark quoting Bavinck: This faith forms a contrast to the works of faith (infused righteousness, obedience, love) the moment these are to any degree viewed as the ground of justification, as forming as a whole or in part that righteousness on the ground of which God justifies us; for that is Christ and Christ alone; faith itself is not the ground of justification and thus also neither are the good works which come forth from it.”
RS: I am not sure the point here. Of course faith (which is unity with Christ and the way Christ is received) itself is not a ground of justification., Of course the works that true faith produces are not the ground of justification. Of course Christ Himself is the only ground of justification which shows why He Himself is our righteousness and we cannot have a value of righteousness given to us apart from having Christ Himself.
David R. quoting RS: Remember, we are speaking of the covenant of grace and/or the New Covenant. I know you know that, but simply trying to point out that the administration will be different in the New Covenant.
David R: Right, I was speaking of the covenant of grace, which (as you point out) is differently administered under the NC (the age of fulfillment) than it was under the OC (the age of type and shadow), yet it is essentially the same covenant in both dispensations, with essentially the same membership. As to its essence, its members are the regenerate, but as to its administration, those who profess the true religion and their children.
RS: I am not convinced that the OC and the NC are of the same administration. Even men like John Owen had a hard time with that. Some see the OC as a reissuing of the covenant of works which was used to set forth the covenant of grace in contrast.
David R quting RS: The Old Covenant is to the physical seed of Abraham and so a physical birth was enough
David R: I’m not sure what you can mean by this, since I’m sure you realize that spiritual seed of Abraham existed under the Old Covenant too. Certainly it’s true that the promises of the covenant were limited to one family under the OC, whereas under the NC, they embrace all the families of the earth. And certainly the NC age is preeminently the age of the Spirit. But as you realize, there were children of the promise (and not just of the flesh) in OC times too. And if what you’re saying is true, then how can circumcision be said to be a sign and seal of the righteousness that is by faith? Shouldn’t it merely be a sign of descent from Abraham?
RS: Issac was considered a child of promise in the OC. But now all believers are children of promise, so Isaac was a type (so to speak). The elect are children of promise.
Gal 4:28 And you brethren, like Isaac, are children of promise. 29 But as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so it is now also.
30 But what does the Scripture say? “CAST OUT THE BONDWOMAN AND HER SON, FOR THE SON OF THE BONDWOMAN SHALL NOT BE AN HEIR WITH THE SON OF THE FREE WOMAN.” 31 So then, brethren, we are not children of a bondwoman, but of the free woman.
Romans 9:6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; 7 nor are they all children because they are Abraham’s descendants, but: “THROUGH ISAAC YOUR DESCENDANTS WILL BE NAMED.” 8 That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants.
RS: Romans 9 sets this out fairly clearly (in my view). At the present time not all are Israel who are descended from Israel and it is not the physical children who are reall children of the promise, It is not the childfen of the flesh of Israelites or of believers who are children of God, but is is the children of promise who are the descendants of Abraham. How do we know that a child is a child of promise or is a descendant of Isaac? It is only when a person is regenerate and has true faith.
David R quoting RS: I do hold to God’s work in keeping His people persevering, but that is part of the New Covenant promise. The Old Covenant did not have that promise.
David R: By way of clarification, are you saying that OT believers like Abraham and David had no promise that they would persevere?
RS: I would not argue that they had a specific promise that they would persevere, but since God imputed the righteousness of Christ to them the promise is at least implicit. The NC is different in that God has promised He would dwell in His people and cause them keep His commandments.
David R: RS: So at this point, though I will admit to being thick between the ears at times, I don’t see the physical seed of believers as being the same as the physical seed of Abraham.
David R: Well, Paul speaks of those who are merely the physical seed of Abraham as natural branches who are cut off. And likewise he says those who are merely the physical seed of believers will also be cut off. Same olive tree, and same reasons for being cut off under both dispensations.
RS: He did speak of that, but I can’t see the application of that as directly to the present point. He was encouraging the Gentiles as a whole not to be arrogant toward the Jews.
David Quoting RS: A believer is the spiritual seed of Abraham so I am not sure how that is passed on to a physical seen when the spiritual seed comes not by physical descent by the grace of God and the promise of the Father to Christ.
David R: Well, it’s true that physical descent carries no guarantees, but neither does God ordinarily effect regeneration apart from the use of means, and one of the primary means He uses is covenant nurture from one generation to the next.
RS: I would not argue against the nurture from one generation to the next, but giving the sign of the spiritual promise of God (that He would give them His Holy Spirit who works regeneration and applies Christ in that promise) to those that we know that many are not children of Isaac seems to be contrary to the NC.
Richard, you think McMark divides X’s righteousness from Christ himself. But you seem to separate the two yourself by not seeing Christ himself in X’s righteousness, as if someone who has X’s righteousness needs to say in addition that he has Christ himself. Until I started thinking about the union arguments, I never thought that with justification I didn’t have Christ. But then came the unionists to tell me that justification is only one part of Christ, the benefits, something — not always clear, but I certainly felt inadequate and needed greater sanctification (as if my wife wasn’t already reminding me of that without the help of the unionists). I don’t know where you stand on the union question, but to the extent that I’ve read your exchange with McMark, I get a sense again of how the stress on the ordo undermines the sufficiency of Christ’s righteousness received by faith alone. Paul is pretty darned clear on that. The ordo stuff is pretty speculative.
RS quoting David R: Right, I was speaking of the covenant of grace, which (as you point out) is differently administered under the NC (the age of fulfillment) than it was under the OC (the age of type and shadow), yet it is essentially the same covenant in both dispensations, with essentially the same membership. As to its essence, its members are the regenerate, but as to its administration, those who profess the true religion and their children.
RS: I am not convinced that the OC and the NC are of the same administration. Even men like John Owen had a hard time with that. Some see the OC as a reissuing of the covenant of works which was used to set forth the covenant of grace in contrast.
David R: The question of whether the MC is a republication of the covenant of works is beside the point. We’re speaking here of the covenant of grace, which transcends both dispensations (which was held to by all Reformed, including Owen), not of the question of the relationship of the Mosaic covenant to the covenant of grace (concerning which there were differences among the Reformed).
RS: Romans 9 sets this out fairly clearly (in my view). At the present time not all are Israel who are descended from Israel and it is not the physical children who are reall children of the promise, It is not the childfen of the flesh of Israelites or of believers who are children of God, but is is the children of promise who are the descendants of Abraham.
David R: The passage you quoted teaches sovereign election. No disagreement on that. But that is also beside the point.
RS: How do we know that a child is a child of promise or is a descendant of Isaac? It is only when a person is regenerate and has true faith.
David R: I suppose the unstated implication you are wanting to draw is that only those who are regenerate and have true faith should receive the covenant sign. But (1) that is not a necessary inference from anything you’ve quoted, and (2) neither you nor I know who is regenerate and has true faith and we won’t know till the last day.
RS quoting David R: Well, Paul speaks of those who are merely the physical seed of Abraham as natural branches who are cut off. And likewise he says those who are merely the physical seed of believers will also be cut off. Same olive tree, and same reasons for being cut off under both dispensations.
RS: He did speak of that, but I can’t see the application of that as directly to the present point. He was encouraging the Gentiles as a whole not to be arrogant toward the Jews.
David R: This is the crux of the issue, so it’s crucial that you see the application to the question at hand. Let’s take a look at Paul’s olive tree metaphor. First of all, the tree is rooted in the Abrahamic promise. The root (Abraham) is holy and therefore the branches are also (Paul argues in v. 16). Is he speaking of sovereign election/regeneration here? No, because some of those holy branches will be broken off (which of course isn’t possible of the regenerate). Thus there is a holiness (i.e., covenant membership) apart from the question of electing grace. You will probably respond, “Well sure, that was true of Old Testament Israel where the entire nation was set apart. But in the NT, only the regenerate are holy.” Really? Let’s see what Paul says: “But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive, were grafted in among them and became partaker with them of the rich root of the olive tree …” Notice, the wild branches become part of the same olive tree, and the holiness of the root extends to all these grafted-in branches too. Yet (Paul continues), “you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited, but fear; for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either.” Apart from faith, these holy grafted-in branches will be broken off, just like the natural ones. Why doesn’t Paul say of these Gentiles that by unbelief they will prove that they only seemed to be grafted in, but that in fact they never really were? It’s because membership in the covenant of grace works the exact same way in NT times as it did in OT times. The olive tree (covenant membership) isn’t limited to the elect (though ultimately, all but the elect will be “broken off”). Rather, the olive tree includes Abraham and his children—the natural branches (whether or not they’re elect), and believers and their children—the grafted branches (whether or not they are elect). Make sense?
RS: I would not argue against the nurture from one generation to the next, but giving the sign of the spiritual promise of God (that He would give them His Holy Spirit who works regeneration and applies Christ in that promise) to those that we know that many are not children of Isaac seems to be contrary to the NC.
David R: But as we’ve seen, if the root is holy, so are the branches. And if you are grafted into the rich root of the olive tree, then the shoots that you bring forth are also holy, even though they might conceivably be broken off in the future on account of unbelief.
RS: For you to prove your position, as far as I can see, you will have to prove that a person can have the righteousness of Christ without having Christ. Regeneration precedes faith at least logically, and indeed one could never have a spiritual faith apart from the spiritual nature given in regeneration. But we receive Christ Himself through faith. So can one have the righteousness of Christ before having Christ? It appears to me that Westminster says that we have the righteousness of Christ when we have Christ Himself.
mark: I know I should ignore this. But let me make it quick and as clear as I can.
Answer on sentence one: For you to prove your position, it would seem just as fair to say, you would have to prove that a person can have Christ without having the righteousness of Christ. You keep denying an order in order to establish an order. You continue to deny a priority in order to assert a priority. Even though none of us denies an “union by election” so that only the sins of the elect were ever imputed to Christ, we all agree that there is an individual “union” in history. Romans 16–some were “in Christ” before Paul was.
As there was no election into Christ but election in Christ from the beginning, even so there is no such thing as having Christ first and apart from His imputed righteousness. I assert this negative. RS keeps begging the question when he disagrees and asserts the contrary. Prove that any person has Christ apart from Christ’s righteousness.
Second sentence: Regeneration does precede faith, and nobody on this thread has denied the order. So why are you bringing it up again? The debate concerns your idea that you can have Christ before you have Christ’s righteousness imputed. To have faith is to have Christ Himself, and how can we have either Christ or faith without Christ’s righteousness? If we could obtain Christ and faith apart from Christ’s righteousness, why would we need His righteousness?
Only Arminians say that faith precedes regeneration, and when they say that, we tend to ask them—if you can faith before regeneration, what do you need the regeneration for? In parallel, if you could have Christ “really in your soul” before and apart from being legally placed into Christ’s death, why then would you even need to be legally placed into Christ’s death?
Third sentence: yes, I have agreed many times that we receive Christ by faith. See John 1:12, 13. But I have also said that we receive Christ passively by imputation, and talked about texts like Romans 5:11, 17 (the children of Adam received guilt by imputation) and II Peter 1:1, where faith is not given to get righteousness, but rather faith is given because of righteousness. But you keep saying things we agree with, and ignoring the details where we disagree. if neither of us is claiming to be the pope here, why not discuss the particulars? Why not show me once that you have taken the time to know what I am saying, even if you don’t agree with it?
Fourth question. See question one. Can we have Christ IN US before we are IN Christ? Can we have Christ changing our disposition even while we continue to be guilty sinners, still dead in sins? Can Christ live in a person who has no legal right to even approach God?
Fifth question: Certainly we have the righteousness of Christ when we have Christ, because if God has not yet imputed us with Christ’s righteousness, then we don’t have Christ yet but are still without Christ. it’s the old “deny the order to assert an order” trick again. Deny the priority of justification in order to insist on justification as a result of something more real like infusion and indwelling and experience.
The New England theology sounds pious. It says: let’s don’t talk about the benefits, let’s talk about the person. Let’s don’t talk about the righteousness now, that’s for later, for now let’s talk about the sovereignty and grace. The New England theology says—let’s talk about the atonement now, but let’s don’t get election mixed up into the atonement right now.
The New England theology is not non-partisan about order. If we can talk first about Christ and the gospel, without talking about the atonement (the righteousness obtained) and justification (the righteousness imputed), then we can keep talking about Christ and the gospel without ever talking about the atonement and justification. But the Apostle’s Creed is not enough gospel.
rs: “Christ Himself is our righteousness. There is no objective thing out there called the righteousness of Christ, but it is Christ Himself who earned it as the Federal Head for His people. ”
mark: At first you remind me of NT Wright (“it’s not a gas”) but on second thought, your denial is more like Osiander’s. I commend to you Calvin’s responses to Osiander in the Institutes. . If there is no objective merit to Christ’s work of obedience, then Christ presumably could have skipped the cross and entered directly and personally into our hearts. You say Christ earned “it”, but if it’s not an objective thing, then what is “it”?
Romans 1:16– “For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 17 For in the gospel the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, ‘The righteous shall
live by faith.’”
the RS gloss. For in the gospel, there is this person and that person has this history but that history does not result in an objective thing called “the righteousness” because you see it’s the person who
is revealed….
Romans 3: 21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe.
the RS gloss. But now Christ Himself has been revealed, and He Himself is the priority, so this means that there is no objective thing called “the righteousness of God”. I mean, first you get faith to get it, but the it you then get it is not an objective thing which itselfcould be the real difference between life and death before God….
Romans 4:6 just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works: 7 “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; 8 blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin.”
the RS gloss. I don’t deny that God counted righteousness to David, or that this meant “not counting David’s sins against him”, but let’s not think that this “righteousness” and the not counting are
“objective things”, The righteousness which God counts is only a means to an end, and really not even that, “it” is only a result of a real relationship that David had with Christ in his heart, because we need to remember not to give the priority to the benefits, even when we have fallen into sin big time, the pious thing to do is to focus on Christ Himself and not on something objectively done in time and space, obtained in the past, and then “transferred” (like a thing) to us as if it were merit points, without which we would have no hope. I don’t deny that Christ earned something of course but I do deny that this something is an objective “out there” commodity which has legal value….
Romans 10:1 Brothers, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for them is that they may be saved. 2 For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. 3 For, being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness. 4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.
RS gloss. Of course it’s important to have knowledge, but we have to know that knowing a person is not like knowing an objective thing like the value of something a person did. And in the case of “the
righteousness of God”, it’s not an objective thing we can know about from hearing the gospel, so we need to know Christ before we can know about it, and indeed if we know Christ, then we won’t be trying to establish our own righteousness. And you don’t need to know anything positively objective about the righteousness of God in order to stop trying to build your own righteousness. I mean, if you know that righteousness is not a thing that really counts as the legal gatekeeper between you and Christ, you will stop worrying about righteousness all together, yours or God’s!
II Peter 1: 1 Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:
RS gloss: This needs to be reversed. We get righteousness by faith. And our faith is not in the righteousness of Christ, as if the object of faith were some objective commodity that belonged to Christ instead of Christ Himself If we are spiritual, we don’t want what Christ has because we want Christ personally. Some say that the righteousness of Christ is the means we get Christ, but they have it backwards since the truth is we must get Christ before we get the righteousness. And having Christ in your soul is the important reality. Because then Christ in you is no longer out there as merely some object of faith. He Himself is the righteousness, and He is not an objective thing, so Jeremiah 23 means that His righteousness is not an objective thing….
RS: the only way one obtains the imputation of the righteousness of Christ is to be one with Christ.
mark: which being translated means—- being imputed with the righteousness, obtaining the righteousness that Christ obtained is NOT THE WAY TO BE ONE WITH CHRIST. This is RS begging the question again. He thinks “union with Christ” is not legal but real and personal. He
sometimes agree that there is a “legal aspect” but only to then disagree that “union” has anything to do with legal placement into Christ’s death.
Of course RS is not the only one to want an “union with Christ” apart from Christ’s righteousness which then permits those thus united to then be imputed with such righteousness. Some
give the priority to sacramental “union”. Some give the priority to “experience” which is not about an “objective thing”.
D. G. Hart: Richard, you think McMark divides X’s righteousness from Christ himself. But you seem to separate the two yourself by not seeing Christ himself in X’s righteousness, as if someone who has X’s righteousness needs to say in addition that he has Christ himself.
RS: But that is exactly what I am not saying. I am saying that it is only if one has Christ and is in uinion with Christ that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to that person. One can make a distinction between the two, but there is no separation.
1 Corinthians 1:30 But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption,
D.G. Hart: Until I started thinking about the union arguments, I never thought that with justification I didn’t have Christ. But then came the unionists to tell me that justification is only one part of Christ, the benefits, something — not always clear, but I certainly felt inadequate and needed greater sanctification (as if my wife wasn’t already reminding me of that without the help of the unionists). I don’t know where you stand on the union question, but to the extent that I’ve read your exchange with McMark, I get a sense again of how the stress on the ordo undermines the sufficiency of Christ’s righteousness received by faith alone. Paul is pretty darned clear on that. The ordo stuff is pretty speculative.
RS: The ordo stuff, however, shows some very important things. My stance on the union with Christ is one thing that McMark does not agree with. The soul must be united to Christ in order for the righteousness of Christ to be imputed to the sinner. That is one thing that McMark does not like. He wants to make an objective value of the righteousness of Christ (which has to be obtained apart from having Christ) the reason we are born again, which is why the ordo stuff was brought in. My argument is that there is regeneration which is necessary to have faith, but one cannot have Christ and please God apart from faith. So McMark’s argument that we can have an objective value of the righteousnes of Christ apart from Christ falls to the ground.
If you would allow me to interrupt, I wish somebody would clear up a couple of things:
1. Whether you realize it or not, those of you who are arguing for “old light” confessionalism (which I would think more aptly called anti-pietism) seem hell-bent on disallowing any call for conversion to be genuine. Earlier in the conversation (before all the ordo salutis chaos), everyone [contra Richard] seemed to want dull, perfunctory, laissez-faire “conversions” pronounced as ok, as long as the “believer”–no matter how hesitantly–partook of the proper sacraments. This is exactly the attitude that resulted in the half-way covenant shenanigans in early New England. Over and over again, Richard hammered away at the notion that he wasn’t calling for dramatic conversion, revivalism, or experientialism at all…to no avail. How in the world can one understand the imponderable gravity of sin or the extraordinary gratuity of grace in an “ordinary” way? If it is “ordinary,” one hasn’t comprehended them in any authentic sense. That was Richard’s point. Varying personalities may well respond to this extraordinary nature of God’s largess in a broad range of emotions. Still, the event is similar to Isaiah’s experience in the Temple (at least abstractly) and the proper reaction is similar to his: I am undone!
I say this as one who has no dramatic testimony and couldn’t tell you the year of my conversion, let alone the day. (I thought I was supposed to have a “liver shiver,” but could never drum one up!) Nevertheless, I do know that anyone who speaks lackadaisically of his or her conversion is talking about something other than a genuine conversion. You all seem to have an anti-emotionalism borne of a fear of scotching justification (much like many early Lutherans ventured into demonstrable anti-nomianism to protect the Doctrines of Grace). There is such a thing as Reformed Pietism, you know (especially among the Puritans and the Dutch Further Reformation). I recommend some of the warmer forms of Calvinism to you frozen chosen. An emotional response to being forgiven an unpayable debt is nothing but natural, and invariably deep. (On the other hand, the manipulative nature of much of revivalism’s emotion is quite unnatural and often superficial.)
2. For the life of me, I have never understood the paedobaptist tenet that infant baptism is a better picture of salvation’s being “all of God.” I guess those who come to faith later in life (and have no choice but credobaptism) are receiving God’s second best because they had some “say so” in the matter. Are you people daft? No one who comes to genuine repentance has any control, any sovereignty over the process. That’s Reformed thought through and through! (You guys are listening to too many Roman Catholic arguments.) The issue is not that one has not done anything, but that one has not done anything to receive the gift of faith.
3. Unlike Richard, I am a sacramentalist and a receptionist at that: the faith of the recipient is imperative (and unlike Lutherans, I do not believe in infants having any faith to speak of). At the very least, in the New Testament, adult baptism is normative. I would not, however, call myself a Baptist. There’s a whole ethos there, a prevailing milieu that I just cannot identify with.
At any rate, I have enjoyed the conversation and thought I’d pipe up. Richard seems to have borne it well, but he must feel lonely here. By the way, there is a Reformed Baptist church plant (called the Damascus Road, I believe) just north of Des Moines in Polk City. And there might still be a church affiliated with the Founders Movement in Pleasant Hill, east of town.
mark mcculley quoting RS: For you to prove your position, as far as I can see, you will have to prove that a person can have the righteousness of Christ without having Christ. Regeneration precedes faith at least logically, and indeed one could never have a spiritual faith apart from the spiritual nature given in regeneration. But we receive Christ Himself through faith. So can one have the righteousness of Christ before having Christ? It appears to me that Westminster says that we have the righteousness of Christ when we have Christ Himself.
mark: I know I should ignore this. But let me make it quick and as clear as I can.
Answer on sentence one: For you to prove your position, it would seem just as fair to say, you would have to prove that a person can have Christ without having the righteousness of Christ.
RS: No, not at all. My position is very clear on this. There is no having Christ without having the righteousness of Christ and there is no having the righteousness of Christ without having Christ. One cannot have one without the other because there is no separation between the two.
McMark: You keep denying an order in order to establish an order. You continue to deny a priority in order to assert a priority. Even though none of us denies an “union by election” so that only the sins of the elect were ever imputed to Christ, we all agree that there is an individual “union” in history. Romans 16–some were “in Christ” before Paul was.
As there was no election into Christ but election in Christ from the beginning, even so there is no such thing as having Christ first and apart from His imputed righteousness. I assert this negative. RS keeps begging the question when he disagrees and asserts the contrary. Prove that any person has Christ apart from Christ’s righteousness.
RS: But that is exactly what I am arguing against. So why would I argue that? I have been trying to show you that one cannot have the righteousness of Christ apart from having Christ. I am not sure how you have confused the argument at this point.
McMark: Second sentence: Regeneration does precede faith, and nobody on this thread has denied the order. So why are you bringing it up again? The debate concerns your idea that you can have Christ before you have Christ’s righteousness imputed. To have faith is to have Christ Himself, and how can we have either Christ or faith without Christ’s righteousness? If we could obtain Christ and faith apart from Christ’s righteousness, why would we need His righteousness?
RS: No, the debate is how you cannot have sinners regenerated on the basis of the imputed righteousness of Christ which you asserted. My position is that regeneration is not based on the imputation of the righteousness of Christ because one must be regenerated before faith (logically) which is necessary to have Christ. Since one cannot have the righteousness of Christ without having Christ, it is evident that the imputed righteousness of Christ is not the basis for regeneration (your argument).
McMark: Only Arminians say that faith precedes regeneration, and when they say that, we tend to ask them—if you can faith before regeneration, what do you need the regeneration for? In parallel, if you could have Christ “really in your soul” before and apart from being legally placed into Christ’s death, why then would you even need to be legally placed into Christ’s death?
RS: Why are you separating these two things? There is no need to do so. It is in having Christ Himself that one is legally placed into Christ. In Christ and in Christ alone are all spiritual blessings.
McMark: Third sentence: yes, I have agreed many times that we receive Christ by faith. See John 1:12, 13. But I have also said that we receive Christ passively by imputation, and talked about texts like Romans 5:11, 17 (the children of Adam received guilt by imputation) and II Peter 1:1, where faith is not given to get righteousness, but rather faith is given because of righteousness. But you keep saying things we agree with, and ignoring the details where we disagree. if neither of us is claiming to be the pope here, why not discuss the particulars? Why not show me once that you have taken the time to know what I am saying, even if you don’t agree with it?
RS: At this point you have evidently not understood what I have been saying, though I thought it was as clear as day. In fact, you are virtually accusing me of the thing I was defending against you (that the righteousness of Christ and Christ Himself cannot be separated). I have interacted with the II Peter 1:1 passage in the past. I said (and still say) “the faith” that is spoken of is not the faith of an individual, but is more of like a body of belief. This is seen even more clearly in the book of Jude which has a lot in common with II Peter: Jude 1:3 Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints.
However, if it is speaking of an individual faith, it is not clear that speaking of an imputed righteousness is the point of that passage. Christ has purchased the Holy Spirit by His righteousness who applies the work of Christ to His people. But it does not have to mean (and does not appear to be even close to meaning) that because of the righteousness of Christ imputed that sinners are given faith. Philippians 3:9 “and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith.” Here is a clear teaching on how one receives the righteousness of God. It is on the basis of faith.
Regarding the passage in Romans, all that are born in Adam are born sinners. He acted for them and because He acted for them they are guilty because of their link to him. But as for the righteousness of Christ, it is only when sinners are born again that they are united to a different Head, that is, Christ.
McMark: Fourth question. See question one. Can we have Christ IN US before we are IN Christ? Can we have Christ changing our disposition even while we continue to be guilty sinners, still dead in sins? Can Christ live in a person who has no legal right to even approach God?
RS: Of course not. Christ is in all those who are in Him.
McMark: Fifth question: Certainly we have the righteousness of Christ when we have Christ, because if God has not yet imputed us with Christ’s righteousness, then we don’t have Christ yet but are still without Christ. it’s the old “deny the order to assert an order” trick again. Deny the priority of justification in order to insist on justification as a result of something more real like infusion and indwelling and experience.
RS: I have no real idea what you are talking about at this point. My position is that there is a real justification that is not based on infusion or (at least in your conception) experience. I have asserted that many times.
McMark: The New England theology sounds pious. It says: let’s don’t talk about the benefits, let’s talk about the person. Let’s don’t talk about the righteousness now, that’s for later, for now let’s talk about the sovereignty and grace. The New England theology says—let’s talk about the atonement now, but let’s don’t get election mixed up into the atonement right now.
RS: What period of New England theology says that? The doctrine of election and the doctrine of the atonement are inseperable in reality. So what does this have to do with our discussion now?
McMark: The New England theology is not non-partisan about order. If we can talk first about Christ and the gospel, without talking about the atonement (the righteousness obtained) and justification (the righteousness imputed), then we can keep talking about Christ and the gospel without ever talking about the atonement and justification. But the Apostle’s Creed is not enough gospel.
RS: Again, what does this have to do with our discussion? Of course one cannot talk about the Gospel (at least for very long) without talking about the atonement and talking about justification without talking about imputed righteousness.
McMark quting RS: the only way one obtains the imputation of the righteousness of Christ is to be one with Christ.
mark: which being translated means—- being imputed with the righteousness, obtaining the righteousness that Christ obtained is NOT THE WAY TO BE ONE WITH CHRIST. This is RS begging the question again. He thinks “union with Christ” is not legal but real and personal. He
sometimes agree that there is a “legal aspect” but only to then disagree that “union” has anything to do with legal placement into Christ’s death.
Of course RS is not the only one to want an “union with Christ” apart from Christ’s righteousness which then permits those thus united to then be imputed with such righteousness. Some
give the priority to sacramental “union”. Some give the priority to “experience” which is not about an “objective thing”.
RS: McMark, I responded with a longer note and then it would not post. Let it suffice to say that my argument is that YOUR position requires that a person can have the imputation of the righteousness of Christ before a person has Christ Himself. My position is that a person cannot have the righteousness of Christ apart from Christ Himself. You are wasting a lot of time and effort by not reading carefully. I do not deny a legal union with Christ, but I don’t separate a legal union from the actual union. You want to assert that I give priority to experience which is not an objective thing (in your world). One, I have repeatedly said to you that this is false. Two, an experience is an objective thing in the proper context and with the proper definitions. For example, a man hits you with an iron pipe. You experience getting hit with an iron pipe and you experience pain. Your getting hit with an iron pipe is an objective fact and your pain is an objective fact as well. Your experience of pain is subjective in the sense that you are gaining knowledge of pain by experience. Be very careful about attacking all forms of experience and sneering at it. Distinguishing and separating objective reality from experience may not be what you really want to do. It may sound good in bashing those that differ from you, but if you want some sort of objective reality apart from some sort or experience of it you could never know about that objective reality.
rs: Why are you separating these two things? There is no need to do so. It is in having Christ Himself that one is legally placed into Christ. In Christ and in Christ alone are all spiritual blessings.
mark: no, you don’t get it. Again, you deny any “separation” only to immediately go on to your own “separation”. By separation, neither of us is saying that a person can temporally have Christ without the righteousness. And yet you are the one making the “distinction” between “union” and “justification”. I am saying that “union” is “justification”, that there is no such a thing as some “union” which is not legal. After you call this my “separating”, you immediately separate ” having Christ Himself” from then (logically) “one is legally placed into Christ”. But there is no such sequence, and you have not proven it but assumed it.
Having Christ is having Christ’s righteousness. “Unionists” have introduced the separation and the sequence, because they don’t want the “union” itself to be legal. And as I said before, there are various motives for this, some of them having to do with sacraments, others having to do with a “second justification” based on works. In your case, I think, it’s simply because you think the new birth should have the emphasis over atonement and justification in the gospel.
mark: Romans 5:11, 17 (the children of Adam received guilt by imputation)
rs: Regarding the passage in Romans, all that are born in Adam are born sinners. He acted for them and because He acted for them they are guilty because of their link to him. But as for the righteousness of Christ, it is only when sinners are born again that they are united to a different Head, that is, Christ.
mark: that is begging the question. All humans (Christ excepted) are born guilty in Adam. The texts then show the analogy to Christ’s obedience, but Rs will not allow it. Even though we don’t
have to become corrupt to get imputed with Adam’s guilt, RS just knows that we have to get born again to get imputed with Christ’s righteousness. But of course this is the very question in dispute,
which it doesn’t even seem that RS understands. RS assumes that “reconciliation” is new birth, not justification. But the text teaches that reconciliation is the “free gift of righteousness”
Romans 5:11 we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now RECEIVED reconciliation.
Romans 5:17 For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who RECEIVE the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.
Yes, we have to make a distinction (not a separation in time) between the new birth and justification. I think we all agree on that, unless we are Roman Catholics. But the question is—which has the logical priority, which becomes practically which has the emphasis most of the time? RS keeps assuming that the new birth is in order to justification, despite the evidence of Galatians (because you are sons, Spirit, rather than because Spirit, sons), even going to the point of denying that the faith given through Christ’s righteousness is given to individuals II Peter 1:1). Does God justify the ungodly? Or does God justify the born again?
Clair Davis 270–”Just what is the connection between forgiveness and change? Roman Catholicism had suggested that being forgiven depended on your heart attitude. Grace was a divine fudge-factor, the giving of more credit for a little change than it deserved.”