Via Justin Taylor comes Mark Dever’s top-ten list on the factors that spawned the New Calvinist phenomenon (given Tim Keller’s precise definitions, I’m loathe to describe the young and restless as a movement). Here’s the list (each one receives a separate post at Dever’s blog):
1. Charles H. Spurgeon
2. D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones
3. The Banner of Truth Trust
4. Evangelism Explosion
5. The inerrancy controversy
6. Presbyterian Church in America (PCA)
7. J. I. Packer
8. John MacArthur and R. C. Sproul
9. John Piper
10. The rise of secularism and decline of Christian nominalism
Before offering an OldLife perspective, it is worth noting that Dever buries his lead by ranking John Piper at number nine. My impression, after reading Collin Hansen’s book, is that Piper and Desiring God (DG, you know, not always about me) is largely responsible for turning Millenials into Jonathan-Edwards-is-my-homeboy T-shirt wearing evangelicals. Dever agrees even if number nine doesn’t reflect the agreement:
When all those seminarians and ministers in their 20’s stood up at Together for the Gospel in April of 2006, if I couldn’t give a 10-part answer, but if I had to give a 2-word human explanation for their presence there, I know what two words I would utter: “John Piper.”
What is curious about this list, with all due respect (going Hollywood alert) to my friend, Mark Dever, is how culturally and historically thin it is. Granted, as an OPC elder, I am surprised that the PCA (nos. 4 and 6) gets more credit than my own communion and its influential scholars such as Machen, Van Til, Young, Murray, Stonehouse, Kline, VanDrunen, Fesko, and even — dare we say — Trueman.
But denominational bragging rights aside, the list is decidedly Anglo-centric and recent. Nothing on the list suggests the sixteenth-century origins of Reformed Protestantism in Zurich and Geneva, nor the huge contribution that French-speaking Protestants made in the initial phases of Calvinism (Calvin, after all, was not English). Nor does this list acknowledge the remarkable nature of the Dutch Reformation, both in its hiccups and fits during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, and in its modern phase guided and inspired by Abraham Kuyper. And not to be discounted is the influence of Scottish Presbyterianism (though Banner of Truth is in Edinburgh) again in the initial phases of reformation, a presence at the Westminster Assembly, and the important struggles of the nineteenth century in which Thomas Chalmers figured so prominently. This does not begin to admit the important influences on American Calvinism by immigrants from these various communions who settled in North America and established denominations and schools to propagate the Reformed faith. Princeton Seminary would surely be high on such a list, as would its step-child, Westminster. So too would be the Dutch-American contribution from western Michigan.
All of this raises a question about how well the New Calvinism represents the Old Calvinism. Does it stand in continuity or is it really new? And if new, how much might it need to learn from the old, especially if wearing the Calvinist badge? If most of your sources of influence and inspiration come from the twentieth century when a theological tradition is four hundred years older, and if it draws largely on the English variety of experimental Calvinism without listening to French, German, Dutch, Scottish, and Swiss voices, you may be guilty of selling a Wendy’s hamburger when you could be serving Julia Child’s boeuf bourguignon.
Old Life 
How do you talk about contemporary influences without mentioning Michael Horton and the WHI? You could rack up the entire west coast resurgence to WSC and WHI. And once you include Horton you’ve now got a line to Godfrey, Strimple, Kline and I dare say even Hart. You don’t have a modern calvinist movement without WSC.
LikeLike
D.G. Hart: All of this raises a question about how well the New Calvinism represents the Old Calvinism. Does it stand in continuity or is it really new? And if new, how much might it need to learn from the old, especially if wearing the Calvinist badge?
RS: Of course the most importantl question (sorry to bring up the Bible again) is whether the New Calvinism is biblical or not. However, the question as to how it relates to Old Calvinism raises the question as to what Old Calvinism is. One could also simply ask if Old Calvinism is represented at all on the list, or perhaps much in America at all. The list itself, quite frankly, is almost shocking.
1. Charles H. Spurgeon = certainly not a consistent Calvinist
2. D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones = Perhaps the strongest Calvinist on the list.
3. The Banner of Truth Trust = The butcher of A.W. Pink’s book on sovereignty, so maybe not the most consistent Calvinist editor around. But at least they did publish a lot of good books.
4. Evangelism Explosion = This was not evangelism with Calvinistic theology. Arminians like it.
5. The inerrancy controversy = Interesting choice
6. Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) = Plagued with many problems because of wavering
7. J. I. Packer = ECT anyone? That is not exactly a man standing strong for the old Gospel. His conflict with Lloyd-Jones over Roman Catholicism stands out as well.
8. John MacArthur and R. C. Sproul = I am not sure that John Mac is a strong Calvinist at any location but places in his soteriology. Sproul is more of a popularizer than an ardent defender of biblical and/or historical Calvinism.
9. John Piper = His misreading of Edwards has led many to think badly of Edwards and I am not sure why he continues to be thought of as a strong Calvinist. His focus on extreme joy reminds me of Schuller’s stress and focus on self-esteem.
10. The rise of secularism and decline of Christian nominalism = Maybe a point here, but I am not sure that could account for true Calvinism though it could account in some ways for a NEW Calvinism.
LikeLike
“What is curious about this list, with all due respect (going Hollywood alert) to my friend, Mark Dever, is how culturally and historically thin it is.”
But, DGH, I wonder if it is not appropriate and accurate to have a culturally and historically thin list for the Young & The Restless. It’s kind of pop-movement.
Lloyd-Jones is a curious choice for #2. I can see how he could inspire the movement, but I don’t hear a lot of Lloyd-Jones chatter, whereas there’s plenty of Piper, McArthur, and Packer chatter.
LikeLike
There’s an ambiguous “not” in my past comment. I’m proposing that a pop-list might be apt.
LikeLike
I guess I am breaking a promise never to comment @ OLT again. For quite some time now, and especially in the last couple of posts, I am finding it really impossible to separate the “good” guys from the “bad”. Do we have to? Love to ALL true Brothers, Old Bob
LikeLike
Lloyd Jones never ever taught the doctrine of effectual definite atonement. You may imagine that you saw it in his sermons, but if you go back and read them, you discover that you were assuming something there which wasn’t there. I don’t depend on the credibility of RT Kendall’s memoir about L. Jones and his wife( although I don’t see why Kendall at this point would fabricate their enthusiasm for his project), but the absence of this teaching in all of L. Jones’ published work is pretty solid evidence that he didn’t believe it. Of course I am told that we can believe some “shelf doctrines” we never teach.
L Jones seems to have agreed with John Stott that you can teach the truth about imputation and penal substitution without ever getting into the question of whose sins were imputed to Christ.
Thus election is taken out of the gospel, and relegated to a “family secret” which explains how you supposedly came to believe the gospel. And of course some of these elect become “experimental methodists” like Whitefield, L Jones, and Piper.
Yes, I would like somebody to give me evidence that L Jones taught that it would be unjust for anyone for whom Christ died to perish. If you think you heard it in a tape, listen to it again.
LikeLike
As Julia points out, the boeuf can be one of several choices: First choice: Rump Pot Roast—Pointe de Culotte, or Aiguillette de Rumstek, Other choices: Chuck Pot Roast—Paleron, or Macreuse à Pot-au-feu, Sirloin Tip—Tranche Grasse, Top Round—Tende de Tranche, Bottom Round—Gîte à la Noix.
Now old boeuf tends to be rancid and dangerous to the the eater as well as the restaurant serving it.
So the right question isn’t “how well the New Calvinism represents the Old Calvinism” but how well does it represent Scripture.
LikeLike
For what’s its worth… I don’t agree with this at all.
I think the big influence is a shift away from outward facing mission and towards retention for the evangelical community. From 1970-1990 evangelicals were mostly raiding the mainline denominations for members and were growing rapidly off the disgruntled mainline Protestants who wanted a more conservative church. Those people don’t exist anymore by multiple tens of millions.
The problem for evangelicals now is retention not missions. Reformed Christianity has always been good at “missionary to Christians” type work. Calvinism offers a compelling vision of how to understand the bible. It does not offer a compelling vision of how to understand the world, Calvin’s theology runs too counter to daily experience So if you already more or less accept evangelical Christianity, that is view the bible as authoritative and inerrant; then you can be missionized by the Reformed.
If the country were still mainly Protestant then we could just note that Reformed Christianity will grow in this generation. Where it will be overthrown with a move towards renewal is the grandchildren of the gen-Xers and millennials that form the YRR. The problem is though that Catholicism is in much deeper crisis and is throwing off members at a blistering pace. The non-religious category in America: Atheist, Agnostic, None, Don’t Know, Don’t Care; are growing very rapidly from an already high base fed primarily from defecting white Catholics.
For this reason I don’t think a high retention / low outreach strategy is the right fit for America, even though it is the right fit for those Americans who are currently in the American Evangelic community. I think there is going to need to be an effective outreach movement for America’s non-religious. I can’t however think what that’s going to look like.
(*) Islam has a 1300 year history of picking off disgruntled Catholics but right now Islam is going over a massive fundamentalist revolt itself and so is not in a good position for outreach.
(*) Liberal Christianity was highly dependent on pre-existing cohesive ethnic neighborhoods and I don’t see that coming back fast enough. The speed of migrations might fall and neighborhoods are becoming more cohesive culturally and economically cohesive in the last 20 years. I just don’t see that working through fast enough.
(*) Mormonism looked like a contender but the political conservatism of Mormon culture conflicts far too sharply with the sexual, political and theological radicalism of Joseph Smith.
(*) The new age movement burned out into simple silliness. Its lack of structure made it ridiculous even to its followers. Similarly with neo-Paganism.
(*) Spiritualism has been dead for almost a century now. Last century’s best contender doesn’t even have followers anymore.
So I’m at a loss. But I don’t see the grandchildren of Catholics who were infuriated by the contraception ruling becoming YRR.
LikeLike
It is Well: Expositions on Substitutionary Atonement, by Mark Dever and Michael Lawrence, Crossway, 2010.
Dever and Lawrence do not seem to have any idea of some sinners being united to Christ by election, so that the sins of these elect were already imputed to Christ. Nor do they seem to have any idea of faith being an benefit to the elect from Christ and His righteousness. They make the effectiveness of the atonement depend on faith given by God. So they talk about election in God’s giving of faith, but not about Christ having died only for the elect.
Nowhere do they say that it is effective atonement for the elect which results in faith by the elect in the true Christ revealed in the true gospel. This lack of attention to federal union is not caused by their being Baptists, nor by the absence of “the covenant” language. Rather, the problem is that they still have a gospel in common with Arminians.
On page 75, Dever refers to the sufficient and efficient formula, but never explains in what way he thinks the cross was enough for the non-elect (who all perish). Yes, “Christ knew those for whom he was laying down his life, and they were the same ones that the Father had elected”, but this statement does not rule out the idea that the death and the election were conditioned on the foresight of faith given by God. This statement lacks the antithesis to Arminianism.
To make that antithesis, we need to talk about a federal union, and we would need to talk about faith being a benefit given to the elect because of Christ’s obedience even to death. Every Arminian I know would agree when Dever says that faith is not the cause of salvation. But if the death of Jesus is sufficient to save the non-elect, then saving faith cannot be a result of Christ’s death. And when that is so, you are left with an evangelism in which union (because of God’s gift of faith) with “Christ” (the false one who died for everybody) becomes everything.
LikeLike
The pastors Dever and Lawrence, who first did these sermons in their Southern Baptist church, do make a distinction between Christians and non-Christian friends. But they refuse to talk to these friends about election or about how the effectiveness of the cross not only satisfies justices but causes the elect to believe. Instead, they tell non-Christians that they “can be” saved if they trust Jesus (even the false one who died without anybody’s sin being imputed to Him at the time).
They write and preach as if faith is the way to get sins imputed to Christ, as if the lost sinner is the one who is the imputer. On page 200, they ask:”what will you do with your sins?” On page 213, they ask: “But did Jesus die for you? It depends. Do you know yourself to be unrighteous?” My point is not that the lost have to learn what an Arminian is before they can believe the gospel. My argument is that those who teach the gospel need to show how Christ’s death is effective for the elect by showing how the sins of the elect were imputed to Christ by God, and not by the sinner.
It is well and good to tell the sinner that if she understands herself to be self-righteous, then she has a substitute. But part of self-righteousness is any idea that we cause Christ to become our
substitute because God make us believers. Dever’s book has no reference to II Cor 5:15 and its reference to Romans 6 makes “baptism” to be a symbol of our faith (instead of God’s placing the elect into Christ’s death). (Like most paedobaptists, they assume that baptism in Romans 6 means water).
While the Calvinist disagrees with the Arminian about the source of this faith, as long as the Calvinist does not talk of a federal union in which God has already credited the sins of the elect to Christ, they can share the same gospel. They can also agree not to mention that the non-elect sinner cannot believe the true gospel. They can very much agree not to mention that the non-elect CAN believe the false gospel that God loves everybody and that “Christ” died for everybody.
There is a “strings attached” ambiguity in Dever’s book, a contradiction between two ideas. One idea that the sinner decides if Jesus has died for her . The other idea is the Arminian Lutheran declaration that “One has been sacrificed to pay your penalty.” (p23)
But God does not command the non-Christian to believe what may not be true. Even if a non-Christian is elect, and it is true that Christ died for her, that is not what we can or should be telling the non-Christian. We can tell non-Christians about Christ’s effective death for the elect without telling them if they are elect or not. We don’t know if they are elect. We do know that Christ saves all for whom He died! Therefore it is neither biblical nor true to say that Christ “laid down his life for us if we would trust him”.
LikeLike
How would they know what influenced them? I could easily make a list of the 10 most influential thinkers/movements in my life, but a lot of it would probably be Whiggish hagiography. If studying history has taught me anything, it’s that people are pretty bad at identifying their own causes.
This list is also pretty gnostic. Why isn’t the internet up there? Or the culture wars? Or post-industrialization? I don’t hear too many left-wing steel workers without internet access talking like the Neo-Calvinists, but I do hear quite a few talking like 2K.
LikeLike
Jeremy, could you expand on ” I don’t hear too many left-wing steel workers without internet access talking like the Neo-Calvinists, but I do hear quite a few talking like 2K.”?
LikeLike
Ted,
Now old boeuf tends to be rancid and dangerous to the the eater as well as the restaurant serving it.
I am assuming you haven’t had the privilege of consuming a dry-aged steak, that in boeuf years is in it’s sunset years, but let me assure you it is savory melt in your mouth goodness. You know the kind of goodness that takes time, care, and skill to cultivate – hmmm, sounds a lot like that Old (Dry Aged) Calvinism. Not at all like the flank steak of New Calvinism that has been turned twice and slapped on the paper plate.
BTW, your argument about how well old/new Calvinism conforms to Scripture is well taken, that’s what we are all (presumably) aiming for. The biggest difference between old and new is that the content Old Calvinism has been agreed upon by the catholic reflection of ordained officers who grappled to confess the teaching of Scripture. These exercises have lead to the formation of our confessional witness. However for New Calvinists, what is biblical is decided on a far more individual and case by case basis. I applaud guys like Dever who actually do have confessional standards that have stood the test of time, however he is in the minority. All this to say, the content of New Calvinism is far harder to nail down, and therefore far more difficult to determine whether or not it is biblical. Any self respecting confessionalist will argue that they believe our confessional standards because they are in fact biblical. I understand you might disagree on the confessional standards of Reformed churches, I wish that were different, but I can respect that; but one thing that I think is fairly certain is you can be assured exactly where you disagree with us and where you agree because the content of our confessions are clear.
LikeLike
CD-host – “Calvin’s theology runs too counter to daily experience”
I think he had total depravity pegged pretty well. Humans are pretty predictable.
LikeLike
mark mcculley: Lloyd Jones never ever taught the doctrine of effectual definite atonement. You may imagine that you saw it in his sermons, but if you go back and read them, you discover that you were assuming something there which wasn’t there. I don’t depend on the credibility of RT Kendall’s memoir about L. Jones and his wife( although I don’t see why Kendall at this point would fabricate their enthusiasm for his project), but the absence of this teaching in all of L. Jones’ published work is pretty solid evidence that he didn’t believe it. Of course I am told that we can believe some “shelf doctrines” we never teach.
RS: In his series in I John L-Jones preaches three sermons on I John 2:1-2. In the second one he taught a clear view of a definite atonement. True enough he used the sufficient-efficient scheme, but he did teach it there. I thought he also taught it (as well as some clear teaching on election) in Ephesians, but I did not take the time to look.
LikeLike
Darryl, with you 100% on this one. Of course, this is mainly a Reformed Baptist list. I’m also surprised that Sovereign Grace Ministries doesn’t get a place. I have some appreciation for most of what’s on this list. I’m thankful for their voices and have used most of the authors in classes or studies from time to time. Nonetheless, one wonders about the definition of Reformed and Calvinism in play here. Coppes’s “Are Five Points Enough?” comes to mind, as does my own description of the Belgic Confession as the 37 points of Calvinism or the Westminster Confession as the 33 points of Calvinism. Hopefully, these guys will eventually discover ad fontes on Calvinism and read Calvin, the Westminister Divines, Old Princeton, Kuyper/Bavink, OPC Fathers, etc. Crucial for my own development was accepting Reformed/Calvinistic/Presbyterian ecclesiology which led me to focus on sources that had some ecclesiastical imprimatur. My own discovery of the Reformed faith came through reading the Seventh-Day Adventist renegade Robert Brinsmead’s Present Truth/Verdict where I discovered Reformation theology and the proper relationship between justification and sanctification. He reprinted as articles in the magazine Luther, Calvin, and other Reformation lights. As I explored the sources themselves, I came under the influence of conservative Reformed folks in the RPCNA, OPC, CRCNA and soon became convinced of whole package. Those on Dever’s list with Reformed Baptist leanings proved useful as far as they went. Would it be regarded as overly sectarian to suggest that Calvinism/Reformed includes covenant theology (including paedobaptism), presbyterianism, Calvin’s view of the sacraments, third use of the Law, (and I’ll add some kind of creational/cultural engagement–2K or Kuyperian–either one recognizes vocation, sovereignty of God over all things, sphere sovereignty/spirituality of the church), etc.?
LikeLike
Jed – touché!
LikeLike
Here’s an article from CT about the “Young, Restless, Reformed” that is almost six years old but is still relevant.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/september/42.32.html?order=&start=1
My biggest criticism of these folks is they embrace Calvinism but only go half way, retaining “believer’s baptism” and not fully embracing the historic Reformed creeds & confessions. Take the plunge, guys, and join with the URC or OPC. No need to reinvent the wheel by trying to take over the Southern Baptist Convention.
LikeLike
Terry Gray: Those on Dever’s list with Reformed Baptist leanings proved useful as far as they went.
RS: It is okay to hold your breath when you go under the water. What is interesting is that those on the list were those who have had significant contact with and influence from Arminianism.
Terry Gray: Would it be regarded as overly sectarian to suggest that Calvinism/Reformed includes covenant theology (including paedobaptism), presbyterianism, Calvin’s view of the sacraments, third use of the Law, (and I’ll add some kind of creational/cultural engagement–2K or Kuyperian–either one recognizes vocation, sovereignty of God over all things, sphere sovereignty/spirituality of the church), etc.?
RS: If one wants to have a group that holds to those things, then more power to them. However, you have just put yourself on a tiny, tiny island. But of course that is not all bad, or at least I hope not, but I would be on an even smaller island. I guess I am just not content to accept infant baptism, Calvin’s view of the sacraments, and presbyterianism until they are demonstrated from Scripture or evident reason. Perhaps for those of us on such small islands to determine what the necessary aspects of Christianity are before we retreat to such small islands.
LikeLike
Erik Charter: My biggest criticism of these folks is they embrace Calvinism but only go half way, retaining “believer’s baptism” and not fully embracing the historic Reformed creeds & confessions.
RS: Perhaps some of us think that the Reformation needs to continue in the realm of the sacraments. On the other hand, don’t be so sure that those folks are really embracing Calvinism in their soteriology.
Erik Charter: Take the plunge, guys,
RS: That is exactly what I say to padobaptist when trying to convince them that their view is not in the Bible.
Erik Charter: and join with the URC or OPC. No need to reinvent the wheel by trying to take over the Southern Baptist Convention.
RS: Calvinism is barely in the SBC much less about to take over. When folks say that Arminians preach the same Gospel that Calvinists do, you can know that Calvinism is not there. The SBC appears to be largely Pelagian in realtiy while those who think of themselves as Calvinists are closer to historical Arminianism. The problem with joining the URC or the OPC is perhaps because people have taken the plunge already and cannot go back to practices not commanded in Scripture.
LikeLike
Terry
Would it be regarded as overly sectarian to suggest that Calvinism/Reformed includes covenant theology (including paedobaptism), presbyterianism, Calvin’s view of the sacraments, third use of the Law, (and I’ll add some kind of creational/cultural engagement–2K or Kuyperian–either one recognizes vocation, sovereignty of God over all things, sphere sovereignty/spirituality of the church), etc.?
This kind of had me thinking what a “most influential list” would look like for confessional Calvinism. I am not sure the list could be constrained to a top 10, but maybe 15 or 20. Hopefully it could include both older influences from the early and magisterial Reformation and newer ones, say from the 19th century onward.
LikeLike
Another question I would have for these YRR guys is what kind of church discipline exists in their churches and are they doing any kind of fencing the table? Do their churches even have elders? Southern Baptists are traditionally congregationalists. It seems like they have a long way to go to have truly “Reformed” churches in the historic sense of the word, which is kind of what D.G. is getting at.
Can we trademark “Reformed” like the CTC guys have trademarked “The Church That Jesus Christ Himself Founded (TM)”?
LikeLike
Erik Charter: Take the plunge, guys,
RS: That is exactly what I say to padobaptist when trying to convince them that their view is not in the Bible.
Man, I set myself up for that one, didn’t I? Ha, ha!
LikeLike
Erik Charter: Another question I would have for these YRR guys is what kind of church discipline exists in their churches and are they doing any kind of fencing the table? Do their churches even have elders? Southern Baptists are traditionally congregationalists. It seems like they have a long way to go to have truly “Reformed” churches in the historic sense of the word, which is kind of what D.G. is getting at.
RS: Without defending the SBC in the slightest, for some of the rest of us we want to be more biblical.
Erik Charter: Can we trademark “Reformed” like the CTC guys have trademarked “The Church That Jesus Christ Himself Founded (TM)”?
RS: But remember that King Jesus have a part in founding Roman Catholicism. It was in judgment and is a continuing judgment. One reason that Jesus came was to blind. Rome is certainly blind.
John 12:37 But though He had performed so many signs before them, yet they were not believing in Him.
38 This was to fulfill the word of Isaiah the prophet which he spoke: “LORD, WHO HAS BELIEVED OUR REPORT? AND TO WHOM HAS THE ARM OF THE LORD BEEN REVEALED?”
39 For this reason they could not believe, for Isaiah said again,
40 “HE HAS BLINDED THEIR EYES AND HE HARDENED THEIR HEART, SO THAT THEY WOULD NOT SEE WITH THEIR EYES AND PERCEIVE WITH THEIR HEART, AND BE CONVERTED AND I HEAL THEM.”
41 These things Isaiah said because he saw His glory, and he spoke of Him.
LikeLike
Erik Charter
Erik Charter: Take the plunge, guys,
RS: That is exactly what I say to padobaptist when trying to convince them that their view is not in the Bible.
Eric C: Man, I set myself up for that one, didn’t I? Ha, ha!
RS: Yes, you did. The Lord gave you into my hands on that one.
LikeLike
I think he had total depravity pegged pretty well. Humans are pretty predictable.
If Calvin’s theories about the nature of humanity were right and consistent with human experience I’d have substantially statistically noticeable differences between how people choose the reformed religion and how they choose other religions. Or for that matter how they choose religions and how they choose other important cultural identity issues, like what language to speak or how much value they place on education. We would also expect to see substantial statistical differences between the elect and the non elect on a host of sin related issues which we don’t see.
The fact is you don’t really see those sorts of wide differences. We experience reality as if, people pick a religion for more or less the same kinds of reasons they pick other important cultural identity issues. Their behavior seems partially within the control and partially outside it, but religion may help a bit but doesn’t seem to matter too much and which religion matters even less. That’s totally contrary to what Calvin’s view of total depravity and the regenerate nature of the elect would lead one to expect.
LikeLike
I don’t know, Jed, lists seem to have a way of giving ammunition to the Bryan Cross’s of the world to accuse confessional Calvinism of being something less than organic. Though he may be onto something when it comes to the New Calvinists and their lists. Still, if it’s pushing against the five-point-itis afflicting them, one could do a lot worse than Muller when it comes to sketching out what it means to be Calvinist:
http://kimriddlebarger.squarespace.com/how-many-points/
LikeLike
Jed, I’m suggesting, I think, that this top 10 list has already been done (top 33 or 37) in the Confessions. But here’s what I’ve used as a summary when I’ve been asked:
1) The authority, infallibility, and sufficiency of Holy Scripture
2) Trinitarianism and an emphasis on the glory of God as the purpose of all things;
3) The Reformation “solas”: Christ alone, faith alone, grace alone
4) The doctrines of grace (or TULIP)
5) Covenant theology (including paedobaptism)
6) The necessity of conversion and personal, fruit-bearing faith
7) The necessity of using one’s God-give gifts in the service of the church and the world
8) The importance of the church, the ministry of the Word, and the sacraments in the life of the believer (including presbyterianism)
9) A comprehensive world-and-life view that sees all things as subject to the Lordship of Jesus Christ and that believers are called to serve Him in every area of life
10) The creation, fall, redemption, consummation motif in redemptive history
Richard, I understand your point, but if you take a historical and global perspective, I’m not sure that the Reformed, confessional perspective is all that small. I think that is is one of the points Darryl is making with the moniker “Old Life Theological Society”. Much of American and now global evangelicalism is “new” (dispensationalism, pentecostalism, even credo-baptism). They may well be in the majority, but don’t forget, Arians and Nestorians were in the majority once.
LikeLike
Thanks, Terry, for reminding us of the influence of Brinsmead (ex-SDA) and Geoffrey Paxton (Anglican). Brinsmead at least seems to have a gone bit too far in his quest for a church-less society. And the roots of that quest are plain to see in the old Verdict magazines, in which he transformed the law-gospel distinction into a “difference” between religion and gospel. Now Brinsmead seems to be too tolerant to be tolerant, or as some FV folks say it, “too Catholic to be Catholic”
The two gentlemen from Australia, Robert Brinsmead and Geoffrey Paxton, endorse a “dividing” which goes like this—religion is good, gospel is best. In other words, outside of us righteousness is so important that become antinomian when it comes to ecclesiology and ethics.
I have two criticisms, one with the “dividing” itself and the other with what Brinsmead and Paxton call “gospel”. They rightly insist on the centrality of the “outside of us doing and dying of Jesus.” But they do not tell the entire story, as the apostles did in the book of Acts. They do not talk about the promise of God to destroy those who do not believe the gospel. They sound like universalists, and when you ask them about this, they relegate your question to “religion”.
Brinsmead and Paxton also do not talk about the authority of Jesus Christ to give eternal life and the knowledge of Christ revealed in the gospel. In fact, they so distinguish “our experience” from the “doing and dying of Jesus” that they consign any talk of the new birth to being “religion”.
.
The two gentlemen deny the necessity of faith in justification. Granted, most people today make an idol of faith, so that they think God counts faith as righteousness, or so that they think faith makes the difference between elect and non-elect. But in reaction to that, Barthians like Paxton and Brinsmead teach something very much like an ex opere operato view of salvation. But the elect are under God’s wrath until they are justified. Unless and until one believes in the Christ revealed in the true gospel, he or she remains an object of God’s wrath.
LikeLike
Zrim: I don’t know, Jed, lists seem to have a way of giving ammunition to the Bryan Cross’s of the world to accuse confessional Calvinism of being something less than organic. Though he may be onto something when it comes to the New Calvinists and their lists. Still, if it’s pushing against the five-point-itis afflicting them, one could do a lot worse than Muller when it comes to sketching out what it means to be Calvinist:
RS: The article by Muller is surely one of the things to be resisted. The Church must preach the Word of God and the glory of God in the face of Christ rather than the Confessions. Muller sounds just like Bryan Cross in many ways. Both want to look at a historical document written by men rather than Scripture as if that historical document is without error. God has given us the faith handed down once and for all in the Bible. True enough confessions are helpful and necessary, but they should not be treated as if they were the standard of truth and inerrant.
LikeLike
It’s being hinted at; but I think the glue that unites the men in the list above is a lack of a clear and concise ecclesiology. I wish Dever had made the list because at least ecclesiology is important to him.
LikeLike
Terry Gray: “(dispensationalism, pentecostalism, even credo-baptism…. Arians and Nestorians were in the majority once”
And you would link dispensationalism and credo-baptism with a heresy on the person of Christ? I’m going to have work overtime on being extra snarky to you. Which is it Terry, ignorance, or arrogance?
LikeLike
Yes, we can and should divide law and grace. But I can’t help noticing that Brinsmead and Paxton are saying something very sectarian about what they consider to be good “religion”. Although they claim to only be talking about “gospel”, they end up saying all manner of things about what we have the liberty to do or not do in “religion”.
For starters, they definitely think that congregations should be non-separatist. They assume that anybody who is not as ecumenical about “the one church” as they are is some kind of legalist. While Brinsmead and Paxton claim they want “tolerance for dissent”, they also attempt to remove all basis for a gathered church. In other words, they can’t tolerate people who are so intolerant that they would not consent to go to their “one church”.
They insist that no group of Christians is ever to separate from another group of Christians. The two gentlemen are suspicious of local assemblies who have agreed together about what it means to trust the gospel and obey Christ they reproach with sneer-words like “sectarian” and “ghetto” and “religion”. I, on the other hand, think we need more “colonies of heaven”. Citizens of heaven are exiles who prefer the ghetto to sending military chaplains to the military to “minister” the generic platitudes of patriotism and “free/dumb”…
Imagine the following situation. These two fellows settle down in a small town with only one church. To use the Constantinian and state-church jargon, that church is the “parish”. It is therefore typical of the Magisterial Reformation. Though there is a distinction between church and state , the boundaries of the one church coincide with the boundaries of the one nation-state,
Imagine more about the situation. Imagine that every adult in town is a Christian. (Remember, the two gentlemen don’t believe in “religious” conversion, so maybe they were all just born Christians) Then this one church in town decides together to do some particular religious practice, take your pick—footwashing, seventh day Sabbath, conscientious objection to war, etc. Now what do Brinsmead and Paxton do in this situation? They could say that those practices should be up to individuals to do or not do, but what do they do if everybody else in town begins to practice these things together? Leave town? Start another church?
Remember they have said that all such practices are merely “religion”. So how could they in good conscience separate from the other Christians in town about such practices? If it’s only “religion”, why not go along with the rest for the sake of peace and unity? I am reminded of Galatians 2. Paul reproaches Peter for separating from the Gentiles when others come from Jerusalem. And that’s all well and good.
But what happens if Paul has to separate from Peter because Peter has separated from the Gentiles. In either case, before or after, you still have two different groups of Christians. Either that, or you have one group saying that the other group is not Christian, because they put their “rellgion” in place of the “gospel”.
And then the other group can say the same thing, and on it goes. “They went out from us because they were not of us.” And, yes, that’s right, because they were only about “religion” and we ourselves are about the “gospel”. And back and forth it goes….Ecclesiology is not the gospel, but there is no escape from ecclesiology.
LikeLike
Todd – “It’s being hinted at; but I think the glue that unites the men in the list above is a lack of a clear and concise ecclesiology.”
Todd, have you read Dever’s book, “Polity” – or MacArthur’s, “The Master’s Plan for the Church?” They aren’t unclear in those books about where they stand. Are you thinking of something specific?
FWIW, Dever used to whup pretty bad on MacArthur’s Eldership polity because Dever’s a died-in-the-wool congregationalist. Not so much for the past 10 years.
LikeLike
Zrim,
I don’t know, Jed, lists seem to have a way of giving ammunition to the Bryan Cross’s of the world to accuse confessional Calvinism of being something less than organic.
Tell me about it man, no thanks to Bryan Cross I have to think twice when making a shopping list – wondering if the reason I am doing so is part of my ecclesiastical paradigm.
LikeLike
One thing I have noticed, but perhaps I just haven’t heard Calvinistic Baptist say it, is that the Reformed affirm continuity with not only the early church of the first few centuries, but also with the medieval church; I’ve never heard a Baptist say this. Didn’t Calvin say that Augustine was wholly “ours”? I’m not sure if a Baptist can say this; how can they if they viewed baptism as a lost ordinance that they were restoring? This does seem problematic. I think Roger Williams was one of a certain group of Baptists that thought the apostasy of the church had been so great, the church actually needed new apostles; it would be incorrect to include all Baptist in this thinking, but it does show some possible conclusions of Baptist thinking. It reminds me of something I think Thomas Paine said, we have it in our power to start the world anew.
Erick, I think you are wrong about congregational polity being outside the bounds of the Reformed tradition, if that is what you meant. Doesn’t John Owen come to mind? I think R.S. Clark includes Congregationalists among the Reformed at least in part because they did participate in the formulation of Reformed theology; I think some were part of the Westminster Assembly. They were congregationalists who did baptize infants. It’s this participation that also results in including some Anglicans in the Reformed tradition. So the Reformed seem pretty diverse, except on baptism.
This issue of baptism is one that I am reviewing. I’m looking at Kim Riddlebarger’s material on this in his church website. I came out of Pentecostalism, so I came out of a tradition that agreed with Baptist; I remember my church also presented babies to the Lord. I just want to come some conclusions so that I can go ahead and join a Reformed congregation if I am persuaded by them.
This leads me to a question. How good are the Presbyterian churches in southern CA, particularly in the L.A. and Southbay areas? I’ve seen diversity among them.
LikeLike
Ted, no need to be snarky, let alone extra snarky. It’s a fair question. I don’t think I suggested that credo-baptism was on par with Arianism in terms of its degree of error. I was simply noting that in the modern church the non-Reformed perspectives are in the minority. Majority status doesn’t guarantee correctness. For what it’s worth, I don’t even think Arianism and Nestorianism are on par as to error. I embrace Chalcedon, but I’m not so sure I’m willing to push the entire Oriental Church out the door. I’m not sure what you’re asking when you ask which is it, arrogance or ignorance.
LikeLike
Richard, I have found that Muller’s piece is good for separating the Reformed confessionalists from the Reformed evangelicals. The more turned off, the more one tends to be the latter (vice versa). But since you’ve weighed in critically on the Reformed evangelical list, you may be in a league of one. But that’s more evangelical than confessional, so…
LikeLike
Jed, but don’t tell the Baylys you do women’s work.
LikeLike
Zrim, that means you think I’m a Reformed confessionalist. While I seldom put little stock in the opinions of others, that makes me proud.
LikeLike
Richard, I understand your point, but if you take a historical and global perspective, I’m not sure that the Reformed, confessional perspective is all that small.
Sorry no. If you count identification and not practice, i.e. the most favorable for Reformed you get to about 75m globally. Baptists (including non denominational baptists) + Pentecostals are at 350m. Encyclopedia Britannica puts it at 450m for independent churches, 350m for churches with any denominational affiliation at all.
If you count practice you drop off most of your European Reformed and the North American sects and the Latin American Pentecostals become your dominant Protestants by numbers. So for example in Brazil among registered churches:
12.9m Pentecostals
3.2m Baptists
1.8m Adventist
1m Evangelical Lutherans
1m Reformed
350k Methodists
there are another 18m Brazilians in small unregistered churches so we don’t have exact numbers but an overwhelming percentage are going to to be some form of baptist / pentecostal.
LikeLike
@alberto —
Most Baptists would deny continuity in whole or in part. That the church was deeply corrupted and while the bible was preserved the message of the gospel was lost. God raised up the gospel in opposition to the corrupt churches in every generation day, and this continues with God raising up the gospel against the corrupt churches of our day, and the church acted to suppress not teach the gospel. This was how we interpreted the 4th great awakening and drawing people from the corrupt mainline churches into our church. We had no problem attacking the corruption of the church. So for example I was raised to see Matt: 4:8-9 as prophecy and in 313 CE when the church was offered the same bargain by the Roman Empire, they said “yes”.
I suspect that the YRR see God raising the gospel (i.e. TULIP gospel) against the Evangelical churches of the baby boomer generation in this light. They grew up in churches that had become corrupted by suburbia. You can see that attitude in this Acts 23 video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IAhDGYlpqY
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, I have found that Muller’s piece is good for separating the Reformed confessionalists from the Reformed evangelicals. The more turned off, the more one tends to be the latter (vice versa). But since you’ve weighed in critically on the Reformed evangelical list, you may be in a league of one. But that’s more evangelical than confessional, so…
RS: It may be the case that the WCF is too far into piety for you, but notice with some care the language of it. I would argue that the paper by Muller was far removed from Scripture and seemed to rely on the testimony of men only, but in reality the testimony of men in the WCF is that we must look to Scripture and the Spirit must be the One that convinces us. The same thing (more or less) is taught in the Belgic Confession. It is when the Scriptures are preached that the Word of God is preached. It is when the Scritpures are preached the the Word of God does not come back void. According to the confessions themselves we are not to consider them as final but instead look to the Scriptures. I would hope that I am not in a league of one on that one.
In taking the historic confessions as virtually inerrant one has effectively replaced the authority of Scripture with the authority of men in centuries past. I am not sure why we think that Calvin was virtually inerrant, but he is not the final arbiter of truth. The confessions teach that Scripture is to interpret Scripture. As Luther put it (paraphrased), our consciences are to be bound by the Word of God. We are to believe something because Scripture teaches it and the Spirit has taught us that rather than a confession says it. When we treat confessions as virtually inerrant, we zoom into that time and place when it was written and say (by implication) that God can not reform His Church past that point.
WCF Ch Ch 1:IV. The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, depends not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.
V. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture. And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it does abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts
IX. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.
X. The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.
Belgic Confession:
Article 5: The Authority of Scripture
We receive all these books and these only as holy and canonical, for the regulating, founding, and establishing of our faith.
And we believe without a doubt all things contained in them– not so much because the church receives and approves them as such but above all because the Holy Spirit testifies in our hearts that they are from God, and also because they prove themselves to be from God.
For even the blind themselves are able to see that the things predicted in them do happen.
Article 6: The Difference Between Canonical and Apocryphal Books
We distinguish between these holy books and the apocryphal ones, which are the third and fourth books of Esdras; the books of Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Jesus Sirach, Baruch; what was added to the Story of Esther; the Song of the Three Children in the Furnace; the Story of Susannah; the Story of Bell and the Dragon; the Prayer of Manasseh; and the two books of Maccabees.
The church may certainly read these books and learn from them as far as they agree with the canonical books. But they do not have such power and virtue that one could confirm from their testimony any point of faith or of the Christian religion. Much less can they detract from the authority of the other holy books.
Article 7: The Sufficiency of Scripture
We believe that this Holy Scripture contains the will of God completely and that everything one must believe to be saved is sufficiently taught in it. For since the entire manner of service which God requires of us is described in it at great length, no one– even an apostle or an angel from heaven, as Paul says–^2 ought to teach other than what the Holy Scriptures have already taught us. For since it is forbidden to add to or subtract from the Word of God,^3 this plainly demonstrates that the teaching is perfect and complete in all respects.
Therefore we must not consider human writings– no matter how holy their authors may have been– equal to the divine writings; nor may we put custom, nor the majority, nor age, nor the passage of time or persons, nor councils, decrees, or official decisions above the truth of God, for truth is above everything else.
For all human beings are liars by nature and more vain than vanity itself.
Therefore we reject with all our hearts everything that does not agree with this infallible rule, as we are taught to do by the apostles when they say, “Test the spirits to see if they are of God,”^4 and also, “If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house.”^
LikeLike
Alberto: One thing I have noticed, but perhaps I just haven’t heard Calvinistic Baptist say it, is that the Reformed affirm continuity with not only the early church of the first few centuries, but also with the medieval church; I’ve never heard a Baptist say this.
RS: Which early church? The one in Corinth? Which one in Revelation 2 and 3? The issue was and is and will always be “what saith the Lord.” I have heard many from Rome make the claim of continuity, but I have never heard the claim that the early church was Presbyterian in polity.
Alberto: Didn’t Calvin say that Augustine was wholly “ours”?
RS: Perhaps, but Rome pretty much says that too. Others say that the Reformers were Augustinian in terms of soteriology and yet it was his teachings on the Church that Rome took. So I am not sure that it would mean to have Augustine as “wholly ours” in any context.
Alberto: I’m not sure if a Baptist can say this; how can they if they viewed baptism as a lost ordinance that they were restoring?
RS: One problem that modern Presbyterians have (IMO) in trying to explain the continuity with the early church regarding baptism is what people thought baptism did or the efficacy of baptism. From Augustine (at least) baptism was thought to wash away original sin and communicate grace in some way to the infant. During the Reformation the majesterial Reformers retreated from that (not Luther so much) and tried to develop a covenantal theology for infant baptism and yet not hold to the efficacy of baptism that had been taught for so many years. They also retreated from Rome in terms of the Supper but still changed things some. So I am not sure they have the continuity that they wish for. Nevertheless, there were many heresies during that time period that continue to this day and so it is not difficult to believe that some beliefs that were wrong have also continued. The Scriptures must be followed.
Alberto: This does seem problematic.
RS: Only for those who take certain lines of thinking.
Alberto: I think Roger Williams was one of a certain group of Baptists that thought the apostasy of the church had been so great, the church actually needed new apostles; it would be incorrect to include all Baptist in this thinking, but it does show some possible conclusions of Baptist thinking.
RS: We do need apostles in our day, but not new ones. We just need to go back to the Book which gives us the writings of the one group of apostles that are the foundation (along with the prophets) of the Church.
LikeLike
Richard, it’s not new, but you seem to be confusing a high view of the confessions with an infallible view. But if we have an inspired and inerrant view of them then why did we revise Belgic 36 and WCF 23?
LikeLike
Terry, sure. And I’ll add a compliment on top of it for enduring an anti-confessional denomination. I could only take 15 years before my conscience plain wore out. You’re a better man than me.
LikeLike
Zrim,
Please oh please don’t tell them that we happily share household tasks!!! I’d hate for them to question my manhood. In my defense I still eat beef jerky regularly.
LikeLike
Terry,
Thanks for the list. I think these are all important internal reasons outlining Reformed Christianity. I had in mind more of the important historical and institutional developments
e.g Westminster Assembly, Princeton Seminary, maybe the spread of the printing press and moveable type (vs. the internet as the New Calvinist media driver).
To Zrim’s point, I think that there is a substantial amount of Kuyperians who share confessionalism in kind with 2kers (both you and Baus being examples here). I think that the big difference could be demonstrated through a venn diagram. If the shared space is confessionalism, probably more 2kers (on a percentage basis – since there aren’t many of us) are in the confessional center, and the only reason why there would be less Kuyperians is because Kuypers ideas seem to have appeal beyond confessional Reformed lines (e.g evangelicals such as Colson). But to say that Kuyperians cannot be confessionalists would be false. Our debates are over the construct of Christ and culture, not necesssarily the content of our confessions or confessional practice within our churches.
LikeLike
CD,
You are right with respect to your analysis of our Reformed numbers. In the US those belonging to NAPARC (conservative Reformed denominations) is only around 500k. Your numbers might only be off in Brazil, where there is a substantial Reformed presence, however I can’t remember where I saw the figures. But, things being as they are, Reformed Christianity in N. America (and Europe as well) never recovered numerically from the onslaught of modernism. In the US, the few conservative Presbyterians that stayed with the mainline Presbyterian church after the Presbyterian controversies basically became swallowed up in either liberalism or a nominal, cultural Christianity. So much so that there are very few conservative congregations left in denominations like the PCUSA. However, it seems that the PCUSA hasn’t been able to keep from hemorrhaging numbers after the 60’s when there were less compelling reasons for liberals to remain attached to mainline WASP Christianity.
LikeLike
Jed —
Glad you like the data. As a point of interest the mainlines (i.e. the PCUSA) are doing OK now after 2 generations the rate of loss is slowing and now:
a) The pick up more members from evangelicals than they lose
b) The rate of loss to non-religious is much slower than evangelicals and they pick up some. They might reach equilibrium soon (or since this is backwards looking data, already be there).
c) They have essentially no loses to black protestant churches
On the downside:
d) They aren’t getting Catholics nearly as quickly as Evangelicals.
e) They have a low birth rate
The mainline congregations had 2 generations of devastation and now the demographics look stable. I don’t know what the future holds but I can see them plausibly gaining.
LikeLike
CD – You like stats and scorecards but they really don’t prove anything. A small number of people can be right, a large number of people can be wrong (and vice versa). Most people here are primarily interested in theology, not sociology or demography. If you are irreligious or kind of have your own religion why do you really care what other people believe? What does it really matter? What are your goals (if any)?
CTC guys are impressed by large numbers. Most Old Life guys are not.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, it’s not new, but you seem to be confusing a high view of the confessions with an infallible view. But if we have an inspired and inerrant view of them then why did we revise Belgic 36 and WCF 23?
RS: Remember that I don’t mean that literally, but seemingly treat them that way at times.
LikeLike
“Todd, have you read Dever’s book, “Polity” – or MacArthur’s, “The Master’s Plan for the Church?” They aren’t unclear in those books about where they stand. Are you thinking of something specific?”
Ted,
I don’t think hardly anyone reads MacAarthur for his take on ecclesiology, while Dever is known for his views of the church; marks, discipline, etc…My general point is that what I see uniting the young restless crowd besides Calvinism is a low ecclesiology.
LikeLike
You like stats and scorecards but they really don’t prove anything. A small number of people can be right, a large number of people can be wrong (and vice versa). Most people here are primarily interested in theology, not sociology or demography.
Terry’s claim was demographic not theological. Stats and scorecards prove stuff about demographics. My discussion with you on Calvin, that was about theology. And if you look on some of the previous threads I addressed theological topics.
But DG Hart’s claims are mostly in the area of religious history and that is an area of interest. I just seem to have missed those threads. I’d assume there is some interest in that topic with those here.
If you are irreligious or kind of have your own religion why do you really care what other people believe?
Believe about what?
What does it really matter? What are your goals (if any)?
Here you mean? You asked me when I first showed up it was an accident. My goals… post for a bit learn about some interesting stuff. I don’t know much about OPC vs. PCA friction points. That’s new. Flesh out exactly what is meant by historic Christianity from an OPC as opposed to a PCA perspective (I’m familiar with the PCA take), etc…
CTC guys are impressed by large numbers. Most Old Life guys are not.
I’m not the one who made claims about numbers, your guy did.
LikeLike
CD – I’m not picking on you. I like your input. I’m just generally curious about people who are not religious in a traditional sense who take an interest in religion. If I was not religious I would pretty much just be a hedonist, and talking about religion is not something I would find particularly interesting since it would not be furthering my pleasure during this brief life that I was enjoying here on earth.
I interact with some local atheist professors who are always “shoulding” all over everyone and I think they are a joke.
I am also curious about your website — it seems to have something to do with those who were wronged (or perceive they were wronged) by church discipline. How does that fit into your story?
As far as Terry saying Reformed Christians are in the majority (if that’s what he said), he must not live in my neigborhood, or state, or country…
LikeLike
CD Host:
The phrase “substantial significant difference”, that you wrote, is confusing to me. What does that mean conceptually or mathematically? Also, do you have references to studies that definitively show a causal link (i.e.: non-correlational studies) between social factors and how religious affiliations are formed?
LikeLike
Richard, if we think the confessions are the most faithful expositions of the Bible then is it really so misguided to view them as somewhere between more than merely helpful (evangelical) but less than infallible (Catholic)? But if we’re not being dinged by evangelicals for treating them as infallible we’re getting smacked by Catholics for self-popery by not assigning them enough authority. Christianity is hard.
LikeLike
Confessions and creeds with some age on them are really helpful for keeping us on track and making us suspicious of the new, the novel, and the trendy. If it was important it probably would have occurred to our fathers in the faith a hundred, or five hundred, or two thousand years ago.
The now disgraced Rev. Patrick Edouard delivered the ordination sermon for my pastor, The Rev. Jody Lucero. In it he encouraged him to avoid the temptation to be novel. It was good advice and Rev. Lucero sticks to it. I think he’s preaching through the Belgic for the 2nd or 3rd time since he has been my pastor.
LikeLike
Erik Charter: Confessions and creeds with some age on them are really helpful for keeping us on track and making us suspicious of the new, the novel, and the trendy. If it was important it probably would have occurred to our fathers in the faith a hundred, or five hundred, or two thousand years ago.
RS: What would you say about your statement above if it would have been uttered of a Roman Catholic around 1500 or so? I still argue that the Word of God must be revealed by the Spirit and He can reveal more about it as time goes on at His good pleasure. In fact, if you look at the history of the Church you will see that the great doctrines (in terms of creeds) were worked on at different points in history. If Luther would have uttered your statement above, there would have been no Reformation. Just saying…
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, if we think the confessions are the most faithful expositions of the Bible then is it really so misguided to view them as somewhere between more than merely helpful (evangelical) but less than infallible (Catholic)?
RS: But they are not expositions of the Bible.
Zrim: But if we’re not being dinged by evangelicals for treating them as infallible we’re getting smacked by Catholics for self-popery by not assigning them enough authority. Christianity is hard.
RS: Maybe it is your position. Jesus said that His yoke was light.
LikeLike
Richard,
But they are not expositions of the Bible.
Maybe they are not expositions of the Bible the way a sermon exposits Scripture. But, if you were to examine WCF Chapter 1, you would see that the Westminster divines were clearly teaching that all doctrine must be derived from Scripture. The whole project of the Westminster Assembly was to codify the doctrines that Scripture affirms, and in so doing ensure that the English church (at the time) had a common understanding of what doctrines were both orthodox and enforceable within the church. Maybe you want to debate the issue of whether this point or that is biblical in the WCF or the TFU, but that doesn’t detract from the fact that those of us who adhere to and confess these standards do believe that they are biblical.
LikeLike
Paul —
I used it twice here are the contexts
substantially statistically noticeable differences between how people choose the reformed religion and how they choose other religions
differences that are meaningful or large and detectable by statistical measures
expect to see substantial statistical differences between the elect and the non elect on a host of sin related issues
differences in behavior on sin related issues that are meaningful or large and detectable by statistical measures
Also, do you have references to studies that definitively show a causal link (i.e.: non-correlational studies) between social factors and how religious affiliations are formed?
Sure Pew for example examined longitudinal (retention) and intergenerational retention:
Click to access report-religious-landscape-study-full.pdf
Barna has most of the research for sale but they do quite a bit on this looking at various social factors as far as missions, remaining in churches, willingness to become active… I can only do one link so barna DOT org . I’d browse the research and pick up the books cheap on amazon.
LikeLike
CD-Host, you seem to have missed the word historical when I said “historical and global”. I don’t dispute your numbers. Philip Jenkins writing about the global south suggest that traditional western orthodox Christian may be close to irrelevant.
My point to Richard was that Reformed Christianity from the Reformation until the rise of liberalism and fundamentalism was a sizable “island” in Christendom, especially if you lump in Anglicans and historic Congregationalists (I.e. interregnum England, New England). Since I think Presbyterianism is taught in the Bible, I’m not so quick to do that.
LikeLike
Richard – “If Luther would have uttered your statement above, there would have been no Reformation”
Erik – Then how do you explain Luther’s Small & Large Catechisms. Also, were the Reformers really breaking new ground? They went back to the Church Fathers an awful lot.
Is the only faithful summary of Scripture that satisfies Richard, Richard’s?
You might be most at home with Alexander Campbell’s “No Creed But Christ”.
The Bible is a big book.
Richard – “I still argue that the Word of God must be revealed by the Spirit and He can reveal more about it as time goes on at His good pleasure.”
Do you mean like it has been “revealed” to guys like Jim Jones & David Koresh?
LikeLike
Reading about the Restoration Movement (“No Creed But Christ”) of the Second Great Awakening. This cracked me up:
“One historian of the movement has argued that it was primarily a unity movement, with the restoration motif playing a subordinate role.
The Restoration Movement has since divided into multiple separate groups.”
LikeLike
Here’s an interesting read about the historical reality of attempting to unify around “no creed but Christ”. At the end of the article there are so many different groups with similar names it’s impossible to keep them straight or remember how they arose:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restoration_Movement
LikeLike
Richard, a Roman Catholic could not have uttered in 1500 what Erik wrote. Rome did not have the kind of teaching material that the Reformers produced. I know that’s not your point. But it’s one thing to honor a tradition that is basically silent — Rome had no catechism until 1566 — and one that took seriously a duty to expound the word of God.
LikeLike
CD-Host, thanks for the link. One definitional clarification and further questions…
Differences that are large (numerically) can be completely unrelated to differences that are real. The technical term “statistically significant” is used to indicate that differences in average numbers between two groups (regardless of how “large” or “small” the magnitude of quantitative difference) that are very unlikely to be due to chance. Given a statistically significant difference, are margin of possibility always is present that the difference found may not even exist (regardless of how large or small the magnitude of the difference). Today’s evidence and tomorrow’s evidence will change completely…making it very challenging to form opinions about causes based upon statistics alone.
Thanks for the Pew study link. Where in this study do you identify a causal link between social factors and religious affiliation? (Keep in mind this is an observational study, not a controlled study).
LikeLike
Paul —
Statistical significance is a property of numbers, that would fall under detectable. What’s being detected statistically I was concerned about. I’d was trying to exclude artifacts of the data that weren’t large enough or meaningful enough to draw broad conclusions from, a qualitative judgement. So for example if there was a .1mm height difference between Reformed and not-Reformed, even if statistically significant I didn’t want to focus on that.
Where in this study do you identify a causal link between social factors and religious affiliation?
The Pew study shows that the way someone most often joins a religion is being born into that religion. That retention for Reformed correlates with the degree of conservatism (i.e. 7 sisters look more or less the same, evangelicals look more or less the same). Marrying someone who practices that religion is the major point for religious shifts.
Were election true we wouldn’t expect to see reformed patterns look so much like the patterns for all the false churches.
LikeLike
The “non-creedal” group says that the other groups put “their creed” in place of the gospel” And then the creedal group say that the creed of the other group is its legalism against creeds. The “Restorationist” assemblies led by Alexander Campbell (who was influenced by Robert Sandeman) began by condemning all denominationalism, but the result in many cases is that anybody outside “the Church of Christ” nondenominational denomination is condemned.
American liberal individualists tend to establish groups which exclude others who exclude, even when they think these “others” are Christians (but “legalist”).
LikeLike
Erik Charter: quoting Richard – “If Luther would have uttered your statement above, there would have been no Reformation”
Erik – Then how do you explain Luther’s Small & Large Catechisms. Also, were the Reformers really breaking new ground? They went back to the Church Fathers an awful lot.
Is the only faithful summary of Scripture that satisfies Richard, Richard’s?
RS: Not exactly, at least on the one hand. However, each person should be convinced (if one is to believe the WCF) because of the teaching of the Spirit).
Erik Charter: You might be most at home with Alexander Campbell’s “No Creed But Christ”.
The Bible is a big book.
RS: No, creeds and confessions are very important. My argument is on their use and how much people trust in them.
Erik quoting Richard: “I still argue that the Word of God must be revealed by the Spirit and He can reveal more about it as time goes on at His good pleasure.”
Erik: Do you mean like it has been “revealed” to guys like Jim Jones & David Koresh?
RS: No, more or less as it says in the WCF. Again, my argument is that the WCF itself tells us how to view confessions and creeds. We are to be convinced something is biblical only if we believe it because of what the Bible teaches and the Spirit reveals it. Read the places from the WCF given below. I don’t think that I am saying anything differently than what it says at this point.
IV. The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, depends not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.[9]
V. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture.[10] And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it does abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.[11]
IX. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.[23]
X. The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.[24]
LikeLike
“Were election true we wouldn’t expect to see reformed patterns look so much like the patterns for all the false churches.”
If you are using data to test election you have not understood election. It’s akin to doing an empirical study of the mind of God.
LikeLike
CD-Host says;
“Were election true we wouldn’t expect to see reformed patterns look so much like the patterns for all the false churches.”
Sean says: If you’re saying what you appear to be saying; doubting the theological tennant and spiritual reality of election, then you make an enormous and erroneous assumption that God doesn’t work through ordinary means, such as families. Seems to be a major thrust of biblical theology, to track genealogical heritage, including in the gospels, and then from a reformed perspective anticipating biblical saving faith from the children of believers. If election were true, we should see the majority of believers ‘born into it’.
LikeLike
Richard, you might take note of all the citations in confessions—they are biblical references. Biblicists may not care for their regard and function amongst confessionalists, but that hardly diminishes the fact that the confessions, creeds, and catechisms are the result of biblical spade work.
The irony is how every time a Biblicist informally opens his mouth (or his keyboard) to affirm, say, credo-baptism and oppose, say, paedobaptism, he’s doing the exact same thing the confessions are doing formally. Both are appealing to the Bible to affirm and oppose. But the Biblicist reserves the right to claim more fidelity to the Bible. The difference seems to be between the Biblicist’s anti-institutionalism and the confessionalist’s pro-institutionalism. It would sure be more honest and charitable if Biblicists could own up to their own low ecclesiology instead of suggesting something as silly as confessionalist’s thinking the confessions are inspired and infallible.
LikeLike
Terry —
My point to Richard was that Reformed Christianity from the Reformation until the rise of liberalism and fundamentalism was a sizable “island” in Christendom, especially if you lump in Anglicans and historic Congregationalists (I.e. interregnum England, New England). Since I think Presbyterianism is taught in the Bible, I’m not so quick to do that.
I agree that Baptists are at an all time high, especially if you group Pentecostals in with them, as you and Richard seem to be doing. And if all that is meant was that Reformed was a much larger fraction 300 years ago and credo-baptists arminians were a tiny fraction 300 years ago; that’s absolutely correct. It depends how you want to weigh the past. Population has skyrocketed in the last 200 years, but lets put that aside.
What I would argue is that America has a non stop history of the innovation and evolution of Christian sects. European Christianity started mutating rapidly as soon as it hit America. And over the last 100 years we’ve begun exporting all over the world. Fundamentally the issue with traditional Reformed Christianity is that it is non pluralistic, it assumes a united population and more or less a state church. Calvin never developed a theology of a Christianity that can exist with the support of only 10, 20, 30% of the population and a state that was mostly indifferent to which sects thrived and which faltered. By 1750 Reformed churches in America were confronting a situation never anticipated by the Magisterial Reformers.
250 years ago, you read various comments and many of the people attending these churches believe that the sacraments are intrinsically effectual, an almost Hermetic Christianity going beyond even the claims of Catholicism. Many of them want additional sacraments as so there is a widespread use of magic talismans and magic parchments as part of their religious life. In other words I think a fair characterization is that Calvinist ministers got people to attend their churches, I’m not sure what percentage were actually Calvinist in their theology. But that’s not any different than what you’d find in a rural European church. What is different and unique is what happened next. American view Christianity as a marketplace and their essentially ministers with no denominational affiliation preaching a spiritualist message, mostly to sell religious artifacts and services. So by 150 years ago; this above folk magic has matured into rampant spiritualism in Reformed churches, a full blown counter theology. Christian spiritualist worshipped Jesus as a Christian God, but did not believe his crucifixion was a sin sacrifice at all; instead they believed people worked off their own sins in the afterlife sort of a purgatory / karma mixture. This theology represent a substantial chunk of the people attending Reformed Churches.
Do you count that chunk of the population as traditional reformed? There never was a golden age where most people were orthodox Protestants. These are the kinds of pressures that lead to the holiness movement and the social gospel. Which were pulling people towards orthodoxy in many areas of their theology while institutionalizing their “heresy” in others.
Reformed Christianity in America has been a source of tradition but also a source of innovation. The innovations then splinter off to form new denominations, like what happened with the Whitefield / Wesely where an innovative missionary technique gets tied to an appropriate theology and a committed Calvinist ends up founding the Arminian denomination that will challenge the Luther/Calvin consensus on justification in a serious way. I’d argue that Presbyterianism has a 300 year history of being a stabilizing influence on American Christianity and that this has changed. A role I think rather important.
If you want to push traditional Protestantism (i.e. European Protestantism) back to before 1750, when America is just a colony, a distant rural Europe with a terrific climate for cotton and tobacco, you still run into problems with Quakers, Deists and Williams style baptists… I’d also question your grouping of Anglicans in with Reformed under the “traditional banner”. Certainly there were Calvinists among the Anglican ministers. There were also pseudo-Catholics.
LikeLike
Zrim —
Very well put on your comment to Richard! Agree.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, you might take note of all the citations in confessions—they are biblical references. Biblicists may not care for their regard and function amongst confessionalists, but that hardly diminishes the fact that the confessions, creeds, and catechisms are the result of biblical spade work.
RS: Yes, I have taken note of that. However, that does not diminish what I am saying. The WCF clearly teaches that one must be convinced by the Scriptures and the Spirit’s teaching in them. The WCF clearly teaches that the real authority is Scripture and that the true interpreter of Scripture is Scripture. In other words, the WCF says that a person should not be convinced that something is true because a confession teaches it, but only if they are convinced by Scritpure itself. The spade work should be done by each person as well. I still don’t see how I am saying anything different than the WCF at this point.
Zrim: The irony is how every time a Biblicist informally opens his mouth (or his keyboard) to affirm, say, credo-baptism and oppose, say, paedobaptism, he’s doing the exact same thing the confessions are doing formally. Both are appealing to the Bible to affirm and oppose.
RS: It would seem that you continue to miss the point. The WCF is itself Biblicist, though perhaps not in exactly the way you are doing. Read this again: WCF Ch 1: X. “The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.” I don’t see myself saying anything other than this. Despite all the good that confessions and creeds have, we are to rest in the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.
Zrim: But the Biblicist reserves the right to claim more fidelity to the Bible. The difference seems to be between the Biblicist’s anti-institutionalism and the confessionalist’s pro-institutionalism. It would sure be more honest and charitable if Biblicists could own up to their own low ecclesiology instead of suggesting something as silly as confessionalist’s thinking the confessions are inspired and infallible.
RS: No, the difference between my position and yours (though the institutional issue is certainly part of it) is how to use confessions and the Bible. It is not a silly charge that people use the confession as if it is inspired and infallible because they do use it as if it is, though indeed they would use words to say it is not. Person A wants to prove doctrine A. Does person A simply quote the confession to show that doctrine A is right or does person A quote the confession as a secondary source to the Scriptures which is where the real authority is? What the mouth speaks is something a good indicator of what the heart believes. Does Person A simply quote the confession and say this is what we believe as if that settles the issue? Whether one quotes the confession or the Bible there must be interpretation.
LikeLike
Calvin—”The persons, therefore, whom God has adopted as his children, he is said to have chosen, not in themselves, but in Christ; because it was impossible for him to love them, except in him … if we are chosen in him, we shall find no assurance of our election in ourselves; nor even in God the Father, considered alone, abstractly from the Son. Christ therefore, is the mirror, in which it behooves us to contemplate our election; and here we may do it with safety… (3:24:5).
To glory in the cross is to see that the death of CHRIST which cancels the debt for all the elect when they are placed into that death. Romans 6:9-10: “We know that Christ being raised from the dead will never die again; death no longer has any dominon over him. For the death he died, he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God.“
It is not sinners (nor their faith nor their apology) who give their sins to Christ. God gave the sins of the elect to Christ already, and God already did not give the sins of the non-elect to Christ. II
Corinthians 5:15: “One has died for all, therefore all have died, and he died for all, that those who live would no longer live for themselves, but for him who for their sake died and was raised.”
But evangelicals don’t want to talk about election in II Cor 5 . They want to take the phrase “live for Him who died for them” and use it to lay duties on every sinner they meet. But there is no point in talking about any such duties until a sinner has obeyed the true gospel and repented from the dead works of the false gospel.
The true gospel does NOT tell any particular sinner that Christ died for their sins. The true gospel does NOT tell sinners who the elect are. But the true gospel does tell sinners about election and
substitution.
It is a gospel fact that there was one kind of “union” of the elect in Christ already at the cross. Christ paid by death for their sins. Faith does not make this election happen. Faith in a false Christ is
not a mirror to give us assurance that we belong to the true Christ. Only faith in the true revealed Christ gives us assurance that we are elect.
LikeLike
Mike and Sean —
The context here is whether Calvinism is confirmed by experience. Arguing that something is “true” even though the sensory data doesn’t confirm it doesn’t help the case. A non falsifiable claim has no descriptive power, by definition. Traditionally reformed theology and Calvinism claim to be a theology of reality. They don’t claim to be a theology about an alien God disconnected from matter, though over the last 400 years it has moved in that direction. Arguing that Reformed theology is merely an a priori for understanding biblical claims is fundamentally an atheist approach to Reformed theology. A God operating through ordinary means is statistically detectable.
I’ll work your example:
Seems to be a major thrust of biblical theology, to track genealogical heritage, including in the gospels, and then from a reformed perspective anticipating biblical saving faith from the children of believers. If election were true, we should see the majority of believers ‘born into it’.
The testable claim here is that election materially effects behavior in terms of choice of church and is passed on with a high degree of frequency by birth. Cross religion adoption has been studied and there is no serial correlation, children adopted very young are not drawn to their parent’s religion. Children adopt the religious attitudes of the society they are raised in, not the one they are born into. Which contradicts the theory that likelihood of election is an inherited trait.
Now it doesn’t contradict the untestable theory that God knows in advance who is going to adopted and thus those people are only elected a tiny percentage of the time while people raised by their Reformed parents are elected a large percentage of the time. But that’s no longer confirmable by experience.
LikeLike
CDH, thanks, but I’d have to pile on with MM and Sean. It seems to me that instead of faulting the doctrine of election, finding patterns within Reformed churches that mirror those in false churches owes more to abiding human sin. But you’re also going to have a hard time convincing those with a covenant theology that most heads in pews being there because they were born there is a sign of falsehood. We consider it a sign of God’s faithfulness. Surely Reformed churches are just as prone to sin and follow patterns also found in false churches. So better to point to, say, how LaGrave CRC in Grand Rapids has spurned the RPW and adopted the Willow Creek model to meet the felt needs of the upwardly mobile who like a lot of wood, stained glass, and processionals in their religion.
LikeLike
CD, surely you’ve followed religious discourse enough to know that God is neither found under a microscope nor concluded by empirical study. Or, if you’re looking for that kind of God, you are looking for a God of your own imagination and not the Christian one.
As for election, is it according to God’s “secret counsel,” and, like predestination, the doctrine is
“to be handled with special prudence and care.” Instead, you use it to test God. But that’s not how he shows himself.
But you already know the conclusion to your study ahead of time, right? Because you’re a smart guy and you surely don’t think you will be the first person in the history of the world to prove God by empirical election analysis. Now that would be something.
LikeLike
CD-Host,
I’m trying to track your argument and the best I can tell you think election should be provable by a statistical correlation with ‘church attendance’ studies or some other such empirical data. All the assumptions inherent in such a process(sample size, truthfulness of respondents, clarity of questions asked, length of time tracking participants, etc.) is beyond the scope of a brief response, but I will say that election as understood in this forum is necessarily a movement of God supernaturally. That God’s faithfulness to His promises, as we regard faithfulness, is something necessarily verifiable by statistical analysis of a given sample group, is begging the question. That God doesn’t conform to statistical analysis is a test imposed by others(you maybe) upon God which God hasn’t promised to fulfill. People fall away, return, fall away again, return. Some end up in communions similar but not necessarily the same as their parents etc. None of those kind of trends represent or reflect negatively upon election. We read in scripture of God redeeming a remnant(which statistically you’d imagine to be a group not encompassing a majority of a given population) and times, even 100’s of years where God’s people seem bereft of much spiritual encouragement visibly.
It leads me back to MM’s assertion;
“if you are using data to test election you have not understood election. It’s akin to doing an empirical study of the mind of God.”
LikeLike
Richard, you’re using the confession to make a point about the supremacy of the Bible. Are you saying the confession is infallible by doing that? Of course not, and neither is the confessionalist. But here is where the institutionalism comes in: the confessionalist is also saying he believes that God has indeed gifted and equipped his church to teach, and the confessions are one piece of evidence of it. To be gifted is not to be infallible. It simply means the gifted have what others do not.
“It is not a silly charge that people use the confession as if it is inspired and infallible because they do use it as if it is, though indeed they would use words to say it is not.”
Oh, well, since you put it that way. How does one have any hope in convincing you otherwise? But if one is trying to affirm or oppose a doctrine to those who share his confessional convictions then appealing to the confessions only makes sense, though I’ve yet to hear a good confessionalist not rely primarily on the Bible in the process. If he is trying to do so with those who do not share his confessional convictions but are more Biblicist then it makes sense to appeal to them less than the Bible. But it’s naïve of the Biblicist to think the Bible settles anything absolutely between readers who are addled by sin—the Bible is clear but sinners are fuzzy. Confessionalists are at ease living with such realities and think being fuzzy is precisely why we need confessions. Biblicists don’t seem ready to admit the fuzziness and simply want the clarity of the Bible to swallow up human frailty.
LikeLike
CD-Host –
I believe in election as much as any reformed guy here and I don’t see you saying you don’t personally believe in election. Instead, I see you challenging other areas, like ecclesiology. Am I wrong?
Zrim: “But the Biblicist reserves the right to claim more fidelity to the Bible. The difference seems to be between the Biblicist’s anti-institutionalism and the confessionalist’s pro-institutionalism. It would sure be more honest and charitable if Biblicists could own up to their own low ecclesiology instead of suggesting something as silly as confessionalist’s thinking the confessions are inspired and infallible.”
Zrim, b/c you enjoy taxonomy, go ahead and throw me in the biblicist bucket, along with all opprobriums necessary.
What I find challenging in communicating with my confessional brothers in Christ is the “insider/outsider” schtick. “The only ones who can truly understand us, are us, and the only ones who can challenge us biblically are also us.” I post here at this fine upstanding confessional site with exegesis and questions meant to challenge you where your confession is wrong and I get nothing in return. Last time was 2 days ago on Mat. 19:28 (a future for ethnic Israel, you weren’t involved). Time before that on Acts 15 (ecclesiology, you were involved I think).
Old Life isn’t interested in the Bible as much as it is in reformed ecclesiology as the pou sto for understanding all theology. The Bible is interesting as far as it supports that, and apart from that, it is incorrectly interpreted by all others.
Isn’t that really where your statement “if Biblicists could own up to their own low ecclesiology” come from? Am I wrong (again)?
LikeLike
Ted says;
“Old Life isn’t interested in the Bible as much as it is in reformed ecclesiology as the pou sto for understanding all theology. The Bible is interesting as far as it supports that, and apart from that, it is incorrectly interpreted by all others.”
Sean; Ted, I’d be willing to bet we could grant you a special dispensation and change that ‘all others’ to just you for the purposes of this blog. One good turn and all.
LikeLike
Ted, if I may. I am a self-described “Confessional Biblicist”, with the emphasis on “Biblicist.”
And in the past, I have had the same experience as you, presenting arguments from Scripture only have them be glossed or ignored.
And while I might wish that things were otherwise, I think there *are* a couple of good reasons that Zrim might do this.
First, there’s the issue of “doing one’s homework.” You argue from the Scriptures. Great. Have you (and you may well have) done the necessary work of first understanding the history of exegesis of those passages?
Second, there’s the issue of “wisdom of many counselors.” You argue from Scripture. Are you out on your own, espousing an idiosyncracy? Or are you representing the wisdom of the church?
The problem with a strict Biblicism is the implicit confidence in one’s own power of reasoning. Confessionalism (perhaps I’m a “Biblical Confessionalist”?) curbs that tendency by reminding us that a whole lot of people have looked at those same passages.
LikeLike
Richard, adherents to the Belgic Confession, Heidelberg Catechism, and the Canons of Dort say that the teaching therein “doth fully agree” with the teaching of scripture (even in the new CRCNA Form of Subscription). Conservative Presbyterians say that the Westminster Standards contain the system of doctrine found in Holy Scripture. Those of us who confess the confessions do so because we think they agree with scripture, not because they are somehow infallible or close to it. The confessions teach what the Bible teaches and derive their authority from that teaching. To a confessionalist an appeal to the confession is an appeal to scripture not because the confession is on par with scripture but because the confession summarizes the teaching of scripture and agrees with the teaching of scripture. You have to understand a confessionalists view of the confessions in light of their ordination vows.
LikeLike
Ted, the remark about Biblicists owning up to their low ecclesiology is actually in response to the sustained accusation that to have a high view of the confessions is the same as an infallible view of the same. My point is that it would seem more fitting to simply admit a lower estimation of the confessions on your part than to accuse Protestants of being frustrated Catholics (speaking of schtick). But I see that you’ve done that, albeit rather crudely, in your bucket toss. Just note that you said it, not me (though I’ll admit I did think it).
LikeLike
Sean, “I’d be willing to bet we could grant you a special dispensation and change that ‘all others’ to just you for the purposes of this blog”
Really? Hey CD-Host, you feelin’ the love here yet, Bra?
Zrim,
I just wanted to beat you to my bucket.
Who implied a high view of the confessions is the same as an infallible view? RS tried to answer you, no? It may seem that Reformed men believe that way to outsiders, but you yourselves know you don’t regard the confessions as infallible. I believe you.
And I would be the first to join you in saying evangelicalism is all about an ecclesiolgy that is low, low, low… and that’s being kind.
But still, isn’t it true that Old Life isn’t interested in the Bible as much as it is in reformed ecclesiology as the pou sto for correctly understanding theology, and apart from that, the Bible is almost always incorrectly interpreted by all who don’t accept that ecclesiology?
LikeLike
Mike & Sean —
I’m going to start with a basic rule of logic. The statement A implies B and the statement not B implies not A are the same statement.
That is:
All flowers are plants
If X is not a plant then X is not a flower
Are the same statement.
Assuming we agree on that
(b1) The observable world is consistent with Arminian / semiplagian doctrines of election
(b2) There is no observable evidence in support of the Calvinist doctrine of election
are the same statement. And if you agree that b1/b2 are not only equivalent to each other but true Then we aren’t disagreeing with the original point that election is not support by experience. We experience as world as if election didn’t exist, as if people picked their religion much the same way they pick what language to speak or what kinds of clothes to wear. That doesn’t mean that there couldn’t exist some purely supernatural non detectable scheme but it does mean that observable reality gives one no reason to believe in Calvinist election.
That’s not true of the bible. The bible, at least as understood by Protestants, does give one reason to believe in Calvinist election. Which was my original point that started this whole thread of discussion.
Now most people have an additional epistemological axiom something like Occam’s razor. We should believe the simplest explanation consistent with the evidence. And historically that’s been the counter argument against TULIP.
We experience reality as if people are capable of becoming religious if they want to.
We experience reality as if people are capable of choosing between “true” and “false” religions freely.
We experience reality as if we remain in control and can decide if and when they convert.
We experience reality as if people were good members of Reformed churches and believed everything and then just fall away much as they from other religions / denominations.
And for those people who are willing to add the Occam’s criteria you can just drop “we experience reality as if” and get something like:
People are capable of becoming religious if they want to and are capable of choosing between “true” and “false” religions freely. They remain in control and can decide if and when they convert into and out of Reformed churches and Reformed belief, just as they do for other religions / denominations.
Which is how this whole thing started my historical claim, “Historically the problem Reformed Christianity is that it is inconsistent with how people experience the world”.
____
We then to get to an issue of theology. I think Christianity makes positive truth assertions about the real world: Veritas est adæquatio intellectus et rei. (Truth is the conformity of the intellect to the things.)
I think the creed couldn’t be clearer that the call of God is meant to be observable and create regeneration in a way that “false religions” do not:
He is pleased, in His appointed time, effectually to call, by His Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death, in which they are by nature to grace and salvation, by Jesus Christ; enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God, taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them an heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and, by His almighty power, determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ:
It is hard for me to imagine something that John Calvin would object to more strongly than a claim that a Reformed Church would in terms of material effect be mostly indistinguishable from a Catholic Church, a Uniterian Church, a Jewish synagogue, a Muslim mosque or a meeting of ethical humanists that profess no religious allegiance. Reformed thinkers used to be postmillennialist, they believed that the Christians would root out the evil in the world, abolish godless rulers, and convert the world. The Christianity was effectual in creating material change. Switching back to my comments to Terry, this assertion that the bible doesn’t promise a materially detectable change in behavior is a perfect example of the sort of evolution in Reformed thinking created by pluralism, maintaining Calvin is requiring adopting a Gnostic conception of salvation. Building on Richard and Terry’s discussion that move towards a Reformed Gnosticism is precisely what you are seeing in the YRR. They are just a bit further down the road than you all.
LikeLike
Hi Jeff,
I totally get you on the “biblicist” = “autonomy” and really = pride thing. For that reason (among others) I wouldn’t identify myself that way. But for Zrim I had to make an exception.
I serve a church with a long statement of what the elders teach across every area of theology, so the autonomy issue is moot, or should be. Far more detailed than WCF, and its available on our web site. Anybody can hold me accountable, or disagree.
As well, I have oodles of formal theological education with many papers filled with red ink from my professors to prove I rarely get it right the first (or second) time. My office shelves are lined with hundreds of teachers from virtually every denominational affiliation. From Lenski (Lutheran), to Brown (RCC) to Hendriksen (CRC) to you name it, I’ve got ’em helping me understand the text of God.
I’ve sat in on classes at WS (East) and read many reformed men. Van Til is one of the 3 formative theologians in my thinking. Hey, I even get Old-life – its like boeuf.
LikeLike
Ted —
Really? Hey CD-Host, you feelin’ the love here yet, Bra?
To be honest I kinda like it here. So far people are substantively addressing one another’s points. I think Reformed Christianity because it has a deep and well considered intellectual position is very well suited for serious internet discussion in a way other faiths are not. On the other hand because it lacks the aggressive missionary culture I’ve seen Reformed dialogues get very very uncomfortable and personal and so far that hasn’t happened.
Like I said my main interest is to come to understand the OPC vs. PCA friction, which likely is like any family squabble going to be rather ugly. The language used here is a bit too “in group” on those issues but I think I’ll get it. Take it from an outsider, you all are doing far far better than most religious boards at least this week.
______
I believe in election as much as any reformed guy here and I don’t see you saying you don’t personally believe in election. Instead, I see you challenging other areas, like ecclesiology. Am I wrong?
I’m going to do a Bill Clinton and it depends what you mean by “believe in election”.
I think that Calvin offered the most intellectually consistent way to understand the bible from a Protestant perspective. If you assume a Luther / Conservative Protestant style of reading the bible it becomes very hard to argue against the Reformed reading of the bible. So in that sense I believe election is biblical.
That being said I don’t agree with deeper axioms of the Protestant approach like the fact that scripture doesn’t contradict scripture are faithful to the text. I see the bible as a small library of books with different theologies not a consistent story about the nature of God.
I think the doctrine of election as understood by Calvin is an important fundamental of the Christian faith going back centuries. The idea that God calls us to him, rather than we enlist is not accidentally in the bible, it appears to have been the belief of at least some of the apostles and a good deal of the early church. The bible does not distinguish between human action and divine action the way Pelagians would like it to.
If you are asking about my belief in election as a material reality: I don’t believe in the Christian God nor in an immortal soul.
LikeLike
Darryl put together a key list of Reformed influences along the lines of Dever’s. I thought it might be entertaining to formalize that. Perhaps we can arrive at a consensus of key influences.
1) John Calvin
2) Late Reformation Confessions (Belgic, Heidelberg, Scots, Second Helvetic, 39 Articles) and associated luminaries
3) Westminster Standards/Divines
4) Old Princeton (Turretin, Hodge, Warfield, Machen)
5) Old Westminster/OPC (Machen, Murray, Stonehouse, Van Til, Young, R.B. Kuiper, Boettner)
6) Redemptive Historical (Vos, Ridderbos, Gaffin, Kline, Kerux)
7) Old Westminster West (Frame, Johnson, Strimple, Kline, Godfrey)
8) New Westminster West/White Horse Inn
9) Neo-Calvinism (Kuyper, Bavink, Dooyeweerd, Plantinga, Van Til, Schaeffer, Calvin College/Seminary, ICS)
10) Reformed Historians/Academics (Noll, Marsden, Hart)
11) Ligonier (Sproul)
12) New Life OPC-PCA/C. John Miller/PCA/Keller
13) Reformed Baptist influences (Piper, Dever, Mohler, SGM, Spurgeon, Pink, Begg, GC, etc)
LikeLike
Jeff, is a “Confessional Biblicist” like a “Personal Theonomist”? Thanks for the back up, but terms like these seem confusing. Then again, my mind is pretty small.
LikeLike
Ted, Richard has clearly implied the high-infallible conflation. Quoth he:
“True enough confessions are helpful and necessary, but they should not be treated as if they were the standard of truth and inerrant…In taking the historic confessions as virtually inerrant one has effectively replaced the authority of Scripture with the authority of men in centuries past…When we treat confessions as virtually inerrant, we zoom into that time and place when it was written and say (by implication) that God can not reform His Church past that point.”
And, no, I wouldn’t say Reformed militancy is the same as placing the Bible in second class behind Reformed ecclesiology. I’d say that to suggest that is to not be as convinced that the doctrines contained in Reformed confessions are the most faithful representations of the Bible’s teachings on earth.
LikeLike
Couple of things CDH;
First, thanks for the formal logic lesson. I’m sure that is meant for M2, he’s a little weak in that area. Secondly, If I remember rom. 2:14 even the gentile or lets say natural man who has not the statutes of the law but the Imago dei imprinted upon his conscience can render behavioral manifestation even better, conscience clearing and accussing, in keeping with God’s law(not perfectly mind you, but then the regenerate is in the same boat). So there is no obstacle in lack of moral dissonance between the observant muslim or just good neighbor and a regenerate Christian. In fact, they can look so similar that they can even worship together and render confessional commitments in the assembly and yet one be wheat and the other a tare. So, that line of reasoning is a non-starter. I doubt seriously Calvin is contradicting Paul or Jesus on these issues.
“For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them 16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.”
I’ll grant you that Calvin in regards to the state was a man of his times, but David Van Drunnen in his work ‘NL2K’ does a commendable job of teasing out the underlying principles at work in Calvin and in bolder relief in Luther that actually lends itself to a pluralistic understanding of the church in the world.
LikeLike
Terry M. Gray: Richard, adherents to the Belgic Confession, Heidelberg Catechism, and the Canons of Dort say that the teaching therein “doth fully agree” with the teaching of scripture (even in the new CRCNA Form of Subscription). Conservative Presbyterians say that the Westminster Standards contain the system of doctrine found in Holy Scripture. Those of us who confess the confessions do so because we think they agree with scripture, not because they are somehow infallible or close to it.
RS: I am not and don’t think that I did argue that people actually and in fact believe that the confessions are infallible. I did argue that some appear to treat them that way. Again, I am arguing that it comes across that way.
Terry Gray: The confessions teach what the Bible teaches and derive their authority from that teaching. To a confessionalist an appeal to the confession is an appeal to scripture not because the confession is on par with scripture but because the confession summarizes the teaching of scripture and agrees with the teaching of scripture.
RS: I think I understand this part, though perhaps I am deceiving myself. However, let me try to use Scripture to make my point.
Hebrews 4:12 “For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.” When one preaches the Word of God there is something going on that is not going on when one preaches a confession. One can teach a truth from the confession and it can be true, but one should preach that truth from the Word of God. We are told in Scripture that God uses Scripture to bring sinners to life.
James 1:18 In the exercise of His will He brought us forth by the word of truth, so that we would be a kind of first fruits among His creatures.
Terry Gray: You have to understand a confessionalists view of the confessions in light of their ordination vows.
RS: Perhaps this is where I am in a different zone.
LikeLike
Terry,
That’s a great list, thanks for posting that. I would have a hard time disagreeing with the value of any of the people or institutions currently on the list. Seeing what you put up here was part of why I think it would have been difficult to stop at ten items. If there would be any criticism of the list is it does heavily favor N. America, but that’s probably due to the fact that interpret Reformed historical developments through N. American eyes. I think there is also some room for historical occasions as well, I’ll take a stab at a few I think were important (in no particular order):
– 1788-9: With the rise of a Constitutional Republic in the US that did not have an established state church, Reformed churches in the US revised the WCF in such a way that the role of the magistrate was eliminated from ecclesiastical affairs.
– Huguenot Exodus: After the Catholic Kings in France succeed in politically defeating the Calvinist Huguenots (ca. 1685-?), a couple hundred thousand Huguenots flee to all areas on the globe, from S. Africa to other European nations, the British Isles, and N. America, they take their Calvinist faith with them, often assimilating into existing Reformed communities over time.
– 3 North American Presbyterian Controversies: The Old Side/New Side (1740’s-50’s); Old School/New School (1830’s-60’s); and Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversies (1920’s-30’s) were profoundly important in shaping N. American Reformed Christianity.
– Invention of the printing press (ca. 1450): enabled Bibles to be translated into vernacular languages, and the common man’s ability to read and attempt to understand Scripture privately was surely a major contribution to the Protestant Reformation.
There’s gotta be more, but these were the one’s rattling around in my head.
LikeLike
Zrim, Yes. Both terms have a point and purpose.
“Personal theonomy” is intended to denote
(1) Our moral obligation is to God as covenant Lord.
(2) That moral obligation is individual, not civic.
(3) In agreement with Kant, we exhibit self-control; in disagreement with Kant, this self-control is not autonomy, but theonomy (the fruit of the Spirit).
It’s intended to deliberately flick theonomists on the ear, but also to draw attention to our real obligation to personal obedience apart from external motivators. We’re trying to get away from the whole “servile fear” thing that Calvin talks about (Inst 3.2.27).
“Confessional Biblicist” is intended to denote that
1) We do theology within a Confessional scheme, but
2) We subscribe to the Confession synthetically and not analytically — because we have first read the Scriptures and confess what the Confession teaches, and not because we accept the Confession as a rule of faith.
3) Our theological method is primarily exegetical, with the Confession in the background as a control.
The term attempts to avoid these problems, to whatever extent they may exist: “implicit faith” subscription to the Confession, illegitimate dismissal of Biblical arguments as “Biblicist”, and theological methods that blur the line between the authority of Scripture and the authority of the Confession.
The term does not denote any particular criticisms of the Confession. Rather, it attempts to preserve what the Confession teaches about Scripture being the final court of appeal.
LikeLike
/dev/cd-host: Which is how this whole thing started my historical claim, “Historically the problem Reformed Christianity is that it is inconsistent with how people experience the world”.
See, I don’t agree. The claim of Reformed Christianity is that people choose according to the desires of their hearts.
We see this all over the place with people who struggle with sin but cannot let it go; with people who are unaware of the true desires of their hearts until something triggers that desire.
I’m very unimpressed with the explanatory power (much less incoherence) of “free-will.”
LikeLike
Thanks CDH,
I’m truly grieved you don’t believe in the Triune God of the Christian Scriptures. I’m praying for you to come to know this God.
From your perspective, what is “a Protestant perspective on the Bible”?
Thanks. Your responses are extremely well reasoned – a real pleasure to read.
LikeLike
RS: When one preaches the Word of God there is something going on that is not going on when one preaches a confession…
I would never preach from the Confession. Some use the Confession as an outline for topical theological teaching, but in the end, we have to preach from the Scriptures.
I am currently using the Confession to teach specific truths to small groups and SS classes because it provides an excellent way to say, “The Bible teaches this, not that.” That’s especially helpful ni cases of confusion.
Depending on time, need, and interest, the teaching of the confession is best done by starting with the Biblical proof-texts and moving via leading questions to sound doctrine.
LikeLike
Eric C: If it was important it probably would have occurred to our fathers in the faith a hundred, or five hundred, or two thousand years ago.
D. G. Hart: Richard, a Roman Catholic could not have uttered in 1500 what Erik wrote. Rome did not have the kind of teaching material that the Reformers produced. I know that’s not your point. But it’s one thing to honor a tradition that is basically silent — Rome had no catechism until 1566 — and one that took seriously a duty to expound the word of God.
RS: They did have the ECF and the manys sayings of popes and councils. I thought they used, more or less, the idea that Eric presented to me to Luther. It is still used by some from Rome against Protestants when they assert that Luther came up with a new idea. I am a bit surprised that you think Rome took seriously a duty to expound the word of God since they denied it to the people. But I suppose you mean something different than that.
LikeLike
CD, I’m glad Sean did all the heavy lifting on that logic stuff. That leaves me to wonder if you have definitional problems from the beginning. It seems to me that you are simply looking for quantifiable evidence that, say, Reformed sects are more moral/upright than other sects. But then you keep on talking about “election.” Take a look at the Westminster Confession of Faith, Ch. 3 (http://www.the-highway.com/WCFChIII.html) and tell us if that is what you are talking about.
But I’ll play along up to a point to indicate some difficulties in getting definitive results from your research. First, if one agrees “the elect will be more righteous,” well, the elect don’t all wear a pin on their lapel. You don’t know who they are. Second, “the elect” does not equal “those who believe in election.” There might be someone who is elect who hasn’t quite come around to believing they are elect, and there might be a believer in election who isn’t elect. Third, no one claims that coming to Christ eliminates moral struggles in a uniform way. A person who comes to Christ out of a very troubled background may never be as visibly upright as an atheist who has had the advantage of a stable and nurturing upbringing.
So your test seems ill-conceived.
LikeLike
Eric C: The now disgraced Rev. Patrick Edouard delivered the ordination sermon for my pastor, The Rev. Jody Lucero. In it he encouraged him to avoid the temptation to be novel. It was good advice and Rev. Lucero sticks to it. I think he’s preaching through the Belgic for the 2nd or 3rd time since he has been my pastor.
Jeff Cagle: I would never preach from the Confession. Some use the Confession as an outline for topical theological teaching, but in the end, we have to preach from the Scriptures.
I am currently using the Confession to teach specific truths to small groups and SS classes because it provides an excellent way to say, “The Bible teaches this, not that.” That’s especially helpful ni cases of confusion.
RS: Eric mentioned his pastor preaching through the Belgic Confession. It was and is my understanding that some of the more Dutch inclined are supposed to preach through the Heigleberg once a year or every other year. My argument is not what people believe or say they believe, but there are some who, practically speaking and in appearance, give more weight to Calvin and the confessions than to Scripture. I like your stated position on the confessions (posted earlier). That is getting at, though you put it much better, what I am trying to say. The confessions, though vitally important in what they do, must always be secondary to the Scriptures both in use and in appearance. I am not convinced that they are in many cases.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, you’re using the confession to make a point about the supremacy of the Bible. Are you saying the confession is infallible by doing that? Of course not, and neither is the confessionalist. But here is where the institutionalism comes in: the confessionalist is also saying he believes that God has indeed gifted and equipped his church to teach, and the confessions are one piece of evidence of it. To be gifted is not to be infallible. It simply means the gifted have what others do not.
RS: One more for the record, I am not arguing that you or others actually state or have a belief system that says that the confession is infallible. I am saying that in practice it comes across that way at times. Again, the appearance of it in practice is what I am speaking to. I firmly believe in confessions, but I simply don’t think that we should freeze all truth into the time of the Reformation.
Zrim quoting RS: “It is not a silly charge that people use the confession as if it is inspired and infallible because they do use it as if it is, though indeed they would use words to say it is not.”
Zrim: Oh, well, since you put it that way. How does one have any hope in convincing you otherwise?
RS: I am not sure you have any hope of convincing me that it appears to be the case in some. The only hope you would have is to show that it is not the appearance in all the people who use the confession. I think that is a mountain a little too high to climb.
Zrim: But if one is trying to affirm or oppose a doctrine to those who share his confessional convictions then appealing to the confessions only makes sense, though I’ve yet to hear a good confessionalist not rely primarily on the Bible in the process.
RS: So maybe I have been hearing bad confessionalists.
Zrim: If he is trying to do so with those who do not share his confessional convictions but are more Biblicist then it makes sense to appeal to them less than the Bible. But it’s naïve of the Biblicist to think the Bible settles anything absolutely between readers who are addled by sin—the Bible is clear but sinners are fuzzy.
RS: But since sinners are fuzzy those who set out the confessions were fuzzy and all of us who read those confessions are fuzzy.
Zrim: Confessionalists are at ease living with such realities and think being fuzzy is precisely why we need confessions.
RS: So confessions make fuzziness less fuzzy?
Zrim: Biblicists don’t seem ready to admit the fuzziness and simply want the clarity of the Bible to swallow up human frailty.
RS: I suppose there is nothing I could say to convince you otherwise, but still I might try. The real point (using both the Bible and the WCF) is that the Spirit uses the Scritpures to bring home the truth as it is the sword of the Spirit. We have no such promise regarding the confessions. Again, I consider myself a strong advocate of the confessions and think they are helpful and a great tool. But the confession has no promise of the Holy Spirit to use it to regenerate and to illuminate. So the confession must be a guide and our consciences must be fastened to Scripture.
LikeLike
Jeff, thanks. I get what you’re trying to do in both instances, but I just think that the terminology works against it and creates an unnecessary need to go well out your way to clarify. And from where I sit, part of the problem is that you seem to be trying to make competing systems compatible (2k/theonomy and confessionalism/Biblicism).
LikeLike
Richard, it may come across to you that some confessionalists are unduly esteeming the confessions, and I should register my agreement that if this happens it is un-confessional. But it could be that your impression says more about one who has a high opinion but still a low view of the confessions. High opinions/low views describe the forms as “helpful and vitally important,” but stop short of describing them also as “binding and authoritative,” something high opinions/high views do.
Confessions don’t make fuzziness less fuzzy so much as they clearly and concisely set out what it is the church believes. Simplicity is a Reformed virtue, and confessionalism is simply a way of trying to be obedient to the Bible’s charge to always be prepared to present a witness for the hope that lies within.
LikeLike
This morning I was on the website of a local evangelical baptist church. Under “What We Believe” I read several points. At the bottom it said ““Permission granted from Dallas Theological Seminary for use of above doctrinal statement“.
Since when do churches let a seminary write their statement of faith for them?
I am waiting for the day when I click on the link and there is nothing more than a photo of the smiling pastor (maybe Ted…)
We all use frameworks to understand the faith, some of us are just more upfront about it.
LikeLike
I wonder if I get can my URC church to just put a link to “The Escondido Theology” under our section…
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, it may come across to you that some confessionalists are unduly esteeming the confessions, and I should register my agreement that if this happens it is un-confessional. But it could be that your impression says more about one who has a high opinion but still a low view of the confessions. High opinions/low views describe the forms as “helpful and vitally important,” but stop short of describing them also as “binding and authoritative,” something high opinions/high views do.
RS: Indeed, I don’t think a confession should be binding and authoritative. I think the WCF itself would disagree with your position. If my position is a low view, then I think of it as simply having the confession lower than Scripture.
Zrim: Confessions don’t make fuzziness less fuzzy so much as they clearly and concisely set out what it is the church believes.
RS: Perhaps that is the ideal, but it is not the reality. A confession does not mean that people in the pew are less fuzzy on what they believe. I have spoken to many people in confessional churches and have not found them to know what their church believed. I have found a statment from an old dead white guy to be quite true when he said that people use creeds to hide their own hearts from themselves. Yes, the Bible can be used in much the same way. But it is far easier to give assent to the teaching on justification than it is to be justified.
Zrim: Simplicity is a Reformed virtue, and confessionalism is simply a way of trying to be obedient to the Bible’s charge to always be prepared to present a witness for the hope that lies within.
RS: Perhaps knowing the Bible itself and then Christ Himself would be a better way since if anyone truly has the hope in them that hope is Christ Himself.
LikeLike
Jed comments:
” …………….the common man’s ability to read and attempt to understand Scripture privately was surely a major contribution to the Protestant Reformation.”
Sean; Oh no. Jed, you keep trying to score points for the CTC paradigmatic assault on protestantism, will you be making an announcement shortly?
LikeLike
Mike —
First, if one agrees “the elect will be more righteous,” well, the elect don’t all wear a pin on their lapel. You don’t know who they are.
You wouldn’t need to know specifically. In theory they should be disproportionate found in Reformed congregations. So lets assume that 50% or Presbyterians are regenerate and 10% of Muslims are, I’d still detect statistically the differences even without identifying the 50% or the 10%.
Second, “the elect” does not equal “those who believe in election.” There might be someone who is elect who hasn’t quite come around to believing they are elect, and there might be a believer in election who isn’t elect.
See above.
Third, no one claims that coming to Christ eliminates moral struggles in a uniform way. A person who comes to Christ out of a very troubled background may never be as visibly upright as an atheist who has had the advantage of a stable and nurturing upbringing.
Agreed, again that should fall out of the data statistically unless you want to argue that Reformed parents on average do a substantially worse job and create more troubled backgrounds….
LikeLike
Zrim,
I got to say I am tracking right along with RS on this. I have seen far too many people, even ministers, afraid to study the text of Scripture for what it says out of fear of disagreeing with the confessions. I do not think this is healthy. And though it is laborious to redo the work of exegesis that the authors of the reformed Confessions labored to do in the past, we owe it to all to prove our beliefs by Scripture, especially to those not already in agreement with the confessions. Are we reinventing the wheel? Well, yes, in a sense, but we can surely use the confession as a guide in that exegetical endeavor also.
LikeLike
Todd,
To follow up with that comment to Zrim, would you say there has been too much of a retreat from BT in favor of ‘confessional maximalism’ ? Something like, Kline got it mostly right but others couldn’t get the wheel as round, so we’re gonna push confessionalism because we can’t guarantee the results of BT? I’ll even stipulate that the confessions were being underutilized prior to this correction against BT?
LikeLike
Terry –
14. The theonomists – Rushdoony, Bahnsen, et al.
LikeLike
Zrim, I hear you. But surely it is worthwhile to rescue van Til from Bansen?
LikeLike
Does the OPC officially confess that God loves and wants to save the non-elect? Could some clergyman who entirely disagrees with John Murray’s (with Stonehouse) argument for the “free offer” still be ordained in the OPC?
When a seminary professor begins by explaining that a biblical text is not speaking to the topic but then goes on to read the text as if it did, what weight does that explanation have for the OPC?
LikeLike
@Ted –
Thank you for the concern and the complement!
From your perspective, what is “a Protestant perspective on the Bible”?
1) Perspicuity. A belief that the bible is clear, that their aren’t hidden meanings and deep complications. The best counter example to this would be something like a Jewish bible commentary where you frequently see a large number of negative inferences being made (i.e. there were 3 possible ways to express this A, B and C the bible choose C therefore we must determine why A and B were not chosen) or if an idea is expressed more than once in slightly different ways obviously the bible wouldn’t repeat itself so there is an additional layer of meaning.
You in general don’t see that stuff. There is no jot and tittle theology that every word is careful and expertly chosen. The bible is directed at believers personally. The message is not subtle in a way that only an expert can understand. It should be read by individuals and the message is meant for them not church leadership. This focus on the bible being meant for all creates a focus on the individual rather than a sacred community.
b) Lack of allegory. Catholics frequently take metaphors in the bible and apply them very broadly. Mary is spoken of as the Ark of the New Covenant therefore we can create metaphors from the Ark of the Old Covenant and apply those properties to Mary. Protestants only do this when the New Testament does it explicitly, they don’t feel free to do it themselves in their read.
c) John and Romans as the center of the bible. By which I mean all of the bible is interpreted in terms of the theology of Romans and John. Paul lays out a systematic theology in Romans and John lays out a vision of God in terms of positive assertions (I am the bread of life) and dualisms (light/darkness). The emphasis is on Jesus divinity and mission, Protestants worship but do not mostly seek to emulate Jesus.
To contrast this Jews would interpret all the bible in terms of Deuteronomy and thus see the prophetic revelations as theory on how to best modernize and apply the law. Catholics tend to have Matthew as the center of their bible: replacement theology, Jesus as a fulfillment not a replacement for the law, Christ as the fulfillment of prophecy and thus the prophets should be interpreted in terms of the church, the goodness of poverty, a focus on the church as an institution with institutional structure. Adventists would put the center on Hebrews and Revelations: Jesus is an almost completely heavenly intercessor and thus the church is heavenly, our job as believers to to carry on the law or righteousness as was taught to us by the prophets and Moses without the ritual system i.e. Jesus as a continuation of Sadducee Judaism.
d) Protestants don’t accept doctrines without strong support from scripture. Because everything has to be defended in terms of first principles, complex ideas cannot be successfully transmitted and retained so they aren’t. Year by year, decade by decade they remove structures of tradition. This and the other themes above creates a religion with a focus on simplicity.
e) A disinterest in original languages. Because the bible is meant to be read by the common men, and the themes are meant to be simple any of the complex theology of the Greek without a correspondence in 21st century English (except for a few themes) is dropped. All Protestants treat the bible only one or two steps removed from KJVonlyists
I think that’s a good start for what I meant. I could keep going with more aspects but that gives you a taste.
LikeLike
If there is a gospel with no truth about election in it, wouldn’t it be better to have a “don’t ask and don’t tell” policy about election, for fear that a person who has believed the gospel might reject what God says about election, were they to hear it? Don’t tell grandma what you learned about election.
If election means that people are sometimes justified apart from hearing and understanding the gospel, why would it matter if anybody knows or confesses the gospel? What difference would it make if we were Arminians who taught that God sees the tape beforehand and that by that time it’s too late for the “Gentleman Who Woos” to do anything about what you will have already decided?
LikeLike
Todd, I don’t see how confessionalism would have any problem with what you’ve said. But I do think a better confessionalism has no fear that the diligent exegesis of Scripture will affirm that the Reformers did indeed get it right. To fear that the opposite would happen, thus shrink from exegesis and dive behind the confessions, doesn’t seem like sound confessionalism but instead the fear of men. Still, what some might misconstrue as fear or laziness is actually believing God has gifted his church, resting in the work of those who have gone before, shoulders of giants and all that.
LikeLike
Jeff, I’m not sure CVT needs any help. His explicit refusal to receive the forced crown of the theos seems to speak for itself.
LikeLike
mark mcculley: Does the OPC officially confess that God loves and wants to save the non-elect? Could some clergyman who entirely disagrees with John Murray’s (with Stonehouse) argument for the “free offer” still be ordained in the OPC?
RS: While no expert in matters pertaining to the OPC (sounds a lot like OPEC), it may be the case that anyone who disagrees with the position of Murray on that would not be ordained. It is the position of many today that unless you believe that God loves and “earnestly desires” to save the non-elect that you are a hyper-Calvinist.
LikeLike
Richard says – “Perhaps knowing the Bible itself and then Christ Himself would be a better way since if anyone truly has the hope in them that hope is Christ Himself.”
All kinds of religious people know the Bible…and get it all wrong. Have you never attended a church with effective catechetical preaching? A sermon is preached on a biblical text which expands on an dillustrates what the catechism or confession is saying. It’s a really good way to teach a congregation.
We generally have a sermon series through books of the Bible on Sunday mornings and catechetical sermons on Sunday evenings. People really do learn the Bible and the catechism/confessions after a few years of this. I can understand and defend Scripture so much better than I can before I was Reformed.
LikeLike
…Even if I can’t form a sentence.
LikeLike
Richard – “Perhaps that is the ideal, but it is not the reality. A confession does not mean that people in the pew are less fuzzy on what they believe. I have spoken to many people in confessional churches and have not found them to know what their church believed. I have found a statment from an old dead white guy to be quite true when he said that people use creeds to hide their own hearts from themselves. Yes, the Bible can be used in much the same way. But it is far easier to give assent to the teaching on justification than it is to be justified.”
That’s bull and you know it. There are just as many nominal members of non-confessional churches than there are in confessional churches. Non-confessional churches are just more likely to overlook it because they value the burning in the bosom as much as actual knowledge.
LikeLike
I think Calvin’s thoughts in his letter to King Francis touch on the danger of trying to correlate the elect with any kind of numerical analysis of visible church membership (It also speaks to CTC’s arguments about the necessary validity of the Roman Catholic Church):
John Calvin’s “PREFATORY ADDRESS TO HIS MOST CHRISTIAN MAJESTY, THE MOST MIGHTY AND ILLUSTRIOUS MONARCH, FRANCIS, KING OF THE FRENCH” at the beginning of his Institutes of the Christian Religion:
6. Their dilemma does not push us so violently as to oblige us to confess, either that the Church was a considerable time without life, or that we have now a quarrel with the Church. The Church of Christ assuredly has lived, and will live, as long as Christ shall reign at the right hand of the Father. By his hand it is sustained, by his protection defended, by his mighty power preserved in safety. For what he once undertook he will undoubtedly perform, he will be with iris people always, even to the end of the world (Mt. 28:20). With the Church we wage no war, since, with one consent, in common with the whole body of the faithful, we worship and adore one God, and Christ Jesus the Lord, as all the pious have always adored him. But they themselves err not a little from the truth in not recognising any church but that which they behold with the bodily eye, and in endeavouring to circumscribe it by limits, within which it cannot be confined.
The hinges on which the controversy turns are these: first, in their contending that the form of the Church is always visible and apparent; and, secondly, in their placing this form in the see of the Church of Rome and its hierarchy. We, on the contrary, maintain, both that the Church may exist without any apparent form, and, moreover, that the form is not ascertained by that external splendour which they foolishly admire, but by a very different mark, namely, by the pure preaching of the word of God, and the due administration of the sacraments. They make an outcry whenever the Church cannot be pointed to with the finger. But how oft was it the fate of the Church among the Jews to be so defaced that no comeliness appeared? What do we suppose to have been the splendid form when Elijah complained that he was left alone? (1 Kings 19:14). How long after the advent of Christ did it lie hid without form? How often since has it been so oppressed by wars, seditions, and heresies, that it was nowhere seen in splendour? Had they lived at that time, would they have believed there was any Church? But Elijah learned that there remained seven thousand men who had not bowed the knee to Baal; nor ought we to doubt that Christ has always reigned on earth ever since he ascended to heaven. Had the faithful at that time required some discernible form, must they not have forthwith given way to despondency? And, indeed, Hilary accounted it a very great fault in his day, that men were so possessed with a foolish admiration of Episcopal dignity as not to perceive the deadly hydra lurking under that mask. His words are (Cont. Auxentium), One advice I give: Beware of Antichrist; for, unhappily, a love of walls has seized you; unhappily, the Church of God which you venerate exists in houses and buildings; unhappily, under these you find the name of peace. Is it doubtful that in these Antichrist will have his seat? Safer to me are mountains, and woods, and lakes, and dungeons, and whirlpools; since in these prophets, dwelling or immersed, did prophesy.
LikeLike
In other words, at different times in history the elect can be a small number of living persons or a large number of living persons. Where will we find them? Where the gospel is preached and the sacraments are administered. Not everyone attending sound churches are elect and not everyone attending unsound churches are not-elect, but in general we know what we are looking for.
LikeLike
As far as preaching or not-preaching to the “non-elect” this seems so simple to me. Preach to anyone who attends your worship service. You don’t know if they are elect or not. Reformed evangelism and church planting are the lowest pressure kind of evangelism and church planting that there is. Just do what you always do and God will use the means of grace to draw those who are His to faith. No new measures are necessary, the pastor doesn’t have to act like a clown, you don’t have to have a rock band. Just be the church.
LikeLike
CD- “So lets assume that 50% or Presbyterians are regenerate and 10% of Muslims are, I’d still detect statistically the differences even without identifying the 50% or the 10%.”
MM- Yes, and then you when you factor in 15% higher morality, reduced by 6% to account for positive rural upbringing, but then increased by 9% for overcoming a father with a mullet… WHAT??
I don’t know if you are messing with me, whether you have jumped the shark, or if you are on the level, but this is really too silly to continue. Go ahead and blog about election being unverifiable.
LikeLike
Erik Charter: Richard says – “Perhaps knowing the Bible itself and then Christ Himself would be a better way since if anyone truly has the hope in them that hope is Christ Himself.”
All kinds of religious people know the Bible…and get it all wrong.
RS: Then they don’t know the Bible.
Erik Charter: Have you never attended a church with effective catechetical preaching? A sermon is preached on a biblical text which expands on an dillustrates what the catechism or confession is saying. It’s a really good way to teach a congregation.
RS: But the Bible specifically commands us to preach the Word.
Erik Charter: We generally have a sermon series through books of the Bible on Sunday mornings and catechetical sermons on Sunday evenings. People really do learn the Bible and the catechism/confessions after a few years of this. I can understand and defend Scripture so much better than I can before I was Reformed.
RS: It is hard to argue against that in this context, but it is also true that I have heard J.W.’s and Mormons argue with that same basic argument.
LikeLike
MMc, are you suggesting that election must be a part of any gospel presentation? It’s a great comfort and it boldfaces the grace of God, but are you saying it is a sine qua non?
LikeLike
Erik Charter quoting Richard – “Perhaps that is the ideal, but it is not the reality. A confession does not mean that people in the pew are less fuzzy on what they believe. I have spoken to many people in confessional churches and have not found them to know what their church believed. I have found a statment from an old dead white guy to be quite true when he said that people use creeds to hide their own hearts from themselves. Yes, the Bible can be used in much the same way. But it is far easier to give assent to the teaching on justification than it is to be justified.”
Eric Charter: That’s bull and you know it.
RS: No, I don’t know it.
Eric Charter: . There are just as many nominal members of non-confessional churches than there are in confessional churches.
RS: I wouldn’t argue that one way or the other. It is not relevant to what I said.
Eric Charter: Non-confessional churches are just more likely to overlook it because they value the burning in the bosom as much as actual knowledge.
RS: I wouldn’t argue that one way or the other either. You have not responded to what I actually wrote. “A confession does not mean that people in the pew are less fuzzy on what they believe.” My position is that having a confession does not mean that people are less fuzzy on what they believe. My position is that it is also much easier to be taught something and agree to it intellectually and not have the heart changed. I did not argue that this is more likely in a confessional church rather than another, but simply declared the point in contrast to Zrim who said that having a confession prevented some fuzziness. It is not having a confession that prevents fuzziness, but it is the Holy Spirit teaching people (as the WCF says) the truth that takes away fuzziness. A confession can certainly be a help in the teaching of Scripture, but simply having one and even have people memorize it does not take away the fuzziness.
LikeLike
Sean,
Sean; Oh no. Jed, you keep trying to score points for the CTC paradigmatic assault on protestantism, will you be making an announcement shortly?
Sadly, yes I will be shortly submitting my letter of resignation of membership to my Presbytery, essentially stating that I am taking the Protestant paradigm of private interpretation to it’s logical conclusion, and I will be installing myself as pope of my own new Catholic Church. Haven’t decided on a name yet, or a location of the Holy See of Me, but I am leaning toward Hemet, CA – our (my) funds are a little short and Hemet real estate is can still be had on the cheap. Before you judge, even Rome had humble beginnings. As for the name, I am partial to the Occidental Orthodox Holy Catholic Church of Inland Empire CA, and Outlying Regions, but I am really too busy to reply as I am at the embroidery shop having my vestments embellished. I might not be able to compete with the Pope of Rome in terms of numbers, but you darn well better believe that I will have a way cooler hat – rhinestones, sequins, the whole trip.
LikeLike
Sean,
BTW, I will be extending the offer to CD-Host to be my right hand Cardinal, but I am not sure if he will be Cardinal with a “C” or Kardinal with a “K”, as I am not quite sure what will appeal to the felt needs of the free-will homies soon to join my new church.
LikeLike
Sean,
“To follow up with that comment to Zrim, would you say there has been too much of a retreat from BT in favor of ‘confessional maximalism’ ? Something like, Kline got it mostly right but others couldn’t get the wheel as round, so we’re gonna push confessionalism because we can’t guarantee the results of BT? I’ll even stipulate that the confessions were being underutilized prior to this correction against BT?”
Well,
I would say that men become lazy relying on the Confession instead of doing the exegetical work that needs to be done to both affirm and teach a position, as if being a strict subscriptionist is tantamount to being faithful to God and a good teacher.
LikeLike
to michael mann, My answer is that I asked more than one question. The questions go together.
1. Does God’s sovereignty mean that God can and does save sinners apart from them understanding and believing the gospel? My answer is no.
2. Is there a gospel which says only that Jesus is God and Lord, but which does not explain the justice and nature and purpose for Christ’s death and resurrection? My answer is no. The Apostles’ Creed is not the gospel.
3. Is there a gospel which say that Jesus Christ died for some sinners who will perish, and who will not be given all the blessings of salvation? John 3:16 and Romans 8:32 say no. The Arminian false gospel is not simply an “inadequate” (close as in horseshoes) version of the true gospel. In at least five different ways, Arminianism contradicts the gospel.
According to John chapter 10, the sheep follow the True Shepherd and do not hear the voice of false shepherds. Affirmation of the gospel means antithesis to that which contradicts the gospel. Just what part of Arminianism is the gospel?
The questions go together, because if you answer yes to number one, the other questions don’t much matter.
LikeLike
Jed, is this what you were talking about at our last family BBQ? I wasn’t going to say anything but we’ve always known about your Holy See of Me… The only thing you’ve been missing are the vestments. But if you’re going to be the OOHCC of Inland Empire, a suitable vestment might be a motorcycle outfit. I let the wife know we’re your first members and you can baptize our first child in December.
Glad to see you’ve finally found your calling.
LikeLike
Richard Gaffin, “The Redemptive-Historical Response”, p183, in Biblical Hermeneutics: Five Views, IVP, 2012—-“Inspiration with its God-breathed result is not predicable of the Church’s use of Scripture or even of the process through which the church came to recognize the canon….There is no ‘canon above the canon’ in which the locus of final authority shifts from Scripture to the church in its ongoing appropriation of Scripture….The church’s creeds and confessions, including the rule of faith, while hermeneutically important, even necessary, for the church’s well being, are ‘normed norms,’ subordinate to Scripture, as they derive from Scripture.”
LikeLike
CD-Host:
I ASKED: Where in this study do you identify a causal link between social factors and religious affiliation?
YOU ANSWERED: The Pew study shows that the way someone most often joins a religion is being born into that religion. That retention for Reformed correlates with the degree of conservatism (i.e. 7 sisters look more or less the same, evangelicals look more or less the same). Marrying someone who practices that religion is the major point for religious shifts.
Here you wisely shifted away from the phrases “statistically meaningful” and “statistically noticeable difference” to “correlates with.” Being an observational study, no causal links can be identified. To attribute causal links to observational data is a fallacy of category confusion (I use the term “causal link” because of a previous statement you used, “We experience reality as if, people pick a religion for more or less the same kinds of reasons they pick other important cultural identity issues.” which statement requires knowledge of cause). What is noticed is an associational link, but no primary or even secondary cause should be claimed. Perhaps upon vapid conjecture we assume the variable in consideration was the cause (e.g.: childhood religious affiliation), but equally as likely is the vapid conjecture that some other variable was the cause (e.g.: gender, personality type, educational background, etc.). This becomes plain when looking through the Pew data. For example, on page 90 we read that the percentage of Mormons who live out West listed in the “independent variable” column is 76% versus the percentage of Mormons who live in the Northeast is 4%. Here it would be incorrect to conclude that living out West is a reason or cause of affiliating with Mormonism. Scroll back up to page 67 in the study; sticking with our impulse to find fallacious reasons or causes, we now look at marital status being the cause and religious affiliation as being the thing caused. 78% of Hindus are married whereas 0% are living with partners…being married is a cause of being Hindu.
Fortunately, the Pew study is good at phrasing their conclusions without any recourse to certainty about reasons why things might be happening as they have attempted to characterize them to be happening.
In the absence of a sufficiently proven causal link resides an absent refutation that ______ (fill in the blank with your theological doctrine of choice) causes religious affiliation.
LikeLike
Jed;
“As for the name, I am partial to the Occidental Orthodox Holy Catholic Church of Inland Empire CA, and Outlying Regions, but I am really too busy to reply as I am at the embroidery shop having my vestments embellished. I might not be able to compete with the Pope of Rome in terms of numbers, but you darn well better believe that I will have a way cooler hat – rhinestones, sequins, the whole trip.”
Sean;
Well done. The Pointy hat is the thing, but you’ll also need a bejeweled scepter inlaid with bone fragments from Calvin and Bucer and some blood diamonds from Andrew Murray’s South Afrika faithful. The whole ‘Jesuit agnostic impulse’ with Kardinal CD-Host’ is a nice touch. You’re well on your way, and why not, what’s Rome got that Hemet can’t best.
LikeLike
Of course we proclaim the gospel to everyone. My question is about if we proclaim election to everyone. Of course we don’t know who the elect are. But is there 1. a gospel with no election in it? and 2. a gospel which denies election in it?
Dever writes “an atonement needs to be made for you.” This is not correct. An atonement has already been made. An atonement has already been made for the elect alone. Only the sins of the elect have been imputed by God to Christ.
Dever writes “or you can trust that someone else has suffered for your sins and paid the penalty for
them.” (p56) An unbeliever can believe that and continue to believe that her believing is what made Christ’s paying penalty to be effective in her case. But if and when an unbeliever begins to believe that, she is still worshiping a false God who cannot save, she is still believing a false gospel, and she is still in her sins.
The true gospel tells sinners that God is the one who put Christ to death for the sins of the elect, and that this same Christ will return a second time “without sin”, all the future sins of the elect having been paid. I am not asking that evangelists explain to the lost what Arminianism is. Rather, I am asking them to NOT proclaim an Arminian false gospel.
The Bible talks to Christians about “us” and “our” sins, but it never resorts to an Arminian logic. Let us try to do the same thing. Faith is not what makes Christ’s death effective for us. The Holy Spirit is not the One who makes Christ’s atonement work. Faith is not a qualification to but a result of Christ’s death, a benefit of Christ’s righteousness. (II Peter 1:1)
It is true to say that “without trust we will know no benefit through his death” (p152), but it becomes a falsehood when we do not rule out the idea that our trust is what makes Christ’s death work for us. And we cannot teach the antithesis, unless we teach that trust is a result given to the elect on the righteous basis of Christ’s death for the elect.
My worry is not that some of the non-elect will be justified before God. But neither should evangelical clergy worry that the elect will not be justified if they are told the truth that God has a non-elect and that God does not love all sinners.
Dever assures his non-Christian friends that “God wants you to wake up to the spiritual peril you are in”. (p153). But this is not true of all non-Christians who God has predestined to listen to sermons. Certainly God commands in God’s law what God has not ordained to happen. But God’s gospel does not include any idea that God “wants” things to happen that will not happen. God does command all sinners to believe the true gospel (not the false “died for you” version)
At this point you can accuse me of letting predestination rule over the gospel. But,in the gospel in which God is both just and justifier, the Lord Jesus Christ has already brought in a righteousness by which all those God loves will be justified. It is the object of faith, Christ in his glorious person and effective death, who becomes the righteousness in which the elect come to boast.
LikeLike
MikelMann, yep. The theonomists almost made my lists. I’m also now wondering if we should include Jay Adams and the nouthetic counseling movement. Both (along with North, Frame, and Kline) claimed to be furthering the C. Van Til legacy. Some of my early discipling in the Reformed faith while an undergraduate at Purdue came from RPCNA pastor, Ray Joseph, who was an ardent follower of Rushdoonie and North at the time (late 70’s). It was there that I learned to appreciate exclusive psalmody and a cappela congregational singing, even though I never became thoroughly convinced. Interestingly, Gary North’s parents attended the OPC in Eugene, Oregon, which we attended while I was in grad school there. Good grounding in OPC history and practice under Larry Bauer and Larry Conard. Larry Conard was involved in some of the foundations of Westminster West and we had occasion to have Frame and Johnson up to our congregation for some weekend meetings. My wife and I were able to visit the campus several times including once when it was in an
office building in San Marcos. Current WTSC faculty Steve Baugh and Bryan Estelle were in the Eugene church while undergrads at U of O.
LikeLike
MMc, this isn’t an Arminian / Calvinist question. It’s a question of necessary gospel elements. If one preaches on “Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest'” and never mentions election, is there no gospel?
If one preaches on the following:
“You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. 7 Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous person, though for a good person someone might possibly dare to die. 8 But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.”
…but does not mention election, is there no gospel?
LikeLike
Thank you Todd. I always thought confessional maximalism could be a more ‘paint by numbers’ scheme in lieu of talent, calling and effort. T. David Gordon’s ‘ Johnny Can’t Preach’ seems to address this head on. It calls to mind Rosenblatt’s line about the guy who went to seminary because he saw ‘PC’ spelled out in the clouds and determined that it was God’s calling him to “Preach Christ’ but the professor in the homiletics class after hearing his multiple attempts suggested that maybe God was calling him to ‘Plow Corn’.
LikeLike
DG, I think your post is off topic though – you say:
But denominational bragging rights aside, the list is decidedly Anglo-centric and recent. Nothing on the list suggests the sixteenth-century origins of Reformed Protestantism…
To which I would say, “Of course it doesn’t – Dever wasn’t commenting on the origins of American Calvinism, but the current major influences of current ‘Neo-Calvinism’. The two are related but different, as a father to a son”. Dever stated, “I wondered what factors had been used by God”.
Taylor’s comment on Dever’s “Historical gifting” may have sent some blinkers off, since he quotes nothing that has existed outside of the 20th century. If Dever were commenting on the rise of American Calvinism, that would be one thing, but he wasn’t.
Your point about how well the New Calvinism represents the Old Calvinism seems to be the point of contention, and there I would agree with you. The more I read the reformers, the more I am led to conclude, as you helpfully show, that New Calvinism is sorely lacking in its representation of Old Calvinism.
LikeLike
mikelmann: MMc, this isn’t an Arminian / Calvinist question. It’s a question of necessary gospel elements.
RS: What are the necessary elements of preaching the Gospel? Is the teaching of grace alone and Christ alone necessary to the Gospel? If so, what kind of grace? The Arminian and the true Calvinist will never agree on what salvation by grace alone means. In fact, they will not agree on what faith means and what regeneration is. The question of what is necessary would be a necessary part of the discussion.
mikelmann: If one preaches on “Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest’” and never mentions election, is there no gospel?
RS: But remember what the previous verse says too: Mat 11:27 “All things have been handed over to Me by My Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him. 28 “Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest.” Those who are the weary and burdened are the ones that are called and those are the ones that the Son will reveal the Father to.
mikelmann: If one preaches on the following: You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. 7 Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous person, though for a good person someone might possibly dare to die. 8 But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.”
…but does not mention election, is there no gospel?
RS: Romans 5:1 Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, 2 through whom also we have obtained our introduction by faith into this grace in which we stand; and we exult in hope of the glory of God. 3 And not only this, but we also exult in our tribulations, knowing that tribulation brings about perseverance; 4 and perseverance, proven character; and proven character, hope; 5 and hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out within our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us. 6 For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. 7 For one will hardly die for a righteous man; though perhaps for the good man someone would dare even to die. 8 But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
RS: It is hard for me to read this passage with seeing the distinguishing work of God. When I hear of sinners being justified by faith, I think of justification by grace alone and it is by faith in order that it may be grace “so that the promise will be guaranteed to all the descendants” (Rom 4:16).
Who are those that God pours out His love into the hearts of? Does He do that by grace? Is there any other kind of grace but a sovereign grace? Will God pour out a sovereign grace on those who trust in themselves for faith to bring grace? Notice also that “Christ died for us.” It is a particular love and a particular death. In other words, the sovereignty of God and His grace is all over the context of this text. Until a sinner has repented of any hope in self has that sinner repented of self and is that sinner really resting in Christ alone? If the sinner is resting and trusting in self, has the sinner really understood the Gospel of grace alone?
LikeLike
Paul, good to see you pop up. CD, I now introduce you to Paul.
LikeLike
Matthew 11: 25 At that time Jesus declared, “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children; 26 yes, Father, for such was your gracious will. 27 All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him. 28 Come to me, all who labor and are
heavy laden, and I will give you rest. 29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest. 30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.”
Jesus Christ mentioned election. Why would you not want to? Or is only the invitation part the “gospel”?
In terms of Romans 5, I am not at all saying that election is all one needs to know to know the gospel. Rather, I am saying that the gospel teaches that all for whom Christ died will be justified, which is what the context of Romans 5 teaches. It would be possible to “believe in election” and
still not know what the gospel says about the justice of the atonement. (btw, this was true in my own case, before I was effectually called) We need to know more than the extent of the
atonement, but knowing the extent is part of knowing about the nature of the atonement, not only its efficacy but its justice.
As long as I am answering your questions, MM, can you at least answer my first one? If we think God saves sovereignly apart from the gospel, any discussion about what the gospel is not that significant.
Romans 5: 8 but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
mark: all sinners?, all who believe the gospel?, did God show His love in Christ’s death for those who perish ?
9 Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.
mark: From the context, it seems that the “us” is the “we” who have been justified, but surely more will be justified in the future, so what does Christ’s “blood” have to do with justification? Did Christ
shed His blood for those who will never be justified? I don’t care about the Calvinist label (I am a credobaptist), but I do care about a false gospel which would teach that Christ shed his blood for those who will suffer God’s wrath in the end. There are no Arminian verses in the Bible. There is no Arminian logic in the Bible.
10 For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life.
mark: Again the “we” is about those reconciled by the Son’s death. To understand this, don’t we have to ask about the connection between Christ’s death and reconciliation? if Christ died for those who will never be reconciled, can we logically say that reconciliation is “by the Son’s death”?
11 More than that, we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.
mark: And of course, we do not confuse the history of redemption with the order of application. The decree to reconcile is not the same as the reconciliation obtained by Christ’s death, and the “receiving” (by God’s imputation, not in this context by faith, see John Murray’s commentary) is “now” and not at the same time as the decree or the death.
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.
mark: if the one man Jesus Christ obtained a righteousness for all sinners, and yet not all sinners receive (again, by imputation) that righteousness, then not only is God not just but it also CANNOT be said that the righteousness is a free gift through Jesus Christ. If Chris died for some who perish, then the righteousness is conditioned on the sinner and not on Christ.
Of course that’s only two texts, and you can ask me about a lot of other texts. But first we need to know if we need the gospel for conversion, and then we can ask if confessing Jesus as Lord means not needing to know about why He died.
If we were effectually called by a gospel which denies election, why bother with election? Is election the “cherry on the top of our Reformed sundae”?
The Bible is a big book, and not everything in the Bible is “gospel”. For example, why do we who were effectually called by the true gospel bother talking about ecclesiology and eschatology? Not because we think those questions are gospel. Of course we who believe the same gospel disagree about many things and have much to learn, but we do not disagree about the gospel if we believe the same gospel. We do not “grow” from error into the truth, so that we can be justified while
still believing what Mormons teach about Gethsemane. Rather, we pass from death to life. Christ’s
love for the elect means that they all will be taught the gospel and then grow in knowledge..
Ephesians 4: 8 Therefore it says,“When he ascended on high he led a host of captives, and he gave gifts to men.”… 11 And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and
teachers,12 to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, 13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood,[ to
the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, 14 so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. 15 Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, 16 from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love.”
LikeLike
If there is a gospel with no truth about election in it, wouldn’t it be better to have a “don’t ask and don’t tell” policy about election, for fear that a person who has believed the gospel might reject what
God says about election, were they to hear it?
Don’t tell grandma what you learned about election.
If election means that people are sometimes justified apart from hearing and understanding the gospel, why would it matter if anybody knows or confesses the gospel?
What difference would it make if we were Arminians?
The argument for tolerant “gospel flexibility” shows itself to believe what it seeks to defend by implying that the “Arminian understanding” of the gospel is incidental to the gospel, and is, at worst, a matter of a misguided emphasis. The assumption is that the difference between the ” Arminian option” and the understanding of those who are smart enough to read books and make an effort to study “the Reformed Faith” is of no real eternal consequence, and is made only on the basis of TR’s
gnostic concern for theological precision foreign to the realities of everyday life.
This kind of dismissive opinion of the difference between the impersonal plan of Arminianism and the “doctrines of grace” can only exist where the one holding this opinion has made peace with the
Arminian lies as something not all that bad.
RS: For the record, I also believe that when one preaches a “gospel” that depends on Arminian teaching it is a false gospel. I too am repulsed by the teaching that Calvinism and Arminianism are two options for those who believe the Gospel. As Thomas Goodwin intimated, there is only one kind of grace and it is a sovereign grace. As God said with clarity, “I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious.”
LikeLike
Erik —
Excellent counterexample 2 points to you.
_____
Paul —
To establish causation would require experimentation and isolation. That’s beyond the level almost anything about sociological behaviors are known. We as people make sociological judgements all the times based on correlations, that’s how it is done. The argument you are making is the one the cigarette companies made for decades about smoking and lung cancer. So either one can establish an entirely nihilistic theory that nothing can be known about human behavior or we make the assumption that the means that are used in everyday life to draw conclusions about causes are, without strong counter evidence likely causes.
In fact the whole notion of cause when it comes to long term human acts are unknowable. We don’t know anything about the causes for just any behavior. All we know of about most complex human behaviors are correlations.
But only knowing correlations doesn’t imply some nihilistic ignorance. Until general relativity we had no explanation for why objects dropped towards the earth rather than away from the earth. Until general relativity it was just a strong correlation, we conducted measures and noticed that every object which had the ability to fall did, i.e a statistical measure of 100% of the same data. It was entirely possible that this was a result of chance alone and the actual number was somewhat lower. But no-one accepted that. The lack of an understanding of causation didn’t prevent humans from understanding that gravity existed and later being able to measure its force.
Correlation does not prove causation it does however often imply it and in the absence of better explanations is used interchangeably with it as a working hypothesis. As for your examples you are reversing the statistics.
Here it would be incorrect to conclude that living out West is a reason or cause of affiliating with Mormonism
Actually it would be correct. Given a random person living out west they are far more likely to affiliate with Mormonism than one living in the east. Probably something like 4x as likely. Now obviously there is a covariate, children of Mormon parents are more likely to be Mormon and more likely to live out west. To see whether there is something intrinsic about living in Utah vs. living in Virginia you would want to control for likely covariates. But if you just naively asserted that living out west, all other things being equal makes you much more likely to be Mormon you would be right.
I suspect given Mormon missionary efforts even if we subtracted off the covariate living out west makes you more likely to be Mormon.
Similarly on the Hindu case, though here you are reversing the statistics the data you would want to look at is percentage of married people who are Hindu, which is tiny. Marriage doesn’t cause Hinduism. But using the 0% figure, yeah choosing to live together unmarried with a partner likely has a covariate that correlates with not being Hindu. And in fact, though the same size was likely too small to pick this up; it wouldn’t shock me if choosing to live together unmarried correlated and in-fact caused people to disaffiliate with Hinduism. That’s a hypothesis though based on not enough data.
LikeLike
1948, Peter Eldersveld, voice of The Back to God hour—“The National Association of Evangelicals is Arminian. A formal united front before the world becomes exceedingly questionable for Calvinists when those with whom we are joined deny the real fundamentals of the faith, such as Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, and the Perseverance of the Saints. It is ironical, to say the least, that those who deny these Fundamentals should be called Fundamentalists!. What happens to our Reformed witness to the world when, by a formal and official representation, we are silent on those salient points….?
Calvin: I wish it to be received as a general rule, that the secret things of God are not to be scrutinized, and that those which he has revealed are not to be overlooked, lest we may, on the one hand, be chargeable with curiosity, and, on the other, with ingratitude….Those who are so cautious and timid that they would bury all mention of predestination in order that it may not trouble weak minds, with what color, pray, will they cloak their arrogance, when they indirectly charge God with a want of due consideration, in not having foreseen a danger for which they imagine that they
prudently provide? Whoever, therefore, throws obloquy on the doctrine of predestination, openly brings a charge against God, as having inconsiderately allowed something to escape from Him which is injurious to the Church.” (21:4)
“I admit that profane men lay hold of the subject of predestination to carp, or cavil, or snarl, or scoff. But if their petulance frightens us, it will be necessary to conceal all the principal articles of faith, because they and their fellows leave scarcely one of them unassailed with blasphemy. A rebellious spirit will display itself no less insolently when it hears that there are three persons in the divine essence, than when it hears that God when he created man foresaw every thing that was to happen to him….. To quell their blasphemies, must we say nothing concerning the divinity of the Son and Spirit? No! The truth of God is too powerful, both here and everywhere, to dread the slanders of the ungodly. For we see that the false apostles were unable, by defaming and accusing the true
doctrine of Paul, to make him ashamed of it.”
LikeLike
CD-Host:
Interesting: “In fact the whole notion of cause when it comes to long term human acts are unknowable. We don’t know anything about the causes for just any behavior. All we know of about most complex human behaviors are correlations.” Given this belief, how would our vocabulary change with statistical jargon as compared to the jargon we use when talking about randomized controlled trials? Would statistically noticeable be appropriate?
It was Ronald Fisher who spurred on the cigarette companies claims about smoking and lung cancer being unlinked causally (because no control was used). Observational studies did not refute that claim. Do you know what study design did? (Hint: it works great with sociology questions…and looks different than the Pew study)
Good catch with the Hindu marriage / overall marriage ratios. Again it is incorrect to conclude (statistically) that living out West is a cause or reason for affiliating with Mormonism. Likewise, it is incorrect to conclude (statistically) that living with a partner is a cause or reason for being non-Hindu (or even for disaffiliating with Hinduism). Why?
LikeLike
Nate, but if the New Calvinism doesn’t represent the Old, then is it Calvinism? The point is that if you don’t know about boeuf borguignon, you may think the Wendy’s burger is the genuine article. Why not just rename the New Calvinism as The New Emphasis on Sovereignty (catchy, I know). I’m still not convinced that any of the so-called New Calvinists would affirm any of the five points. Their leaders probably would. But in the same way that the Gospel Co-Allies render wives submit to your husbands as complementarianism, they would have a hard time defending limited atonement.
LikeLike
MMc, I don’t hear anyone doubting the truth or value of the doctrine of election. Nor is anyone saying anything about avoiding the topic.
RS, same thing, and it’s beside the point that election is taught near “Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest.’”
I really asked a simple question two different ways: 1) “are you suggesting that election must be a part of any gospel presentation?” and 2)”If one preaches on ‘Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest’ and never mentions election, is there no gospel? ”
And your answers appear to be that yes, election must be part of any gospel presentation. So any Sunday on which you do not preach election, you have failed to preach the gospel. That’s a lot of preaching on election.
LikeLike
Paul —
I’m not going to go through a quiz here. You pretty much ignored the previous post which addressed your theology about causation. As I said in the previous post, with complex things the word “cause” merely means correlated without obvious covariates and ordered in time.
Jay is short so he didn’t make the college basketball team. This is typical of how we talk of cause. What this is means is something like:
We know from previous statistical analysis that performance at basketball correlated strongly with height. We know from previous analysis that performance at basketball, and potential for increased performance correlate strong with coach selection of players. My impression of Jay’s height is that he is short, and impressions of height with repeated exposure correlate strongly with accurately measured heights when I’ve been able to test them.
In practice people have developed an attribution theory overtime. What they do is make correlational observations and fit them into their attribution theory, adjusting the theory when its expected results are repeatedly not met. So something like
Given the Baysian model I apply to how people make sports teams the dominant factor I know about Jay likely to correlate strongly with him not having made the team is his height, which I gleaned from observational information which I believe correlates strongly with actual height
You are running with the some high school statistic “correlation is not causation”, which is meant to explain properties of numbers. The problem is that this a grossly oversimplified view appropriate for children. Adults have to ask the more complex question “if correlation isn’t causation what is”? And the answer is something that Hume and Kant mainly dealt with centuries ago.
LikeLike
Paul —
I just thought of a perfect example from this week. My waterheater broke and I went through a diagnostic process with GE, a series of experiments to get them data. GE’s diagnostic methodology was purely correlative. People who had the symptoms I was describing had their problems fixed statistically by replacing the control valve. They phrased this as “your control valve is broken” i.e. the cause of your broken waterheater is your control valve.
The plumber thought:
a) That didn’t make any sense logically the cause for those symptoms should be the flame detector. Which is to say his attribution theory didn’t allow for the control valve to be causing those symptoms.
b) GE had a long history of correctly diagnosing problems. I.E. the cause of his successful repairs was listening to GE.
The control valve replacement worked. I phrased this to my wife as “our control valve was broken”.
LikeLike
CD-Host:
I’ve been thinking about your conclusions based on Pew. Some thoughts:
(1) The Reformed view of election centers on families, such that we treat our children as “presumed elect” and members of the visible church. It seems like the data are actually consistent with this hypothesis.
Of course, you want to argue that there’s a more general hypothesis in play — children tend to have the faith of their communities. But given that we believe that God works out His secret decrees using secondary means, it seems like there’s still no problem.
(2) I’m not happy with your explanation of cause. How does one eliminate God as an obvious covariate?
Put another way: can God be studied?
LikeLike
CD-Host:
I’m following what you are saying and thinking we are on the same page. I’m attempting to be Socratic more than pedantic…but seem to be failing here. For the purposes of clarity, here is what I am getting at:
Statistical causality is something that has been judiciously relegated to randomized controlled trials with t-tests, etc. Since Fisher’s day, with the strong dialectical opposition of Neyman and Pearson, regression analysis (replete with inclusion of relevant covariates, and discernment of confounders) has developed as a close second (Pearson thought it was equal) to Fisher’s p-value work used to make judgments about chance findings versus real findings. The next step in the Pew study would be to do regression analysis. This will take things to the next level in terms of both discovery and certainty. Until then, it is prudent to refer to the findings in more common sense terms instead of employing statistical jargon (difference, meaningful) or at the very least use Bayesian statistical phrases like: likelihood, prediction, association or correlation. All these words are loaded with meaning for statisticians. Certainly, at a common sense level, we use causal language every day; using statistical language in these statements would be a confusion of how we know what we know at an operational level. Pew findings are interesting and helpful…its important to hold them lightly at this stage and give more space in our language to words that acknowledge our commitments come from intuition, hunches and personal experience (or case studies which would be equally valid ways of knowing in the instance where an individual case deviates from past correlations).
Moving the conversation forward, and stepping beyond my hang-up with statistical semantics, let me ask another question. What would a randomized controlled trial or regression analysis study pertaining to total depravity look like?
LikeLike
Paul and CD-Host,
It may be that our conversation is embedded in the larger fight over Baysian and frequentist statistics.
Just for fun, see here for an ardent anti-frequentist, anti-CAGW, Catholic voice (teaches at Cornell), with really interesting and scathing critiques of p-values.
LikeLike
OK, MMc and RS, I’m taking it to the rim and throwing it down.
I say there is gospel in the Lord’s Supper, but no mention of election. So you either say there is no gospel in the Supper or you say there can be gospel without mention of election. That is, unless you want to be real creative about finding election there.
LikeLike
Erik: “This morning I was on the website of a local evangelical baptist church. Under “What We Believe” I read several points. At the bottom it said ““Permission granted from Dallas Theological Seminary for use of above doctrinal statement“.”
Let’s take it from another angle. Do all the people in that church “believe” all the doctrinal points contained in that statement? Of course not. Some in the church are unsaved, and many of the points require significant study to know if one “beleives” it.
And so it isn’t true to claim, “what we believe”, right?
But now apply that to confessional church. They may claim “we believe” but they don’t for the reasons as above. And do they really all confess the same thing? Well, if confession takes on the biblical meaning – of assured conviction in the heart (Rom. 10:9-10) then no.
So being in a confessional church, or in a “Doctrinal Statement” church – the reality is the same.
If you want to see a different approach, visit my church’s “What We Teach” page.
LikeLike
@ CDH,
You are an animal when it comes to summarizing theological approaches – a beast! I’m lovin’ it.
Thanks for your profound answer. I’ll be processing that today!
LikeLike
Paul: Here it would be incorrect to conclude that living out West is a reason or cause of affiliating with Mormonism
CD-Host: Actually it would be correct. Given a random person living out west they are far more likely to affiliate with Mormonism than one living in the east.
I’ve been thinking more about this, and I’m not at all satisfied. Take a given person who is a Mormon.
Is it possible that he is a Mormon because he grew up in a Mormon community? Yes.
Is it also possible that he lives near a Mormon community because he is a Mormon? Yes.
Could both be true in reference to different times in his life? Also yes.
You have two different methods of causation pointing in opposite directions, both supported by the basic correlation.
LikeLike
OK, MMc and RS, I’m taking it to the rim and throwing it down. I say there is gospel in the Lord’s Supper, but no mention of election. So you either say there is no gospel in the Supper or you say there can be gospel without mention of election
mark: I have no idea why I should answer any of your questions, since you haven’t answered any of mine. Are you in a congregation where you are hearing too much about election? Do you have a clergy who says the word “election” more than he says the word “covenant”?
Of course we can’t give the antithesis to every false doctrine in every message, but if you are in a group where almost everybody denies the Trinity, you have to ask yourself 1. can you have gospel and no Trinity? 2. can you have gospel while you deny Trinity? I think it was Martin Luther who said that when we teach all matter of positives but do not challenge the lie, we have failed to proclaim the gospel.
There is a big difference between “no mention of a word” and an inference that the concept of election is absent or not inherent in a Bible text. Do you deny that the idea of the Trinity is in the Bible since the word is not there?
There is no neutrality. Almost every child (even those born to jews and muslims) in the usa knows that Jesus Christ died for every sinner. Most of them have been carefully taught that the success of Christ’s death depends on their decision. If Christ’s body was indeed given for everybody, why shouldn’t everybody be welcome to the Lord’s Table?
And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.”
Do you seriously think that the question of “who the you is” does not enter into our thinking when we come to the Table? Of course it’s for me, since Christ died for everybody? Of course everybody is in the new covenant, because Christ died for everybody? What would be the comfort of being told that Christ’s body was given for us, if some of us are nevertheless going to perish?
michael, I almost want to help you by suggesting other texts (which focus more on Lordship and resurrection), but don’t you find it interesting that the three texts you have suggested so far are very much about Christ’s death, and not only about the fact of His death but its efficacy. Matthew 11. Romans 5. The Lord’s Supper.
What is your interest in keeping election out of the gospel? Are you a fundamentalist, looking for a common denominator , with the least truth you can possibly keep and still have the gospel? What is the gospel?
LikeLike
Ted, though there may be similar realities in both a confessional and evangelical church, the difference may be that confessional churches don’t expect members to be their own private exegetes. They expect them to be faithful and obedient disciples. That isn’t at all to say they don’t expect them to take personal responsibility for what they believe and why, but to say that the emphasis is placed on actually confessing and practicing what the church confesses and practices. And to up the ante, even to do so when personal understanding isn’t pristine. For example, is it a good thing to know why parents should not delay the baptizing of their infants or keep them from the table until proper catechizing and a credible profession of faith is made? No doubt and should be heartily encouraged. But it’s even more important to actually baptize and catechize even when not understood why or there is a sense of hesitation.
So there is more room in a confessional church to patiently endure ignorance and even let personal understanding follow obedience in believers instead of always having to precede it. This strikes both the broader culture, and to the extent that it mirrors it in many ways, evangelicalism as almost anathema.
LikeLike
MMc, my words on this topic have been few and, I think, relatively clear. I am befuddled as to why you have gone off on Arminianism, fundamentalism, and the hundreds of other words you have used to argue against an opponent that is not here in this forum.
So I’ll just close out my part of this by simply pointing out that the truest of truths need a sense of proportion. If someone preaches nothing but ethics, he has not preached untruth but he has lost a sense of proportion. If he does nothing but preach on the ordo salutis he is guilty of another disproportion be he ever so correct in doing so. To say it once again, election is an important and comforting doctrine that boldfaces the grace of God. But it, too, can be preached disproportionately. And it has been.
LikeLike
MM and MarkMc: Just for example, consider this group, jettisoning Hermann Hoeksema for being “soft on the doctrines of grace.”
Outside the Camp — some unhappy campers, apparently.
LikeLike
Galatians 6:14 “But far be it from me to boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. 15 For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation. 16 And as for all who walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon sthe Israel of God.”
Of course I am no apostle, and surely the gospel can be preached without any reference to the Apostle Paul’s disproportionate emphasis on the cross. But my emphasis on election has not been about about some “family secret” which explains why we believe the gospel. My focus has been on the gospel about Christ’s death alone.
Either Christ died for everybody or He did not. Either a person believes in the Christ whose death is the difference between saved and lost, or a person believes in counterfeit idol Christ whose death makes no such difference. That is the very “rule” of which Galatians 6 speaks. To speak of election is to speak of God’s love, and how can we have a gospel which does not speak of God’s love?
I am not saying that we can’t talk about other things besides the gospel. Nor am I claiming that we can’t talk about anything without also talking about election. But I don’t see how you can ‘close out your part”, without telling us if you think God sovereignly converts sinners without these sinners knowing the gospel. Is election good news, or is it the news best saved for an elders’ class, or for a RC Sproul video?
I presume you don’t object to anybody including election in the gospel message. You were just saying we didn’t “have to” talk about election. And then the examples you came up with included Jesus Christ distracting us from the gospel (the invitation?) with some preliminary talk about election.
Matthew 11: 25 At that time Jesus declared, “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children; 26 yes, Father, for such was your gracious will. 27 All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him. 28 Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
John 10: 25 Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father’s name bear witness about me, 26 but you do not believe because you are not among my sheep. 27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand.
LikeLike
DGH – off topic, but have some of your opponents been launching DDoS attacks against your web site? Response times have been terrible lately and sometimes it seems to just lock up entirely.
LikeLike
Jeff, what do you want us to consider about what Marc Carpenter says? Do you want to do some kind of ad hom association thing? Do you want us to agree with Carpenter’s condemnation of Mark McCulley? Or do you want to think about if the gospel is necessary when God converts sinners? Do you want to argue that those who teach that Christ died for everybody are teaching the gospel?
Unless you want to be a bit more explicit in what you want us to do or read at Carpenter’s site, I have to wonder if you are just throwing some stuff against the wall to see if it sticks. The old historic Calvinists talked about the heresy of Arminianism. Dordt was quite explicit in its “refutation of errors”. But the new Calvinists think of themselves as “kinder and gentler”, even in their intolerance of old-style Calvinists.
LikeLike
Jeff, I thought of that group. I believe they started out at about the time of the Pederson trial in the OPC. I don’t know if they were actually connected or just sympathetic. They started by saying anyone who doesn’t believe in election is damned and ended up saying that even those who believe in election are damned if they believe others can be saved without believing in election. A quick look at their Hall of Heterodoxy should tell a lot about where they are.
George, thanks for pointing out the slow load here. I thought my new laptop might have issues.
MMc,like I said, I’m done with our discussion.
LikeLike
Mark McC: Do you want us to agree with Carpenter’s condemnation of Mark McCulley?
Goodness, no. Sorry I was unclear. I was just trying to point out that the doctrine of election can be wrongly connected to JFBA such that denial of election is taken as prima facie evidence of lack of saving faith. Just putting a boundary marker out there, with no fingers pointing at any particular person.
Actually, I was trying to find a good link to demonstrate what I’ve previously heard, that PRC churches do not allow people to take communion until they have internal infallible assurance of their election.
However, I wasn’t able to confirm this.
LikeLike
Unless you preach that Christ died only for the elect, no matter how confessional you are, you will end up encouraging people to make faith into that little something that makes the difference between life and death!
Does the glory of God in the gospel means that all for whom Christ died will certainly be saved?Or is that doctrine too “rationalistic”? Would that doctrine perhaps take the grace of God out of the hands of those who hand out the “means of grace” and locate grace with the Father who has chosen a people and given them to Christ? (Romans 11:4-6)
Election is God’s love. When the Bible talks about God’s love, it talks about propitiation. I John 4:10, “In this is love, not that we have loved God but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.” If all we only stipulate that the appeasement of wrath will not work without our faith, then it’s not enough to add on that God sent His son to purchase our faith. The nature of the cross as a propitiation will not be proclaimed.
Since there is only one propitiation, a propitiation for the elect which is also propitiation for the non-elect, amounts to NOTHING. Do New Calvinists (and I am not only talking here about the young and piper credobaptist) love the gospel of election?, or do suppress that doctrine for the sake of peace and unity?
New Calvinists do not talk about Christ not dying for the non-elect. They won’t even talk about Christ not dying for those who don’t put their trust in Him. The New Calvinist wants you to give yourself to Christ without knowing anything about election.
Some New Calvinists (think Norman Shepherd and Doug Wilson) will even defend this “non-election gospel” as being the only perspective possible to us. I certainly agree that knowing our election before we believe the gospel is impossible. Knowing our election is NOT our warrant to believe. (See Abraham Booth’s wonderful book against preparationism– Glad Tidings).
But this is no excuse for leaving the Bible doctrine of election out of the doctrine of propitiation by Christ’s death there and then on the cross. We can and should teach the doctrine of election. The Bible doctrine of election does not teach unbelievers that they are elect, nor does the Bible doctrine of election teach unbelievers that they can find out if they are elect without or before believing the gospel.
The glory of God does not depend on human decisions, and the gospel must not become a hostage to a personal narrative in which one insists they were Christians already when they were evangelicals. To fear God is to learn repentance from the false gospel. Those who teach and believe
universal atonement always condition salvation on what God does in the sinner. With the apostle Paul (Philippians 3), we need to learn to count as “trash” and “loss” that kind of idolatry.
LikeLike
If you want to know what the Protestant Reformed teach about assurance, I recommend Englesma’s recent booklet on assurance. I found it encouraging. My one complaint is his very un-nuanced reference to “puritans”. Not all puritans are the same. There was a big big difference between folks like John Cotton and Roger Williams from other New England clergy.
Englesma seems to say “puritan” when he means “non-dutch”.
Englesma is not teaching that we have infallible assurance. He knows that we are sinners. But he doesn’t promote doubt as the necessary motive for good works. He doesn’t speak about the “beauty of gospel threats” (as folks like Piper and Hafeman do) and he doesn’t assume “covenant conditionality” as do those who speak of “curses for those who were objectively in the new covenant ”
Engelsma does interact a bit with Beeke’s book on assurance, but not nearly enough. Neither Beeke nor Engelsma give enough attention to the differences between various Dutch theologians on the matter of assurance. Beeke minimises the differences in the direction of “the practical syllogism”. Engelsma selectively quotes what he likes and ignores the rest.
LikeLike
For the record I don’t even know who Carpenter is, much less whatever he has to say about MMc. Perhaps that – whatever it is – added to the disconnect here.
LikeLike
Mark: The glory of God does not depend on human decisions, and the gospel must not become a hostage to a personal narrative in which one insists they were Christians already when they were evangelicals. To fear God is to learn repentance from the false gospel. Those who teach and believe
universal atonement always condition salvation on what God does in the sinner. With the apostle Paul (Philippians 3), we need to learn to count as “trash” and “loss” that kind of idolatry.
I think this assumes that people are self-consistent.
And the problem is that the people (you, me) who talk about these things make great efforts to be self-consistent, so we assume that everyone else does as well.
In fact, many Christians I know cheerfully believe contradictory doctrines. For that reason, while I agree with you that (self-consistent) Arminianism is a false gospel, I don’t agree that all self-identified Arminians believe a false gospel. They might well believe a genuine gospel together with some other beliefs that are inconsistent with the true gospel they believe.
LikeLike
to review:
Mann asked: MMc, are you suggesting that election must be a part of any gospel presentation? It’s a great comfort and it boldfaces the grace of God, but are you saying it is a sine qua non?
Because I asked: if there is a gospel with no truth about election in it, wouldn’t it be better to have a “don’t ask and don’t tell” policy about election, for fear that a person who has believed the gospel
might reject what God says about election, were they to hear it? Don’t tell grandma what you learned about election.
If election means that people are sometimes justified apart from hearing and understanding the gospel, why would it matter if anybody knows or confesses the gospel? What difference would it make if we were Arminians who taught that God sees the tape beforehand and that by that time it’s too late for the “Gentleman Who Woos” to do anything about what you will have already decided?
I asked this because Mann made three points— CD, It seems to me that you are simply looking for quantifiable evidence that, say, Reformed sects are more moral/upright than other sects. But then you keep on talking about “election.” Take a look at the Westminster Confession of Faith, Ch. 3
and tell us if that is what you are talking about.
Mann: But I’ll play along up to a point to indicate some difficulties in getting definitive results from your research. First, if one agrees “the elect will be more righteous,” well, the elect don’t all wear a
pin on their lapel. You don’t know who they are. Second, “the elect” does not equal “those who believe in election.” There might be someone who is elect who hasn’t quite come around to believing they are elect, and there might be a believer in election who isn’t elect. Third, no one claims that coming to Christ eliminates moral struggles in a uniform way.
mark: To speak to the last three points.
1. There is some ambiguity here. I certainly agree that the justified elect are not necessarily more moral than many Muslims or atheists or Roman Catholics. I also agree that we can’t know who the elect before and apart from their profession of faith in the gospel. Those elect who are not yet justified certainly cannot be identified as elect. After we are justified, we do “know who we are”. Knowing does not have to be infallible to be knowing. But the justified elect can have some degree of assurance that they are elect. Faith is not perfect, but faith without any assurance at all is not faith.
2. I certainly agree that believers in election may not be justified (and may not be elect). I myself “believed in election” for a long time before I began to fear God, before I submitted to the
righteousness revealed in the gospel. As for Mann’s statement that “There might be someone who is elect who hasn’t quite come around to believing they are elect”, I certainly agree that any elect person who is not yet justified SHOULD NOT BELIEVE THAT THEY ARE ELECT. Even
though they may be elect, if they don’t believe the gospel (which includes the doctrine of election), then they have no access to that knowledge.
The gospel tells nobody– “you are elect”. The gospel teaches that God has an elect remnant of grace. But IF the idea being affirmed is that “there might be someone who is justified who denies the doctrine of election” (which is not what Mann wrote, let me quickly add), then I very much disagree. And thus I asked, should we run the risk of talking about the doctrine of election, or “don’t ask and don’t tell”?
If we were to affirm that people can believe the gospel while being ignorant of the truth of election, would that not mean that we should be cautious in ever sharing with anybody the doctrine of election, unless of course we also affirm that people can reject the doctrine and still believe the gospel. As in, rejecting the doctrine of Trinity is “inconsistent with the gospel”, but it can be done, because after all God is sovereign and who are we to tell God what people need to know? Wouldn’t it only magnify God’s grace if God were to sovereignly rescue a person from His wrath even as that person is still denying that God exists—more sin, more grace; more inconsistency and contradiction, more grace….
So, in hindsight, it seems I was focused on one question (what is the gospel) where Mann was focused on a related but different question( assurance of justification and election). For sure, he later began to suggest a gospel minus election, but he didn’t suggest that in his original post which prompted my question.
3. So perhaps it’s time to move on. But let me add that I very much agree with Mann’s third point– “No one claims that coming to Christ eliminates moral struggles in a uniform way.” Of course there are some self-righteous folks who seem to do that. I am thinking of a contemporary revivalist named Paul Washer. But Mann’s point, with which I agree, is that we can’t test a person’s faith in the gospel by some behavioral standard. Sure, there’s perfection, and by that
standard, we are all sinners. But all other standards are relative.
Not only do people start in different places, but Christians also finish up differently in terms of morality and discipline. And the beauty and scandal of grace is that it’s the same for all who receive it—you don’t need to sin to get more grace, and you don’t need less grace now than when you started.
You may think you are a better Christian than you were four years ago, but some of us might not agree. Some of us don’t want to basing our assurance on some notion of “keep the change” because “at least now we are going in the right direction.”
No, that’s not a political statement. I do, however, very much like what the WCF says about election
Westminster Confession, Chapter 3: VI. Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.
Chapter 8, V. The Lord Jesus, by his perfect obedience, and sacrifice of himself, which he, through the eternal Spirit, once offered up to God, hath fully satisfied the justice of His Father; and purchased, not only reconciliation, but an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven, for all those whom the Father hath given unto him.
LikeLike
Jeff —
The Pew data was just one example of the type of study.
1) The Reformed view of election centers on families, such that we treat our children as “presumed elect” and members of the visible church. It seems like the data are actually consistent with this hypothesis.
Jeff this is actually how this started. Arguing that regeneration correlates with parentage would be fine except that we would expect to see substantial difference between retention in conservative reformed congregations and other conservative religions. I.E. “true faiths” would look different or better than “false faiths” because of the benefits to retention created by election and regeneration. We would expect to see substantial differences in behaviors between the regenerate in the true faith and the lost, etc…
(2) I’m not happy with your explanation of cause. How does one eliminate God as an obvious covariate?
I don’t have a problem with that. If he is having discernible effects then he shows up as a covariate.
Put another way: can God be studied?
If he can’t be studied then he isn’t having material effect.
I’ve been thinking more about this, and I’m not at all satisfied. Take a given person who is a Mormon.
Is it possible that he is a Mormon because he grew up in a Mormon community? Yes.
Is it also possible that he lives near a Mormon community because he is a Mormon? Yes.
Could both be true in reference to different times in his life? Also yes.
You have two different methods of causation pointing in opposite directions, both supported by the basic correlation.
Exactly. Causation is a question of attribution theory, with complex behaviors it isn’t really objective it is a subjective. A person himself might now even know to what degree he’s Mormon because he lives in a Mormon community and to what degree he lives in a Mormon community because he’s Mormon. It is in a deep sense unknowable.
LikeLike
JRC: Put another way: can God be studied?
CDH: If he can’t be studied then he isn’t having material effect.
I’m not so sure. Take as a hypothesis that God’s omnipotence means that He can arbitrarily interact with the creation. This would mean that His effects do not satisfy any assumptions about normal distributions.
LikeLike
Perhaps here’s a place to re-introduce my question from a couple weeks ago. If we believe in JBF through Christ alone, then how “perfect” must our faith be? If that which makes us right with God is outside of us (in Christ), then would the perfect content of our faith also be something that is outside of us and in him. (Lord, I believe, help thou my unbelief!). It seems to me that we end up making orthodoxy a work unto salvation if we don’t say this.
I don’t suggest this to invite latitudinarianism any more than we invite antinomianism with a faith alone position. I also don’t mean it in a way to diminish theological precision. But it surprise me sometimes how often we seem to suggest that true faith is absent just because the correct theological formulation is missing. I’m guessing we’ll be somewhat surprised about who’s in heaven (or rather in the New Heavens and the New Earth). But if the tiniest faith results in the full merits of Christ despite our on-going sin and on-going theological error and since Christ is the one who actually merits ours salvation, I can be the chief of sinners and the chief of heretics and still be right with God (even without understanding JBF or election or the person of Christ).
Thus a consequence would be that I am “quick” to determine errant theology and thus determine that someone is unfit for teaching ministry in the church, but I would be slow to excommunicate said person for the same error.
LikeLike
JRC: Put another way: can God be studied?
CDH: If he can’t be studied then he isn’t having material effect.
JRC: I’m not so sure. Take as a hypothesis that God’s omnipotence means that He can arbitrarily interact with the creation. This would mean that His effects do not satisfy any assumptions about normal distributions.
What specifically does it mean to say “God caused X”? What it means is that in a hypothetical universe where divine intervention didn’t occur X wouldn’t have happened, instead X’ would have happened. Assuming divine causes aren’t so common as to skew our entire understanding of reality we can detect an unnaturally high number of X’s in any distribution. The only alternative to very common interventions is very infrequent minor ones. So for example if one less retarded child were born in the USA as a result of a divine response to prayer that would be undetectable.
So we want to look at things which are claimed to be fairly common. In particular if election occurs fairly frequently in members of conservative reformed congregations and fairly infrequently in Muslim mosques and the effect of election is regeneration with a consequent substantial drop in sin that would create measurable differences in behavior. To repeat:
a) High difference in the chance of elections depending on congregation
b) Substantial differences in election/regeneration on sin behaviors.
It is my contention that Reformed persons do mostly assert (a) and (b) are both true. More or less the options are:
i) (a) is false
ii) (b) is false
iii) (a) and (b) are both false
iv) We see meaningful statistical differences in behaviors between conservative Reformed congregations and other conservative congregations.
Given the data disproving (iv) that’s a rather important piece of counter evidence to a doctrine of election that asserts both (a) and (b). Now some here seem to dispute (a) and (b) which caught me a bit by surprise but I’ll still contend that’s a minority position.
LikeLike
Paul —
In terms of regression I think something like ANCOVA if it could be done makes more sense if we want to take complex correlations and decomposing them by removing additional factors. I agree that Pew isn’t doing that. They have multiple factors intermixed. So for example conservative Reformed correlates with higher income as contrasted with conservative Pentecostal. We know higher income correlates with all sorts of behaviors, I’d want to drop that out. And I agree there.
What would a randomized controlled trial or regression analysis study pertaining to total depravity look like?
Well the hypothesis I’ve seen advanced is that being the child of reformed parents substantially increases your odds of being elect. We have really good records of adoptions from a century ago, where there were large numbers of children raised in orphanages. I’d want to look for substantial differences in things like arrests, church attendance (if possible), incidence of syphilis (which we also have good records for, but that’s a massive correlation job). Compare say children born to Presbyterian Church in the United States mothers to Baptist orphans from the same orphanages over small time frames.
If election were more common and an inherited trait, as has been argued in response to the serial correlation data from Pew, we should see huge differences.
____
If we want to test effect of environment, i.e. regeneration is passed on by who raises the child then we do the same experiment but this time look at religion of adoptive family rather than religion of birth parent(s) trying to control for other factors (like income), if possible. Say for example foreign baby adoptions.
Something along those lines.
LikeLike
Terry, agreed. It reminds me of something Horton has said more succinctly on various occasions: we are saved by grace alone, through faith alone in Christ alone–not by our doctrine. There are wolves within, sheep without, don’t tear up wheat with tares and all that.
And it seems to me that this is an understanding that really is best preserved by militant Christianity more so than latitudinarian Christianity. Militancy may sound like it gives rise to doctrinal legalism, but it’s really about an emphasis on the visible church (you know, that place we on earth still live), not the invisible (where we don’t quite yet). It’s not really as concerned about who has invisible citizenship or not as it is about maintaining the parameters of visible habitation, in order that it might be as visible as possible to pious souls on earth so that they might find an enduring dwelling place as they pilgrimage until the day faith finally becomes sight.
LikeLike
George, I haven’t seen any change in the site on my end. Maybe you need fewer cookies.
LikeLike
Darryl,
What Gabe mentioned happens to me on your site often, even when all other sites are fine.
LikeLike
mikelmann: MMc, I don’t hear anyone doubting the truth or value of the doctrine of election. Nor is anyone saying anything about avoiding the topic.
RS, same thing, and it’s beside the point that election is taught near “Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest.’”
RS: No, it is not beside the point. The doctrine or election in that previous verse tells us much about those who are weary and burdened and it also tells us at least part of how Christ works in His revealing the Father.
mikelmann: I really asked a simple question two different ways: 1) “are you suggesting that election must be a part of any gospel presentation?” and 2)”If one preaches on ‘Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest’ and never mentions election, is there no gospel? ”
And your answers appear to be that yes, election must be part of any gospel presentation. So any Sunday on which you do not preach election, you have failed to preach the gospel. That’s a lot of preaching on election.
RS: I am not convinced that your questions get at the real issue. For example, Luther said (in Bondage of the Will) that until you denounce your free-will you cannot be converted. In other words, the doctrine of election has many roots and many connections to other teachings. This is seen in the teaching of faith. If we simply teach people that they must have faith, their most natural way of understanding that is to think that they must come up with faith on their own. So justification by faith alone becomes justifiction by my working up faith and all I need is that faith. Does a person come to Christ by his own power or the power of grace? As stated previously, apart from the doctrine or election or sovereign grace having some influence in these basic teachings we are teaching (at best) a practical Arminianism whether we adhere to it in creed or not.
In getting at your last point, while one can preach the Gospel of grace alone and Christ alone without using the word “election”, I am not sure one can preach the Gospel of grace alone without teaching men that they are unable to believe and that God alone can give them a believing heart by grace alone. It is only when faith is preached as coming from grace alone that the Gospel can truly be said to be by grace alone.
LikeLike
Terry M. Gray: Perhaps here’s a place to re-introduce my question from a couple weeks ago. If we believe in JBF through Christ alone, then how “perfect” must our faith be? If that which makes us right with God is outside of us (in Christ), then would the perfect content of our faith also be something that is outside of us and in him. (Lord, I believe, help thou my unbelief!). It seems to me that we end up making orthodoxy a work unto salvation if we don’t say this.
I don’t suggest this to invite latitudinarianism any more than we invite antinomianism with a faith alone position. I also don’t mean it in a way to diminish theological precision. But it surprise me sometimes how often we seem to suggest that true faith is absent just because the correct theological formulation is missing. I’m guessing we’ll be somewhat surprised about who’s in heaven (or rather in the New Heavens and the New Earth). But if the tiniest faith results in the full merits of Christ despite our on-going sin and on-going theological error and since Christ is the one who actually merits ours salvation, I can be the chief of sinners and the chief of heretics and still be right with God (even without understanding JBF or election or the person of Christ).
Zrim: Terry, agreed. It reminds me of something Horton has said more succinctly on various occasions: we are saved by grace alone, through faith alone in Christ alone–not by our doctrine. There are wolves within, sheep without, don’t tear up wheat with tares and all that.
RS: I think Terry’s point seems to presume something that may not be totally correct, though it is a common belief. One does not believe something in the sense that one believes a fact and so one has correct theology when one believes more correct facts. Another view would have to do with what faith is and then how one comes to a more correct orthodoxy. A saving faith can only come from a new heart which is a believing heart. So knowing facts does not lead to a believing heart, but a believing heart leads to knowing more of God. A person can have correct theology in the intellectual sense, but Christ as our Prophet and Teacher must teach us these things in the inner person. In other words, the whole soul must be taught these things and only a believing heart can be taught these things.
It is Christ Himself who teaches His people and not just their intellects. He is the very life of His people and dwells in them. As eternal life is said to be to know God and His Son Jesus Christ (John 17:3) which is certainly more than just knowing about God, so theological knowledge can also be said to be more than just knowing things about God and about what He has revealed in the intellect. The soul is said to be transformed as it beholds the glory of Christ and yet it is also transformed by the renewing of our minds. This would mean that correct doctrine comes from becoming more like Christ rather than just having facts in our heads.
LikeLike
Zrim:. It reminds me of something Horton has said more succinctly on various occasions: we are saved by grace alone, through faith alone in Christ alone–not by our doctrine.
mark: I would be interested in some specific examples from Horton on this. I know he has “evolved” on this issue. Compare his essays on “Are Arminians Evangelicals?” from twenty years ago. Now that it has become clearer (to him) that evangelicals are Arminians, Horton’s questions seem to have changed somewhat. But I would still be interested in specific contexts. Was, for example, Horton talking about Joel Osteen, and thus using his doctrine of “not saved by doctrine” to make a judgment about Osteen of course being a Christian?
Yes, my friends, I have more than one thing packed in there. To focus: I certainly agree that none of us is in a position to make a judgment about who’s in the “invisible church”. I also agree with you that this is more (not less) reason to maintain the boundaries of visible congregations. Of course I would want to tighten up what you said about wheat and tares, and note that the Bible parable says the field is the world. Therefore we don’t attempt to rule over those outside gospel churches or try to change their culture, but it doesn’t mean that we don’t have confessional standards and discipline inside our visible churches. Sure, there will still be wolves within, but they need to be wolves who have outwardly professed to have believed the true gospel. I think this is what you meant when
you wrote:
Zrim: “There are wolves within, sheep without, don’t tear up wheat with tares and all that.”
mark: Of course nobody is saying that mere doctrine saves anybody. Nobody has that doctrine. Of course we all agree that it’s God who saves people. (Of course the more epistemologically self-conscious Arminians become, the more they will realize that they think that people save
themselves by keeping covenant conditions.) But my question has continually been—DOES GOD USE DOCTRINE TO SAVE PEOPLE? Or Is there such a thing as sovereign effectual call minus any gospel? When Romans 1 teaches that the gospel is the power of salvation, that doesn’t mean
that gospel doctrine alone apart from the Holy Spirit will save anybody, but neither does it mean that the Holy Spirit effectually calls apart from the gospel. And this bring us back to the question if
Mike Horton thinks that God uses the unholy lies of Joel Osteen to bring some of His people to HImself.
Except maybe for the use of the word “militant” (and yes, I understand that it’s a traditional use), I would agree when Zrim says here
Zrim: And it seems to me that this is an understanding that really is best preserved by militant Christianity more so than latitudinarian Christianity. Militancy may sound like it gives rise to doctrinal legalism, but it’s really about an emphasis on the visible church (you know, that place we on earth still live), not the invisible (where we don’t quite yet). It’s not really as concerned about who has invisible citizenship or not as it is about maintaining the parameters of visible habitation, in order that it might be as visible as possible…”
mark: Amen to that! When “flexible evangelicals” accuse us of “doctrinal legalism”, they are being judgmental, they are being legalists against doctrine, they are exempting themselves from their own rules. It’s like people who intolerantly defend tolerance. They want to exclude folks who won’t
include others! They want to say “well everybody is inconsistent” without noticing just how inconsistent their own statement about inconsistency is.
In other words, they can do contradiction and antithesis. But when you do it, they call you a “doctrinal legalist”
Richard Gaffin, “The Redemptive-Historical Response”, p183, in Biblical Hermeneutics: Five Views, IVP, 2012—-”Inspiration with its God-breathed result is not predicable of the Church’s use of Scripture or even of the process through which the church came to recognize the canon….There is no ‘canon above the canon’ in which the locus of final authority shifts from Scripture to the church in its ongoing appropriation of Scripture….The church’s creeds and confessions, including the rule of faith, while hermeneutically important, even necessary, for the church’s well being, are ‘normed norms,’ subordinate to Scripture, as they derive from Scripture.”
LikeLike
I am going to ignore any pietistic romantic distinction between “head and heart”. That distinction does not come from the Bible, but it does seem to be in a lot of people’s heads.
There certainly is a lot of inconsistency in anyone’s claim that “they just know” that some Arminians are Christians. The argument begins with the idea hat “we can’t know” and “we shouldn’t judge”, and then ends with these same people “knowing” that some Arminians are Christians. By what standard do they “know” that? What part of Arminianism is the gospel? But if, on the other hand, their claim is that some are Christians without knowing the gospel, then how they know who should be in a visible congregation? If you judge who is a Christian by morality, how would you
know that Muslims and Mormons are not also Christians?
For sure, some of us like to read and write more than other people, but we are no different from anybody else, in regard to the question of having been effectually called by the power of the gospel Either we have.or we have not, and if we want to say you have to be infallible to know anything, then nobody knows anything (including if you have to be infallible or not!)
Is the righteousness of God revealed in the gospel or is it not? The effectual call does not depend on being people like us who like to make distinctions. Are my atheist intellectual friends more self-consistent and thus more lost than my other lost friends who don’t read and write so much? The effectual call is God’s power using the gospel. Is the message that “Jesus died for you” the gospel? Is the message that “Jesus died for you, if you agree” the gospel?
“My transition to Calvinism was somewhat reluctant, but the inevitable result of reading good Reformed books. I mean, I had never even read amills or paedobaptists before, and if you do so, you also will become even as myself. It was the patience of Reformed believers who agreed
with me upfront that I too was a Christian (perhaps even one who would end up closer to the throne than them) but these mentors encouraged me to see the greater richness and deeper truths of
Reformed doctrine.”
Those friends seem rather proud to me, condescending, patrionizing. If you were already a Christian, why did they bother you with that which would make you more consistent and thus perhaps more rebellious against the truth? Especially, if they were sure you were already a Calvinist underneath but just too dumb to know it! Were they not running a risk by talking to you about doctrines other than the gospel? Wasn’t there a danger that you could become way more epistemologically self-conscious and therefore a way more consistent Arminian, so that one day perhaps you would become consistent enough to convert to Roman Catholicism.
Better that than being a “doctrinal legalist” like some of those old Calvinists were….
LikeLike
Carol Trueman: I have often mentioned my dislike of the American evangelical tendency to exalt the great conference speaker and to allow him to do the thinking; such is surely the kind of
secularization that Paul fears has invaded the church in Corinth, where crowd pleasing aesthetics trump critical thinking. The danger in the church, therefore, is not that perfectly ordinary and decent
people will construct gas chambers and usher their neighbours off to them; rather, it is the surrender of their God-given intellects to those who use the clichés, the idioms, and the buzzwords of the wider culture to herd them along a path which the leader chooses. Fear of the leader, fear of the pack, fear of not belonging, can make people do strange things.”
Trueman: …”the constant, grating references to `authenticity.’ Such `authenticity’ is, it seems, a somewhat synthetic product. It’s a crowd pleasing product which, surprise surprise, too often merely reflects the predilections of the crowd. Of course, not a few of these kind of authentocrats
quote Kierkegaard. A supreme ironist himself, SK would no doubt have appreciated the irony of the fact that claims to authenticity are always in this present age sure signs that one is dealing with a phony. And yes, before anyone shouts `Physician, heal thyself!’ he would probably also have been amused, in a horrified sort of way, by the irony of appearing on a mug, a commodity for the mass consumer market.”
“Of course, the peddlers of mass produced authenticity are soft targets. But the Reformed world has its dark suits, its hall of fame, and its clichéd patois of pieties as well. We may talk about truth rather than authenticity – and rightly so – but when belief in that truth becomes merely a function of being part of the crowd, then we too have failed to be truthful individuals.”
LikeLike
Doctrines as Reasons for Joy
there’s this person who did a work
and before you know if that work was for you,
you must know and agree with the doctrine
of what He did
if you don’t know what the person did,
you know neither the person
nor if that person
did anything for you
commitment to the imperative
to know the person cannot come
before we know the indicative
of what he got done
since we are children of Abraham
remember that Abraham knew what the seed had to do
Abraham knew that he himself was not going
to bring in the righteousness
one result of election
is submission to the doctrine of righteousness
obtained by Christ for the elect alone
and then imputed by God
the test of the exodus out of the false gospel
is not our testimony that
“we know the person”
the same one the crowd knows
we are not called to a tragic imperative
“to know the person” without knowing which person
the sheep don’t follow the wrong
person taught in the wrong doctrine
i still want to know,
how did a nice man like Jesus
get himself killed
if it was not the offense of his doctrine?
yes, it’s fact He died
but there are many possible options
to explain that fact,
and these doctrines divide
they hated His doctrine
so much they wanted Him dead
but that was a long time ago
and now the person is in all our hearts
and now there is so much more immorality
let’s worry about that
and not be so anxious about
Him being king of our doctrine
you say you merely gather
around a person
you give reasons
why your doctrines are not doctrines
and you thank your god you are not
like those doctrine persons
with great reasons
Jesus the person
faced the Father’s silence
with great tears
for this I was born
it’s the reason I came
to satisfy Our demand
for righteousness
that death because of
Christ’s doctrine
that there will be no justifying
which is not just
we have reasons for our joy
and these doctrines cause us to
judge by the gospel
Christ and Him crucified
LikeLike
mark mcculley: I am going to ignore any pietistic romantic distinction between “head and heart”. That distinction does not come from the Bible, but it does seem to be in a lot of people’s heads.
RS: Without knowing for sure what you mean, and for sure I am not speaking of a romantic distinction between the head and the heart, there is a biblical distinction between the two. Of course it may not use that specific language, but there is a distinction. So I am arguing for a distinction, but not one that is a romantic notion. While there is a sense in which the distinction between head and heart is not the most accurate way to put it, yet it does express a distinction between knowing some facts in the intellectual part and the whole soul embracing the truth with all aspects of the soul.
James 2:18 But someone may well say, “You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works.”
RS: If one thinks of faith without works as a belief of some sort in some facts, that is an intellectual belief of sorts without the change of heart (regeneration).
John 2: 23 Now when He was in Jerusalem at the Passover, during the feast, many believed in His name, observing His signs which He was doing. 24 But Jesus, on His part, was not entrusting Himself to them, for He knew all men, 25 and because He did not need anyone to testify concerning man, for He Himself knew what was in man.
3:1 Now there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews;
2 this man came to Jesus by night and said to Him, “Rabbi, we know that You have come from God as a teacher; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him.”
3 Jesus answered and said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
RS: In John 2 you have people who had a belief about Jesus (so this is an intellectual knowledge based on seeing some miracles) but they were not converted (regenerate). So they did believe in some way, but they did not believe with their whole being. Nicodemus was most likely one of those people who believed after seeing the miracles since that is what he spoke of to Jesus in John 3. But Jesus told him that he needed to be born from above (again).
In the parables of the soil or of the sower we see people who believed in some way, yet they had no depth to their belief. Evidently there are those that have some shallow beliefs that they will eventually leave while others have deeper beliefs (one that controls the whole soul). So there is some sort of distinction between having and intellectual grasp of something and that of having the truth grasp the whole soul. Indeed there may be a better way to put it than the head and heart way since there is a romantic notion tied to that, but so far I have not really heard of a better way with some qualifications.
Mat 13:3 And He spoke many things to them in parables, saying, “Behold, the sower went out to sow;
4 and as he sowed, some seeds fell beside the road, and the birds came and ate them up.
5 “Others fell on the rocky places, where they did not have much soil; and immediately they sprang up, because they had no depth of soil.
LikeLike
Mark Mcculley: Yes, my friends, I have more than one thing packed in there. To focus: I certainly agree that none of us is in a position to make a judgment about who’s in the “invisible church”. I also agree with you that this is more (not less) reason to maintain the boundaries of visible congregations. Of course I would want to tighten up what you said about wheat and tares, and note that the Bible parable says the field is the world. Therefore we don’t attempt to rule over those outside gospel churches or try to change their culture, but it doesn’t mean that we don’t have confessional standards and discipline inside our visible churches. Zrim: “There are wolves within, sheep without, don’t tear up wheat with tares and all that.”
RS: This is a good observation. Many men want to apply the principle of the wheat and tares to the visible -invisible distinction in order to support things about a local church, but Jesus interpreted this for us. When Jesus says that the field is the world, that does not leave us an out to interpret it in any other way and apply it to the church.
mark: Of course nobody is saying that mere doctrine saves anybody. Nobody has that doctrine. Of course we all agree that it’s God who saves people. (Of course the more epistemologically self-conscious Arminians become, the more they will realize that they think that people save
themselves by keeping covenant conditions.) But my question has continually been—DOES GOD USE DOCTRINE TO SAVE PEOPLE? Or Is there such a thing as sovereign effectual call minus any gospel? When Romans 1 teaches that the gospel is the power of salvation, that doesn’t mean
that gospel doctrine alone apart from the Holy Spirit will save anybody, but neither does it mean that the Holy Spirit effectually calls apart from the gospel. And this bring us back to the question if
Mike Horton thinks that God uses the unholy lies of Joel Osteen to bring some of His people to HImself.
RS: The verses below show a tie with truth and Gospel. I am not sure why truth is important unless it is important to know the distinction between a false god and a true God and between a false gospel and a true Gospel. Paul wanted the truth of the Gospel to remain with the people in Galatia as opposed to a gospel of some sort that was watered down and mixed with various things. As he says in Ephesians 1:13, it is when people hear the message of truthm the gospel of their salvation that they were saved. Colossians 1:5 also speaks of the Gospel as “the word of truth” while James speaks of God bringing souls forth (regeneration) “by the word of truth.” Thanks, McMark, for standing strong on the point that the Gospel is about the truth and He who is Truth. Once we try to water down truth regarding the Gospel, we have effectively tried to water down Him who is Truth. The Gospel is the Gospel of Jesus Christ as well. We cannot water down one without watering down the other. If all true grace is sovereign because all grace that comes from God must be sovereign because He is sovereign, then to water down grace in the Gospel is done with the Christ of the Gospel of well.
Galatians 2:5 But we did not yield in subjection to them for even an hour, so that the truth of the gospel would remain with you. 14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, “If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?
Ephesians 1:13 In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation– having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise,
Colossians 1:5 because of the hope laid up for you in heaven, of which you previously heard in the word of truth, the gospel
2 Thessalonians 2:13 But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth.
James 1:18 In the exercise of His will He brought us forth by the word of truth, so that we would be a kind of first fruits among His creatures.
LikeLike
Zrim: It’s not really as concerned about who has invisible citizenship or not as it is about maintaining the parameters of visible habitation, in order that it might be as visible as possible to pious souls on earth so that they might find an enduring dwelling place as they pilgrimage until the day faith finally becomes sight.
Well done.
LikeLike
Richard, I don’t think I’m thinking as you suggest. Let me put it simply. Can an Arminian be saved? Or a Roman Catholic? Or a Mormon? Does their erroneous comprehension of the gospel mean that they haven’t apprehended the hem of Jesus’s garment that results in the full imputation of all his benefits? Does someone who doesn’t know about election or even denies election receive Christ’s imputed view of election and so are orthodox by faith? What degree of doctrinal error disqualifies us from Christ’s imputed righteousness and orthodoxy?
LikeLike
Terry M. Gray: Richard, I don’t think I’m thinking as you suggest. Let me put it simply. Can an Arminian be saved? Or a Roman Catholic? Or a Mormon? Does their erroneous comprehension of the gospel mean that they haven’t apprehended the hem of Jesus’s garment that results in the full imputation of all his benefits? Does someone who doesn’t know about election or even denies election receive Christ’s imputed view of election and so are orthodox by faith? What degree of doctrinal error disqualifies us from Christ’s imputed righteousness and orthodoxy?
RS: Okay, let me try to put this in a different way. The content of our belief reflects our heart rather than the content of our creed (intellectual belief) determines what we believe. The Gospel of Jesus Christ not only saves a sinner from hell, but by the truth and the application of that truth in the soul King Jesus makes the soul like Himself and so the person believes truth. Let us assume, then, that a person’s real belief comes from the deepest parts of the soul as well as the thoughts of the mind. Let us assume for the moment that truth is what pervades the whole soul (all its faculties) and is what the whole soul embraces. Let me give the same verses that I listed earlier in a discussion with McMark.
Galatians 2:5 But we did not yield in subjection to them for even an hour, so that the truth of the gospel would remain with you. 14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, “If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?
RS: There is such a thing as the truth of the Gospel.
Ephesians 1:13 In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation– having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise,
RS: People are saved after listening to the message of truth which is the Gospel.
Colossians 1:5 because of the hope laid up for you in heaven, of which you previously heard in the word of truth, the gospel
RS: The Gospel and the Word of truth are the same thing.
2 Thessalonians 2:13 But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth.
RS: God chooses to save sinners through faith in the truth.
James 1:18 In the exercise of His will He brought us forth by the word of truth, so that we would be a kind of first fruits among His creatures.
RS: God regenerates sinners by the word of truth.
Terry Gray (repeated) Let me put it simply. Can an Arminian be saved? Or a Roman Catholic? Or a Mormon?
RS: Can a person be saved by grace alone and Christ alone if the person wants to insert his own works and self-will into the Gospel? Can a person be saved by Christ alone if that person denies the true Christ? Again, eternal life is to know God. Can a person know God and His Son Jesus Christ and have Christ in his or her heart if that person denies the basic truth of who Christ is or the basic truth of what Christ has done? I do not argue against the fact that it is possible for some who profess to be Arminians to be saved, but I am not convinced that you can really believe what Arminian teaching is and be saved. Some who profess Arminianism are not Arminians.
Terry Gray: Does their erroneous comprehension of the gospel mean that they haven’t apprehended the hem of Jesus’s garment that results in the full imputation of all his benefits?
RS: But if Christ knows a person and that person knows Christ, don’t they know the Gospel?
Terry Gray: Does someone who doesn’t know about election or even denies election receive Christ’s imputed view of election and so are orthodox by faith?
RS: But if faith is what receives grace/Christ (Rom 4:16), then what is the sign that a person has received grace/Christ? Wouldn’t it be true beliefs of the true Christ and true beliefs about the Gospel? Does Christ save us from doctrinal error as well? Just to note that this does not mean perfection, but if we have Christ He is working the truth in us.
Terry Gray: What degree of doctrinal error disqualifies us from Christ’s imputed righteousness and orthodoxy?
RS: We know that John teaches us that if a person does not bring the truth about Christ we are not to have that person in our house to eat (II John 10, see verses below). Does Christ save a person from their own errors and self-centered teaching by giving them the Spirit who is to guide them into the truth or not (John 16:13-14, see below). Can a person really trust in Christ at all if they don’t trust in Him and His imputed righteousness? Does a person trust in Christ and then receive the imputed righteousness or does a person have the imputed righteousness and then believes it? Can the soul have Christ and His imputed righteousness and yet not fully rely on that imputed righteousness? Does one have Christ if s/he does not?
Referring back to the verses listed above, it is through the truth that a soul is regenerated and the Gospel is a message of truth. So if a person does not believe the truth, can that person then believe the Gospel? This is not to say that a person has to be perfect in his or her theology, but if the imputed righteousness is a non-negotiable of the Gospel then one must believe it or one does not have it. People who deny the doctrine of election must of necessity then believe that they elect themselves and so their salvation depends on their own free-will. In that regard they are trusting themselves rather than grace alone. In that case they do believe that their running and their choosing is what effects the Gospel rather than the choice of God. It is a dangerous denial at best.
II John 9 Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son. 10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting; 11 for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deeds.”
John 16:13 “But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. 14 “He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you.
LikeLike
I’ve been having trouble connecting this weekend, too.
Does the pope encourage this kind of behavior?
LikeLike
Richard, weak faith brings Christ’s riches. You don’t have to believe in imputed righteousness to receive it.
As to Christ leading us into truth. Why hasn’t Christ taught you the truth of infant baptism? (Or why hasn’t he taught me that it’s an error?)
And some people are slow learners. And others have the truth a scripture and the Spirit’s teaching impeded by bad teachers. Others are converted late in life–the Holy Spirit doesn’t have time to lead them into all the truth.
Again I want the church’s confession to be full-orbed and as precise as scripture itself is. But what I’m hearing from the strongest advocates of imputed righteousness seems like a denial that there is true faith unless it meets certain tests of orthodoxy (belief in imputed righteous, being a 5 point Calvinist, believing in election, etc.). This seems inconsistent to me.
LikeLike
I think focusing on the quality of faith complicates and confuses. All I was asking about was the object of faith. What is the gospel?
Terry, faith in Christ is not imputed. The righteousness of Christ is imputed. The object of faith is imputed by God. Of course there is debate about the “faith of Christ”, and that’s an important discusson. Not all with the “new perspective” read “faith of Christ” as being the faithfulness of Christ. Dunn does not. And some who are not “new perspective” also say that “faith of Christ” is faithfulness, not faith in the gospel. We can discuss the seven or eight texts in the debate if you want to.
But for now, let me say that if you deny those texts teach ‘faith in Christ”, what Bible texts are left which teach the need for sinners to believe the gospel? How do you avoid universalism? No Bible text clearly says that “Christ believed the gospel”. As Machen so clearly said, Christ is not a Christian. But even if you could find a text which said that Christ believed the gospel, no Bible text says that Christ’s faith is imputed to anybody. The merit of Christ’s work (His obedience even unto death) is what God imputes to the elect. And faith in the gospel is the logical result of that imputation (no matter what we say about the timing in the order of salvation).
As much as I agree with John Owen against the idea of double jeopardy, I think we need to be careful about how we use Owen’s trilemma about all the sins of all people, or all the sins of some people (the third alternative of course being some of the sins of some people).
The cross-work (the righteousness) of Christ not only legally guarantees that the elect will be justification (even before they are justified) but also legally guarantees that the elect to conversion.
To be imputed with Christ’s righteousness does not mean that you then go on being a Muslim because Christ believed the gospel for you.
What does the legal application of Christ’s work mean? First, it means that God imputes that work (not only the reward, but the righteousness) to the elect. Before the cross, God imputed Christ’s work to some of the elect. After the cross, God imputes Christ’s work to the rest of the elect, one by one, as God justifies them.
So there is a difference between Christ’s work and the imputation of Christ’s work. There is a difference between the federal union of all the elect in Christ before the beginning of the world and the legal union of the elect with Christ when they are justified.
Second, the application (purchased by Christ for the elect, and thus now their inheritance) includes the conversion which is one of the gifts purchased by Christ.. Galatians 3:13-14: “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of
Abraham would come…so that we would receive the promised Spirit through faith.” Romans 8:10 — “the Spirit is life because of righteousness.”
This life the Holy Spirit gives by means of the gospel, so that the elect understand and believe the gospel. Because the elect are now in Christ (not only by God’s election but by God’s imputation), Christ then indwells the elect by the Holy Spirit.
II Peter 1:1 addresses “those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ.” The reason we need to be careful about John Owen’s trilemma is that Christ did not die to forgive any elect person of the final sin of unbelief of the gospel. Christ died to give every elect person faith in the gospel and conversion. There can be no faith in the gospel without knowledge of the gospel. Ignorance of the gospel goes along with unbelief of the gospel.
Of course Christians do disbelieve even in their faith, and Christ died for all the sins of all Christians including sins of doubt and unbelief after they are converted. But no elect person dies unconverted, because Christ died to give them the new birth and the conversion which follows.
I am not saying that John Owen did not know this. I am only saying that the trilemma (as it is often used by Cavinists) does not take into account the time between Christ’s work and the application and imputation of Christ’s work. Faith is not imputed, but faith in the gospel is a result of Christ’s righteousness imputed. Christ did not need to die for final disbelief by the elect because Christ died instead that the elect will not finally disbelieve the gospel. His sheep will know their Shepherd.
LikeLike
Terry M. Gray: Richard, weak faith brings Christ’s riches. You don’t have to believe in imputed righteousness to receive it.
RS: Indeed weak faith brings the riches of Christ, but I am not sure why you think that one does not believe in the imputed righteousness of Christ to receive it. Of course one may not have to state it that way, but how can one believe in grace alone if one is still working for righteousness? Either Christ earned a perfect righteousness and it is given to sinners or sinners have to work for it. He is the only righteousness acceptable to God. It appears to me that sinners have to trust in Christ alone for righteousness (whether they understand words about imputation or not) and give up all hope of obtaining any righteousness themselves.
Terry Gray: As to Christ leading us into truth. Why hasn’t Christ taught you the truth of infant baptism? (Or why hasn’t he taught me that it’s an error?)
RS: I am trying to refrain (from humor, at least to me) to some degree on these questions. But let us just say that baptism is not an issue of the Gospel unless it is one of the views that transgresses into the territory of the Gospel.
Terry Gray: And some people are slow learners.
RS: No need to get so personal here.
Terry Gray: And others have the truth a scripture and the Spirit’s teaching impeded by bad teachers. Others are converted late in life–the Holy Spirit doesn’t have time to lead them into all the truth.
RS: The issue I am arguing for, or at least trying to, I think, has to do with the Gospel and understanding the Gospel. I am not arguing that all have to arrive close to doctrinal perfection as covenantal Baptists who love Jonathan Edwards have in order to be saved. I think that I am arguing that there is more of the Gospel that needs to be preached to people. You argue for less information about the Gospel and I argue for a more and deeper teaching of the Gospel. If you go for less information, then you end up with a more difficult time trying to discern who is saved and who is having growing pains. But the real question we are dancing around (so to speak) may just have to do with how much we need to preach to people in order to preach the Gospel.
Terry Gray: Again I want the church’s confession to be full-orbed and as precise as scripture itself is. But what I’m hearing from the strongest advocates of imputed righteousness seems like a denial that there is true faith unless it meets certain tests of orthodoxy (belief in imputed righteous, being a 5 point Calvinist, believing in election, etc.). This seems inconsistent to me.
RS: Allow me to ask a question that may appear rude on the surface, though I don’t intend it that way. The five points of Calvinism are all soteriological points (which can at least encompass imputed righteousness) and fit in with the five solas of the Reformation. Okay, the rude question. What is it about what I/we are saying that is inconsistent with the Gospel? If we think of the Gospel as the Person and works of Christ, perhaps so. But if we are thinking of the Gospel in terms of the condition it finds sinners and then how sinners come to Christ and on what basis the believe in Christ (in other words, grace from beginning to end and from the womb to the tomb spiritually speaking), then I am having a hard time seeing that it is not consistent.
The Gospel finds sinners dead in sins and trespasses and by nature children of wrath (total depravity and total inability). The Gospel tells people that it is not up to them but God must save them by grace alone (unconditional election, that is, no conditions that they can meet in and of themselves, but they must look to grace alone for all that is needed to be saved). They cannot pay for one sin and as such the sacrifice of Christ is full and complete for all those He died for (limited atonement). The grace needed to save them must regenerate them, draw them, and give them a believing heart (irresistible grace). The grace that saves is the grace that works in them to persevere to the end looking to grace alone (perseverance). Those who persevere in grace can only rest in the finished work of Christ in all aspects and all ways and at all times (includes work on the cross and imputed righteousness). So I guess I have a hard time separating the Gospel from the five points since for the Gospel to be good news it must effectually reach dead sinners and bring them to life and keep them that way and be grace to grace.
LikeLike
Terry wrote “weak faith brings Christ’s riches. You don’t have to believe in imputed righteousness to receive it. As to Christ leading us into truth. Why hasn’t Christ taught you the truth of infant baptism? (Or why hasn’t he taught me that it’s an error?)
mark: Faith does not bring anything. Christ earned the righteousness. God imputes the righteousness. Our faith is not Christ’s righteousness. If we have faith in Christ’s righteousness, that is a logical result of imputation. That faith was purchased for us by Christ and then given to us by the Spirit. That faith is not “imputed” to us. And of course if we still believe in a false gospel, then our faith is not a gift of the Holy Spirit.
Terry writes: “You don’t have to believe in imputed righteousness to receive it.” This is his doctrine, his judgment. He simply states it as an axiom, without arguments. If he were to argue it, would Terry say “you don’t have to believe in anything” to receive the imputed righteousness? Or would he tell us what the gospel is, the one which does not reveal the righteousness?
But Terry’s question is not the question I have raised. My question is this—do people who have received the imputed righteousness then as a result believe in that imputed righteousness? This is a different question, and one which he seems to also answer in the negative, but without ever stating the question clearly.
To think clearly about such a question would be to make a distinction between receiving by God’s imputation (Romans 5:11, 17) and receiving by faith. (John 1:12-13) I certainly am not saying that our faith in anything is a “condition” of anything. I am saying that it’s a result. If you want to deny that, let’s be clear about what it is you deny. Do you deny that righteousness imputed has any results? For example, do you think maybe somebody somewhere who never heard the name of Christ has nevertheless been imputed with Christ’s righteousness?
And then Terry asks something he thinks is decisive: “Why hasn’t Christ taught you the truth of infant baptism?”
mark: Of course I have already discussed “non-gospel” questions, and I will copy an earlier comment of mine which speaks to the question. My complaint is not that Terry has not been reading my posts (although surely they would do him a great deal of good). My complaint is that Terry is deliberately caricaturing a position that Terry knows we don’t have. Nobody here is saying that one’s view of water baptism (or eschatology, or congregationalism etc) is the gospel. If somebody here was saying that their view of water baptism was the gospel, then I would tell you that they have a false gospel (whatever that view might be!).
(I do remember that Ted made some unwise “slippery slope” argument about view of baptism and gospel. Even though he didn’t equate the two, I at the time disavowed his “conspiracy theory”. There are too many credobaptists who condition salvation on the sinner for any credobaptist to throw stones in this area.)
So why does Terry caricature in this way? Is he saying that we have to know everything to know something? Is he saying we know nothing if we don’t know everything? Is he saying that we have no assurance about what the gospel is unless that assurance in perfect and infallible? Or is Terry not saying anything, and not reading our answers, but just throwing out more questions?
my comment, Sept 7, 11:47
If we were effectually called by a gospel which denies election, why bother with election? Is election the “cherry on the top of our Reformed sundae”?
The Bible is a big book, and not everything in the Bible is “gospel”. For example, why do we who were effectually called by the true gospel bother talking about ecclesiology and eschatology? Not because we think those questions are gospel. Of course we who believe the same gospel disagree about many things and have much to learn, but we do not disagree about the gospel if we believe the same gospel. We do not “grow” from error into the truth, so that we can be justified while
still believing what Mormons teach about Gethsemane. Rather, we pass from death to life. Christ’s
love for the elect means that they all will be taught the gospel and then grow in knowledge..
LikeLike
(Jeff, thanks.)
Richard, I don’t feel like going eighty-four rounds, but I have to say that yours is a pretty good example of what an emphasis on the invisible church looks like, as opposed to a confessionalist emphasis on the visible church. Ever since I posted Muller’s piece, you’ve pushed back by maintaining that confessionalists often come across as overestimating the confessions as virtually inerrant (I still think it’s a strawman). But here we see how the alternative, an emphasis on the invisible, comes across as a turning up of inward stones, which seems not too unlike divining the providence of God (something Belgic 13 warns against, by the way). That it is coming from an advocate of semi-revivalism isn’t too surprising, since revivalism of whatever variety is a de-emphasis on the visible church.
LikeLike
RS: So I guess I have a hard time separating the Gospel from the five points since for the Gospel to be good news it must effectually reach dead sinners and bring them to life and keep them that way and be grace to grace.
I hear that. But again, people are not consistent. Consider an Amyrauldian, someone who believes that people are totally depraved, God elects some before the foundation of the world, God effectually calls those dead in their sins, and God causes those whom he calls to persevere. Oh, and Christ died for all men.
Is this consistent? No. Is it compatible with believing in Christ alone for salvation? I’m pretty sure it is.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, I don’t feel like going eighty-four rounds,
RS: Okay, I will settle for eighty-three.
Zrim: but I have to say that yours is a pretty good example of what an emphasis on the invisible church looks like, as opposed to a confessionalist emphasis on the visible church.
RS: Thank you.
Zrim: Ever since I posted Muller’s piece, you’ve pushed back by maintaining that confessionalists often come across as overestimating the confessions as virtually inerrant (I still think it’s a strawman).
RS: Accuracy is important when attributing statements or beliefs to others. I think I said that some confessionalists have the appearance of viewing confessions as authoritative and infallible and virtually inerrant. I am not sure how that can be a strawman when I am simply observing appearances.
Zrim: But here we see how the alternative, an emphasis on the invisible, comes across as a turning up of inward stones, which seems not too unlike divining the providence of God (something Belgic 13 warns against, by the way).
RS: I suppose you can put it that way if you wish, but surely you are not insisting that the spiritual realm is unimportant. I would think that Paul’s teaching that we are to walk by faith and not by sight and then the teaching of Hebrews 11 that Moses acted and endured ” as seeing Him who is unseen.” Then, let us not forget II Cor 4:18, which says, ” while we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen; for the things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal.”
I think, in light of the verses above, that we must focus on the unseen or invisible if we are going to live in light of eternal things and if we are going to walk by faith rather than sight.
Zrim: That it is coming from an advocate of semi-revivalism isn’t too surprising, since revivalism of whatever variety is a de-emphasis on the visible church.
RS: I think you are dead wrong on that one. The true teaching on true revival stresses the true Church. Maybe that is an unseen teaching as well.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle quoting RS: So I guess I have a hard time separating the Gospel from the five points since for the Gospel to be good news it must effectually reach dead sinners and bring them to life and keep them that way and be grace to grace.
Jeff Cagle: I hear that. But again, people are not consistent. Consider an Amyrauldian, someone who believes that people are totally depraved, God elects some before the foundation of the world, God effectually calls those dead in their sins, and God causes those whom he calls to persevere. Oh, and Christ died for all men.
RS: Well, I am not sure that a person can truly hold all those things at once. They are so inconsistent that I find it hard to believe that a person truly believes all of those things in reality rather than having a misunderstanding of something at some point.
Jeff Cagle: Is this consistent? No. Is it compatible with believing in Christ alone for salvation? I’m pretty sure it is.
RS: I am not sure that it is. If I believed that God loves all men alike and that Christ died for all men alike, then whatever I am believing it would not be a true resting in Christ alone. Notice, you are pretty sure it is and I am not sure that it is. Surely that says something.
LikeLike
Mark Mcculley (referring to Terry Gray’s Comments below): So why does Terry caricature in this way? Is he saying that we have to know everything to know something? Is he saying we know nothing if we don’t know everything? Is he saying that we have no assurance about what the gospel is unless that assurance in perfect and infallible? Or is Terry not saying anything, and not reading our answers, but just throwing out more questions?
Terry M. Gray’s asked a question a few weeks ago. It was a provoking question that I gave a lot of thought to, but it was not really talked about. Terry Gray: Perhaps here’s a place to re-introduce my question from a couple weeks ago. If we believe in JBF through Christ alone, then how “perfect” must our faith be? If that which makes us right with God is outside of us (in Christ), then would the perfect content of our faith also be something that is outside of us and in him. (Lord, I believe, help thou my unbelief!). It seems to me that we end up making orthodoxy a work unto salvation if we don’t say this.
RS: In part of my answer to Terry I quoted this: John 16:13 “But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come.”
Terry Gray’s response to that: As to Christ leading us into truth. Why hasn’t Christ taught you the truth of infant baptism? (Or why hasn’t he taught me that it’s an error?)
RS: Mark, I think Terry is focusing on his question from a couple of weeks ago. His statement (just above) was a direct response to a post of mine. If you are looking at his statements as a direct response to you, then it might appear to be a caricature. Since the two things are related and under the same thread, I think there is some confusion. Being a paedobaptist and adressing me as a covenant Baptist or a credo-Baptist, he is asking why the Spirit has not shown both of us the truth since the promise is that the Spirit will lead His people into all the truth. Anyway, just thought I would stick my nose in and avoid some talking past each other. I find the questions of both of you very important and worthy of a lot of discussion.
Terrry’s question is listed above. Mark’s question is this: “My question is this—do people who have received the imputed righteousness then as a result believe in that imputed righteousness?”
LikeLike
Zrim, I am neither a revivalist nor a pietist. I agree with your important distinction between the boundaries of visible churches and making judgments about who’s in and out of the invisible church.
All we can go by is people’s profession of faith.
Does this mean that I am not thinking like all credobaptists are supposed to think?
I know already that I am not the kind of pacifist people want their pacifists to be.
LikeLike
Zrim,
while commenting on the difference between members of confessing churches as opposed to evangelical churches, you wrote:
“but to say that the emphasis is placed on actually confessing and practicing what the church confesses and practices. ”
OK, maybe theoretically, but in the real world of life in confessing churches, not so much. A friend of mine serves on staff (worship director) in a confessional church – large PCA church in the Ligon Duncan variety – he’s a dispy as me (Pre-trib rapture of the church, 1000 year reign of Christ on earth in Jerusalem), would never have his 3 little children sprinkled, etc.
For a confessional church to be consistent they would need to remove him from their church – he doesn’t confess the WCF – and it should do the same for anyone who doesn’t confess any part of the WCF – say someone who becomes post-mil or pre-mil.
So in fact a confessional church want people to be their own personal exegetes so long as they end up in the “right place” or for most, “just accept what we say” because we’ve been around a long time. It’s that last part that makes folks vulnerable to the RCC.
Having the elders agree to a “What We Teach” statement, with members agreeing to be taught, and not for none to “teach against” allows the freedom to disagree with freedom for disagreement in areas that aren’t critical to the life of the church (salvation by grace alone through faith alone). We have folks who come from all places in our church for a whole variety of reasons – as you likely do too – but we don’t hold our “What We Teach” statement “over their faith” in the way that both ‘Statement of Faith’ and ‘Confessional’ Churches do.
I doubt it makes much difference in the day-to-life of things, but it does allow us all the freedom to change when Scripture becomes more clear to us without changing churches.
LikeLike
Jeff: But again, people are not consistent. Consider an Amyrauldian, someone who believes that people are totally depraved, God elects some before the foundation of the world, God effectually calls those dead in their sins, and God causes those whom he calls to persevere. Oh, and Christ died for all men. Is this consistent? No. Is it compatible with believing in Christ alone for salvation? I’m pretty sure it is.
mark: Thinking back to Hart’s essay which began this thread and his distinction between old Calvinists and new Calvinists, I am beginning to wonder if we need a third category of “inbetween Calvinists”, those Calvinists who don’t talk about the antithesis, those Calvinists who only talk about “degrees of consistency”.
My point here is not a historical investigation of which old Calvinists said what about 4 pointers.
I am not all that interested in figuring out which old Calvinists did “the antithesis” and which ones denied that Amyrauldianism was heresy. My interest in how these “inbetween Calvinists” can be “pretty sure” that themselves are being consistent when they assure us that people who teach that Christ died for everyone are nevertheless teaching the gospel.
1. if Christ is made sin before our sins are imputed to Him, then with what sin is Christ made sin?
2. if Christ is already made sin before our sins are imputed to him, then what’s the point of God then later imputing to Christ the sins of the elect?
3. Does God ever impute the sins of the elect to Christ?
John Piper (Taste and See) disagrees with Arminians for not teaching that Christ died to purchase faith for the elect. But John Piper does not disagree with Arminians about propitiation and substitution and punishment. “If you believe, the death of Jesus will cover your sins.”
Piper’s gospel does not teach that Christ was already punished because of the imputed sins of the elect alone. It still only has a punishment in general, to be assigned later to those who believe.
Even though Piper does insist that Christ also died for the elect to give them something extra that He will not be giving the non-elect, he fails to ever teach that Christ was punished specifically for the imputed sins of the elect.
When Piper leaves that out (does he ever get to that truth even after with post-conversion folks in conferences they paid to get into?), his gospel will be heard as saying that there was enough punishment done to Christ to save even people who will nevertheless end up with the second death.
The Amyrauldian message makes the important taking away of sins to be something other than the punishment of Christ. It insists that Christ was punished for everybody. The Amyrauldian message makes the real reconciliation to be the Spirit Christ purchased giving people a new nature and then faith to believe, even if they then happen to believe a message that says Christ died for every sinner.
If we jump ahead to that Christ has bought for “believers” (Mormon believers, Roman Catholic believers, unitarian believers, Muslim believers, what degree of heresy leaves you less than pretty sure?), even including their believing, without telling it straight about the punishment of Christ specifically for the sins of the elect, then we can easily tolerate a “gospel” which has no election .
“Inbetween Calvinists” relegate the idea of election to a family secret which only explains how you believed (not what you believed). Since I became a Mormon, I stopped doing drugs and that proves that I really believe it, and now I am finding out that God elected me to believe it and the Holy Spirit effectually called me by the somewhat inconsistent truths found in Mormonism. And the Holy Spirit will keep me persevering in Mormonism. Perhaps in time I will become a less consistent Mormon, but I would go very very slow on telling me anything about election or the imputation of the sins of the elect to Christ, because that kind of talk might just make me a more consistent Mormon. And I can tell you right now that if you don’t agree with me that I am already a Christian, your talk about election is not going to be viewed by me as being gracious or about grace.
But we were not talking about Mormonism but about Amyrauldianism. If the death of Christ is not a result of God’s imputation of specific sins, then it is not the death of Christ which saves sinners. If the atonement is Christ purchasing faith to give elect sinners so that a general punishment will then be effective for them, then the punishment of Christ is not ultimately what takes sins away.
LikeLike
Ted –
“A friend of mine serves on staff (worship director) in a confessional church – large PCA church in the Ligon Duncan variety – he’s a dispy as me (Pre-trib rapture of the church, 1000 year reign of Christ on earth in Jerusalem), would never have his 3 little children sprinkled, etc.
For a confessional church to be consistent they would need to remove him from their church – he doesn’t confess the WCF”
I would have expected you to use a difficult, hand-wringing scenario to make your argument. No hand-wringing here. A pseudo-confessionalist serving in a pseudo-office should never have been brought on board in the first place. And, if he must perpetuate the pseudo-office of “worship leader,” he should do it in a church consistent with his beliefs. But it seems that for both sides pragmatism has prevailed over principle.
LikeLike
Consider an Amyrauldian, someone who believes that people are totally depraved, God elects some before the foundation of the world, God effectually calls those dead in their sins, and God causes those whom he calls to persevere. Oh, and Christ died for all men. Is this consistent? No.
Jeff BTW good example. As an aside I think I can make it consistent, consistent you just have God and Christ not share a single will. Something like Arianism solves the problem instantly. That being said, I don’t know of anyone who holds or held that cluster of beliefs.
LikeLike
Richard, it’s hardly clear that walking by faith instead of by sight means we are to be trying to determine the eternal status of those with imprecise theology. In fact, making such determinations seems to be more in line with trying to see things not meant for our eyes.
LikeLike
Mark, no, it just means that as a credo-baptist you’re not thinking the way paedobaptists do.
LikeLike
Ted, what MM said. Your friend’s situation is a good example, at least to me, of the evangelical influence on confessional churches. Maybe some PCAs could learn something from a Baptist church that takes its sacramentology seriously enough not to extend membership to paedobaptists (to say nothing of a teaching office). So just because some confessional churches don’t behave confessionally doesn’t really diminish my point that confessionalism esteems obedience before (albeit not the exclusion of) understanding. Plenty of Catholics thumb their noses at the Pope, but that doesn’t diminish the fact that Catholicism is about papal authority. All any of it means is that there is a widespread loss of particular identity in doctrine and practice.
LikeLike
Zrim: Mark, no, it just means that as a credo-baptist you’re not thinking the way paedobaptists do.
Mark: for sure. But can we also agree that not all credobaptists think the same way? As in, once I met this credobaptist who kept talking about what was in his “soul” and the quality of his faith, so when I hear you talking about the object of faith and “boundaries of a confessional church”, you are not sounding like that credobaptist I once met, therefore you must not be a credobaptist….
I am not saying (only) not to confuse me with RS. I am saying–let’s not assume that all confessional paedobaptists are thinking alike either.
We can agree about confessional boundaries, without agreeing about what the confessions say. My problem is that I agree a lot more with the WCF about atonement, justification and election than do most PCA pastors….
And no I didn’t say “your problem”. So why is it any concern of mine what they say?
It must be the way my mother raised me? No, I think it’s when I read– “the way paedobaptists think”. I would not be so sure that other paedobaptists think they way you think. I mean that as a compliment, Zrim.
For sure, I agree with Hart that the new paedobaptists (the one who coalition with the new Calvinists) are not the same as the old Reformed guys. Call it historical “development of doctrine” if you like, but I don’t think it’s progress. Back to the old.
Machen, What is Faith, p43— “the last thing in the world that we desire to do is to discourage originality or independence of mind….What we do insist upon is that the right to originality has to be
earned, and that it cannot be earned by ignorance or by indolence. A man cannot be original in his treatment of a subject unless he knows what the subject is; true originality is preceded by patient attention to the facts.”
D. G. Hart, “Systematic Theology at Old Princeton Seminary: Unoriginal Calvinism,” in The Pattern of Sound Doctrine: Systematic Theology at the Westminster Seminaries, ed., David VanDrunen
(Philipsburg: P & R, 2004), p. 3. 20
LikeLike
Mark, fair enough. Embrace PB and ease up on some of the pacifism and maybe I will have built my first perfect Presbyterian.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, it’s hardly clear that walking by faith instead of by sight means we are to be trying to determine the eternal status of those with imprecise theology. In fact, making such determinations seems to be more in line with trying to see things not meant for our eyes.
RS: Okay, but here is your first response (most of it anyway). Zrim’s first response: Richard, I don’t feel like going eighty-four rounds, but I have to say that yours is a pretty good example of what an emphasis on the invisible church looks like, as opposed to a confessionalist emphasis on the visible church. Ever since I posted Muller’s piece, you’ve pushed back by maintaining that confessionalists often come across as overestimating the confessions as virtually inerrant (I still think it’s a strawman). But here we see how the alternative, an emphasis on the invisible, comes across as a turning up of inward stones, which seems not too unlike divining the providence of God
RS: I was simply focusing on how at the very heart of Christianity and of faith that we deal with things that are invisible to the physical eye. I might add one verse to this, though.
2 Corinthians 5:16 Therefore from now on we recognize no one according to the flesh; even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him in this way no longer.
LikeLike
Carl Trueman: The Reformed world has its dark suits and its hall of fame as well. We may talk about truth rather than authenticity – and rightly so – but when belief in that truth becomes merely a function of being part of the crowd, then we too have failed to be truthful individuals.
Bob Dylan
I’m wondering where in the world Alicia Keys could be
I been looking for her even clear through Tennessee
Feel like my soul is beginning to expand
Look into my heart and you will sort of understand
Thunder on the mountain, rollin’ like a drum
Gonna sleep over there, that’s where the music coming from
I don’t need any guide, I already know the way
Remember this, I’m your servant both night and day
The sun keeps shinin’ and the North Wind keeps picking up speed
Gonna forget about myself for a while, go out and see what others need
LikeLike
McMark, how about Old Calvinists, and then everyone else?
LikeLike
Richard (round 3), I get that faith is about things unseen as opposed to seen. What I don’t get is how that means we should turn a blind eye to the dangers of peering into things inappropriate to the eye of faith. Where is the sense of creaturely limitation? Is it very far from wanting to gaze on the Deus nudus to wanting to speculate on the roll call of the invisible church? The confessions are only concerns with the marks of the visible church for good reason.
LikeLike
Zrim: ease up on some of the pacifism and maybe I will have built my first perfect Presbyterian.
mark: are you telling me that you yourself are not the original perfect Presbyterian, and that you still need to build one? I know a lot of reformed folks who seem perfectly willing to negotiate away all of the tulip, but they tell me they will never give up on the idea of an unified culture, at least until Jesus Christ returns to earth. Even if they talk of two kingdoms, they will not ease up on their right (and duty) to kill for the visible non-church.
Water for babies and readiness to kill for your covenant family….what happened to the good old days, when sabbath-keeping was a mark….
The slippery slope down towards your way, Zrim, might take me too far past you, not only in the direction of perfection but toward James Jordan and Jason Stellman. But wait a minute, Jordan was never a credobaptist–born methodist.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard (round 3), I get that faith is about things unseen as opposed to seen. What I don’t get is how that means we should turn a blind eye to the dangers of peering into things inappropriate to the eye of faith. Where is the sense of creaturely limitation? Is it very far from wanting to gaze on the Deus nudus to wanting to speculate on the roll call of the invisible church? The confessions are only concerns with the marks of the visible church for good reason.
RS: Notice that inward evidence of graces in the WCF and then what is said about Simon in Acts 8. I would argue that elders should help people beyond a profession of a confession and help them look at inward evidences.
WCF Ch 18
II. This certainty is not a bare conjectural and probable persuasion grounded upon a fallible hope;[5] but an infallible assurance of faith founded upon the divine truth of the promises of salvation,[6] the inward evidence of those graces unto which these promises are made,[7] the testimony of the Spirit of adoption witnessing with our spirits that we are the children of God,[8] which Spirit is the earnest of our inheritance, whereby we are sealed to the day of redemption.[9]
Acts 8:21 “You have no part or portion in this matter, for your heart is not right before God.
22 “Therefore repent of this wickedness of yours, and pray the Lord that, if possible, the intention of your heart may be forgiven you.
23 “For I see that you are in the gall of bitterness and in the bondage of iniquity.”
24 But Simon answered and said, “Pray to the Lord for me yourselves, so that nothing of what you have said may come upon me.”
RS: As you read the Scriptures below (if you do), notice the plural pronouns and how people are said to know things that are of the heart or inward man. If they will not or cannot, they can never help the people in spiritual things.
1 John 2:9 The one who says he is in the Light and yet hates his brother is in the darkness until now. 2:29 If you know that He is righteous, you know that everyone also who practices righteousness is born of Him.
1 John 3:9 No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. 3:14 We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brethren. He who does not love abides in death.
1 John 3:24 The one who keeps His commandments abides in Him, and He in him. We know by this that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He has given us.
I John 4: 7 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. 8 The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love.
I John 4: 12 No one has seen God at any time; if we love one another, God abides in us, and His love is perfected in us. 13 By this we know that we abide in Him and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit.
1 John 5:13 These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life.
LikeLike
dgh, the old calvinists were not the same either. One of my favorites (besides George Smeaton) is Toplady. And he wasn’t even a separatist, but perhaps that only means that you can be a sectarian and in the Anglican Church at the same time.
And I guess those old baptists like John Gill, Robert Haldane, Abraham Booth, and William Rushton don’t count as Calvinists
The Effects of a Perverted Gospel On Visible Churches, by William Rushton, in A Defense of Particular Redemption
The Lord Jesus Christ, to whom all the saints are united, is the only foundation and bond of spiritual union. The whole family meet and center in Him. That which unites them is his glorious person and work, and that which demands their obedience is his voice. “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them and they follow me.”
This voice which they hear is the truth of the gospel which they love and which produces among them love for each other for the truth’s sake. Those who love the gospel have fellowship with each other, and they are despised by the world and are separated from it. “Lo! the people shall dwell alone, and shall nor be reckoned among the nations.”
If, therefore, the people of God are united in the bond of truth, it is evident that nothing is so effectual to scatter them as the influence of erroneous doctrine, especially such as effects the
righteousness of Christ which is the ground of their unity, concord and hope. Hence the zeal of the apostle against legal doctrines and false teachers. Hence the connection between unsound doctrines and divisions in the churches. “Now, I beseech you, brethren, mark them who cause divisions contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned andavoid them.” [Romans xvi. 17, 18.]
In the kingdom of Christ the advancement of doctrines which obscure the glory of imputed righteousness and exalt human conditions, is an offense of the most malignant kind, because it tends directly to abase the Lord Jesus and to destroy unity among His people. For this reason, much is said in Scripture against the teachers of such doctrines. “Woe be unto the pastors that destroy and scatter the sheep of my pasture! saith the Lord.” (Jeremiah 23:1.)
The effect of a legal ministry is not only to produce divisions among the people of God, but also to exalt the preacher. The apostle abased himself, that the brethren might be exalted, 2 Cor. 11:7; but the false teachers exalted themselves, and brought the saints into bondage, 2 Cor. 11:20.
Self-exaltation is a mark which invariably distinguishes the preachers of a perverted gospel. While their doctrine has a direct tendency to obscure the glory of Christ it tends to magnify themselves. Their followers, instead of hearing the voice of Christ, are brought into subjection to their preacher and this preacher becomes the bond of union among them. “Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to DRAW AWAY DISCIPLES AFTER THEM.” (Acts 20:30)
LikeLike
Richard (round 4), but isn’t there a difference between the Spirit witnessing to ours an infallible assurance of faith and (what some have called) an illegitimate quest for religious certainty, one form of which could be to suggest a one-to-one correspondence between one’s precise theology and his eternal state? I can agree that elders should help people beyond a profession of a confession; but it seems to me that something like WCF 18 implies it more fitting to do so in a way that nurtures an infallible assurance of faith that we are the children of God than one that can tend toward fostering doubt of the same.
LikeLike
RS, most of those references from 1 John look like outward evidences to me …
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard (round 4), but isn’t there a difference between the Spirit witnessing to ours an infallible assurance of faith and (what some have called) an illegitimate quest for religious certainty, one form of which could be to suggest a one-to-one correspondence between one’s precise theology and his eternal state?
RS: I don’t think that I am arguing a one-to-one correspondence between one’s precise theology and his eternal state. I would argue that perhaps there is a higher amount of theology in the Gospel than many believe today. It is also true that having a perfect creed (not that there is one) and believing that perfect creed does not mean that one has eternal life in his or her soul. But I am also arguing that we are not left to the external things and so simply need to hear people say the right things.
Zrim: I can agree that elders should help people beyond a profession of a confession; but it seems to me that something like WCF 18 implies it more fitting to do so in a way that nurtures an infallible assurance of faith that we are the children of God than one that can tend toward fostering doubt of the same.
RS: But a false shepherd (see Jeremiah and Isaiah) will speak soothing things and give people assurance when assurance is the last thing that they need. It is better to doubt and be saved than it is to have a great assurance and not be saved. Having assurance is not the goal, but the glory of God in the salvation of His elect is the goal.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle: RS, most of those references from 1 John look like outward evidences to me …
RS: I suppose they could appear that way if you look at them in a certain way. Did you notice the part about the love of God abiding in people? The main difference between some religious acts of Pharisees and the acts of a true believer is love (see also I Cor 13:1-8). Apart from love all the outward things are of no benefit. The outward evidence must be there, but the outward evidence is not evidence of salvation in and of itself. There has to be some internal looking. After all, regeneration is internal and the indwelling of Christ is internal.
LikeLike
Richard (round 5), nurturing an infallible assurance is not the same thing as peddling positivity. And better to assure doubting saints than to pile on smoldering wicks. After all, unbelievers don’t have great assurance in the first place–they have complacency at best and apathy at worst.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard (round 5), nurturing an infallible assurance is not the same thing as peddling positivity. And better to assure doubting saints than to pile on smoldering wicks.
RS: Perhaps, but how do you know they are saints? How do you know that you are not assuring unbelievers that they are saints?
Zrim: After all, unbelievers don’t have great assurance in the first place–they have complacency at best and apathy at worst.
RS: I guess I am on the other end of things. I have found that professing believers who are not true believers have the strongest assurance (or at least profess it) than most true believers. Interestingly enough, the doctrine of election (when misused and missaplied) can give unbelivers a basis for a very strong assurance. A man that I was acquainted with asserted loudly and proudly the doctrine of election and that he was sure he was elect. A couple of years later he came to the point of admitting that he was not converted, which confirmed what a couple of us suspected. He was an unbeliever with a very strong assurance (professed).
LikeLike
Richard (round 6), listen to yourself. How do you know your need to know how I know isn’t that QIRC thing I mentioned? Have you ever heard of the judgment of charity? And I don’t know how you know how strong another’s assurance is. But it could be that loud proclamations of assurance are red flags for covers.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard (round 6), listen to yourself. How do you know your need to know how I know isn’t that QIRC thing I mentioned?
RS: I am just trying to listen to myself.
Zrim: Have you ever heard of the judgment of charity?
RS: I have heard of it and it is an interesting theory. However, if we think of the nature of true love and how it seeks the best for the souls of others, a “judgment of charity” is not necessarily a judgment of love.
Zrim: And I don’t know how you know how strong another’s assurance is. But it could be that loud proclamations of assurance are red flags for covers.
RS: Yes, it was a loud and repeatedly so proclamation of assurance based on the doctrine of election.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle:
The heart of the difference seems to be about data hermeneutic as tied to study design more than about math. Nonetheless, the frequentist/Bayesian tug and pull is a fun one to examine. The p-value, against Fisher’s intended use of it, is certainly being abused within the literature. This is less a reflection on the inherent flaws of statistical significance as a tool and more to do with the lazy mindedness of researchers who tire of constantly re-examining the newest cadre of frequentist evidence to re-evaluate past judgements.
Here is a great article on the p-value fallacy that makes Fisher’s students smile. You can get it through inter-library loan:
http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=712762
LikeLike
CD-Host:
ANCOVA it is…a regression run twice with a nominal main outcome variable and allowing both discrete (eg: gender, sanctification questionnaires, criminal history) and continuous data (eg: age, IQ, syphilis, etc). Our two groups are biological children of Presbyterian Church (group A) and adoptive children in Baptist homes all from the same orphanage (group B…hopefully a very large orphanage in Texas might get this “n” high enough). Am I getting the study design correct?
Will this study be prospective? What is the main outcome variable?
LikeLike
Richard (round 7), the medical version of your take on the judgment of charity is the doctor who presumes all of his patients are about to die and treats them accordingly. But good doctors wait for external signs of inward malady before taking drastic measures. Until then, they simply advise, administer, even warn those they presume to be mainly healthy but in need of regular care to maintain that health. Souls can be a lot like bodies that way.
LikeLike
Paul —
I hadn’t really thought this through in detail. Yes mostly right. I was thinking we could use multiple orphanages, and just include that as a covariate. I wouldn’t use a questionnaire, I don’t tend to think they are worthwhile I want externally observable data.
As for the specific test, I’m not a statistician. Way, way too rusty. Rather than run the regression twice something like MANOVA. But unless I’m screwing up the stats parts I can go with that.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard (round 7), the medical version of your take on the judgment of charity is the doctor who presumes all of his patients are about to die and treats them accordingly. But good doctors wait for external signs of inward malady before taking drastic measures. Until then, they simply advise, administer, even warn those they presume to be mainly healthy but in need of regular care to maintain that health. Souls can be a lot like bodies that way.
RS: Good doctors know that external signs may not occur until it is too late. That is why there are mamograms and blood tests (and so on) in an attempt to determine what is going on that is beyond the physical eye and external signs. I knew a man (a medical doctor for interests sake) who was in a car wreck. He refused medical treatment and went on his way in confidence that he as a doctor could recognize a problem if he had one. A few hours later he collapsed and died from internal injuries that from all appearances had no external signs.
LikeLike
Mark, I think Richard accurately captured my thoughts. I’m not quite sure why your reaction is so negative. I do think that Christ promises to lead us into truth but I don’t think that our grasp of that truth is always perfect even about the core matters. Thankfully my being right with God does depend on how perfectly I think about being right with God, but rather on Christ. Sometimes I hear us saying that anything less than the correct view means that we’re not saved. I reject that view. You “do we have to know anything?” or something like that. I would argue that you don’t have to know much. “Jesus loves me this I know, for the Bible tells me so.”
I’m curious about your ordo salutis. Does faith precede justification? Does one receive Christ’s imputed righteous prior to faith?
LikeLike
Jeff, Paul, CD,
I sure as heck hope you guys are using excel for this study. Seriously, can you let your nerd flags fly higher, just remember (STDEV A1:AA26). Those of us who actually use stats know that to the (excel) cheater goes the spoils. Just a business student talking here. As for me, I can’t wait until this conversation stops talking in math (Karma police, they’re talking in math it sounds like a de-tuned radio).
LikeLike
Terry :I’m curious about your ordo salutis. Does faith precede justification? Does one receive Christ’s imputed righteous prior to faith?
mark: Well, again this shows that you haven’t been reading my posts when the “union” topic comes up. When you say “precede”, what do you mean by that? If you are talking about time, I think most of us agree that God justifying a sinner is a complex of acts which happen at the same time. If you are asking if I think faith is a condition of justification, I would say two things. 1. There is no justification apart from faith in the gospel. 2. It’s the righteousness of Christ which is the logical condition and reason for the Father’s effectual call by the gospel through the Holy Spirit. Faith in the gospel is a gift purchased by Christ and given on behalf of Christ.
Even though I don’t agree with all of his analysis, I would agree with Cunha’s comments in his Gaffin book (the Emperor’s New Clothes): Whatever is made of the fact that the new birth precedes faith,
the Biblical definition of faith must not be altered in order to accommodate the idea that the forensic act of justification cannot be preceded by the actual change produced within a man…To say, for example, that faith is merely the awareness of justification that has occurred prior to faith is to define faith in a way that is foreign to Scripture.”
There is much I could say about the quotation. Since the change in the sinner (so that she has faith in the gospel) is a logical result of the righteousness imputed, we need to keep that in mind when we think about the nature of faith in the gospel. Whatever we say about timing, we get back to the topic of the object of faith.
On the one hand, faith is NOT merely awareness that we were already justified or eternally. I deny eternal justification. I deny any Barthian idea that there is no transition from wrath to favor in the state of the individual. On the other hand, and this speaks directly to the problem with the new Calvinists that doesn’t seem to matter to you, Terry, faith in the true gospel knows that faith in the gospel is not the reason one sinner is saved and another sinner is not.
Faith in the gospel means understanding the gospel and that means understanding that God has an elect and that Christ has earned a righteousness for the elect. Faith is not this righteousness.
I say this should matter to you, Terry, because in one of your recent posts you even floated the idea that faith is what God imputes to us. But 1. faith is not the righteousness and 2. faith is a change in us given logically because of the imputed righteousness and 3. you seemed to refer to Christ believing for us, a vicarious faith. And without getting into the “faith of Christ” debate, I pointed out (as Machen did) that Christ is not a Christian. Christ does not believe the gospel. Those who believe the gospel believe in Christ, who is identified and revealed in the gospel.
And now you cay say, well it all sounds rather complex, you have made my point. But I am not saying that we need to know everything, and you are agreeing that God doesn’t simply save us sovereignly but saves us by teaching us so that we “know something”. But you have never said what you think the gospel is, or even what you think the “something” is.
But you have given us a hint, which is the same one Barth gave— “Jesus loves me, this I know.” Well, for sure Mormons and Roman Catholics and unitarians know that, but they don’t know the true Jesus and the true Jesus doesn’t love everybody.
It’s just that simple, Terry. The Jesus Christ revealed in the gospel didn’t die for everybody. That’s not a complicated statement. Jesus didn’t love everybody. There is no continuum on this, with some more TR and others more Arminian or universalist. Barth knew that “Jesus loves me” because he was an universalist (yes, I know he denied it, appealing to inscrutable sovereignty, but in what he “knew”, he knew all humanity was elected in Christ.)
A little child (covenant child or not) can and should understand that God doesn’t love everybody. “Jesus loves His elect” does not mean that “Jesus loves me”. Believing in election does not mean that you are elect. Not knowing that God has an elect means that you don’t know the gospel yet.
Most little children today are being taught that Jesus died for everybody. And there’s nothing we can do about that, but in the visible congregation we need to be teaching the truth of the gospel, which is that Christ’s death is the difference between saved and lost. Faith in the false gospel is not the difference. Faith in the true gospel is not the difference, but the result of Christ having died for a person so they are given faith in the gospel and God takes away their sins.
LikeLike
When you write your history of old vs new Calvinism, consider this quotation from Craig Blomberg:
“It is a modern myth that the ancients were seldom concerned with historical accuracy in the narratives they compiled or that they could not distinguish between fact and fiction as we do. A bigger difference between ancient and modern historiography involves ideological spin. The idea of preserving a dispassionate chronicle of events for posterity–with no necessary lessons to be learned from it–IS largely a modern invention. But deriving morals, supporting a religious or political viewpoint or improving society as purposes for history writing are not inherently related to the question of how accurately events are recounted. Historiography for the sake of advocacy is again taking a large and deserved place at the scholarly table…” p33, “The Historical-Grammatical View’, in Hermeneutics: Five Views, IVP, 2012
LikeLike
CD-Host
What’s the main outcome in this ANCOVA (just one more detail and we can get this Calvin-buster study off the ground).
LikeLike
What’s the main outcome in this ANCOVA (just one more detail and we can get this Calvin-buster study off the ground)
Well my main outcome I would assume is that parental religion for at birth orphans had no statistical effect on later measures of righteousness. That “election” in a measurable sense is not inherited.
LikeLike
CD-Host:
You wrote: “Well my main outcome I would assume is that parental religion for at birth orphans had no statistical effect on later measures of righteousness. That “election” in a measurable sense is not inherited.”
So the main outcome variable in our ANCOVA is some righteousness score (0=total depravity, 5=a mix of depravity and righteousness, 10 total righteousness)? This main outcome variable seems to fit a characterization of total depravity that your brief allusions to the doctrine have painted…that being totally depraved is about being ethically/morally compromised. For the sake of clarity, let’s assume that the parents of all the orphans were unregenerate, and of course, the parents of all the Presbyterian kids were members in good standing of their churches. Also for the sake of clarity, lets assume that all the Presbyterian biological children continued being church members through the entirety of the study while all of the adoptive children did not attend church but did participate in skilled training in moral virtues. The scores will be measured at least twice I assume, once at some “age of accountability” and once again after 20 years or so. So lets say that the study has been run, the data is in and adjusted mean righteousness score between groups are similar at the first time (ie: the age of accountability) and at the second time (ie: after 20 years). That is the two groups (when means are adjusted for covariates: church attendance, prayer frequency, income, IQ, education level, etc) have no statistically significant difference in terms of righteousness scores at either time. Interestingly, lets assume, that both groups righteousness scores were significantly improved from time one to time two. Thus we have no difference between groups, however time is a factor in becoming more righteous for people regardless of whether parents were unregenerate or church goers (what a happy thought…all things heal with time and all). I think this is the kind of study result you are conceiving of when you state: “parental religion for at birth orphans had no statistical effect on later measures of righteousness. That “election” in a measurable sense is not inherited.” Right? We could also construct outcomes where the Presby group become more wicked in time and the adopted group became more righteous. Or the Presby group becomes more righteous and the adopted group became more wicked (this result is the only one that would negate your hypothesis).
Now come the construct validity questions (wherein I, the oddball research designer on this blog step aside and hand the keyboard over to the content experts…reformed theologians). Having judged righteousness like the best of the pharisees, have we measured what we intended to measure? Would reformed theologians recognize the doctrine of total depravity in the main outcome variable of this study…the righteousness variable?
LikeLike
Now come the construct validity questions (wherein I, the oddball research designer on this blog step aside and hand the keyboard over to the content experts…reformed theologians). Having judged righteousness like the best of the pharisees, have we measured what we intended to measure? Would reformed theologians recognize the doctrine of total depravity in the main outcome variable of this study…the righteousness variable?
Reformed theology doesn’t recognize experience so much. This whole discussion started with me making the claim that Reformed theology was contrary to experience and then a long discussion about how that wasn’t true. So I think they’d bark about the study but it would prove the main effect.
I’ve always like the Wesleyan approach of scripture, tradition, reason and experience all acting as correctives for one another. I think our experience of reality is clearly semi-Pelagian, and we don’t want to make claims that contradict daily experience because it leads to practical difficulties that are too hard to overcome.
LikeLike
Whoa! Suggesting that someone doesn’t need to know about election doesn’t mean that election is not true. That’s mostly my point. God saves his elect and provides a righteousness in Christ (including right thinking). It’s not my doing but Christ’s. That doing and dying of Christ for elect sinners is the Gospel. But my apprehension of the gospel may be (or rather is!) imperfect. I suggest that imperfections in one’s apprehension of the gospel may well include the bit about election, or the precise relationship between justification and sanctification, or even the nuances of Nicea or Chalcedon, or whether or God has passions or parts. God awakens the elect sinner sufficiently that they may believe. That tiny bit of faith that results from regeneration is also a gift of God but is the instrument that results in the full merits of Christ being imputed to us. I’m stating nothing here but the traditional ordo. Of course, The spirit continues to teach us and increase our faith just as he sanctifies us and increases our real and personal holiness and righteousness.
It is true that I haven’t read everything. And I’m a relative newcomer to this particular blog. I havent read all the archives. And I don’t jump in on every post. Often I don’t read the comments of the posts that I dont comment on. I suspect that’s true of all of us. Heck, I’m not even convinced that Darryl reads to the end of every comment. I guess if that bothers you then you should ignore my comments as being unduly uninformed.
LikeLike
Mark, for what it’s worth, it’s because of your strong stand on the imputation of Christ’s righteousness that you’ve argued for in previous posts (so i have read some of them) that leads me to my recent comments. It seems inconsistent to me to have such a view and then to be so demanding about exactly what one believes the gospel to be in order to receive those alien merits.
LikeLike
Terry: Mark, for what it’s worth, it’s because of your strong stand on the imputation of Christ’s righteousness that you’ve argued for in previous posts (so i have read some of them) that leads me to my recent comments. It seems inconsistent to me to have such a view and then to be so demanding about exactly what one believes the gospel to be in order to receive those alien merits.
mark: Thanks, Terry, for the follow up. One. What is Christ’s righteousness? Christ’s righteousness is Christ’s death for the elect alone. Christ’s righteousness is the propitiation and the reconciliation obtained by Christ’s death for the elect alone and then imputed by God so that the elect alone receive the reconciliation (by imputation before by faith). So this is of first priority. We may not be talking about the same thing when we talk about “imputed righteousness”. A. If you agree with Arminians and Lutherans that Christ obtained some kind of “general infinite fund” of righteousness that it is then distributed, you are not talking about the same righteousness as the Bible talks about. B, If you thinking of Christ’s righteousness as only being the “positive vicarious lawkeeping” and not also the death of Christ, again you are not talking about the righteousness of Christ described in Romans 5: 15-211. (And yes I know the phrase “righteousness of Christ” is not there but the concept is there, both the righteousness and the fact that Christ by His obedience obtained it. And most importantly that all for whom Christ obtained it will be justified, not maybe or potentially be justified.)
I want to go on to your next important point, Terry, but first I want to repeat just how important it is to know what the righteousness is. Because some of your earlier posts suggested that Christ’s faith was the righteousness, and that Christ has vicarious faith for the elect. (And I answered with Machen: no, Christ is not a Christian, Christ does not believe the gospel so that He can be saved from His sins). When you talk about the “nuances” of some Christological creeds or about baptism, you are distracting yourself from the one thing I am talking about. Christ died for the elect alone. I want to boast only in the cross. It’s not many things. It’s one thing. Christ’s death is the righteousness.
But two, you think that the more I talk about the imputed righteousness, the less concern I should have with faith. That it’s not consistent for me to both talk about the righteousness and then be so “demanding” about what the gospel is. (I think we need to agree with each other that this is not about what Terry and Mark demand or don’t demand, but about what Terry and Mark think God requires? Correct?)
If we are justified on the basis of the righteousness, not justified on the basis of our faith, then that seems to you all the more reason I (to be consistent) should care very little about what faith is. Ignorance of the gospel should not matter to me, of all people, because I am saying that the righteousness saves and not faith. So who cares what you know or believe, since you can believe that you are not saved by the righteousness but by faith, and nevertheless be saved by the righteousness (which you denied). And of course this doesn’t entail Barthian unviersalism, because you wouldn’t have to say all are elect, because you could just say that the elect who are saved are saved on the basis of the righteousness (not their faith), so we don’t know who are saved.
Of course you can’t quite leave it there. (Your statements about how we can be inconsistent are inconsistent!) You allow that the justified elect “do know something”, but you never tell us what that “something” is, and you insist that they can know that something while at the same time believing all five points of the Arminian contradictions to the gospel. (Or do you think that some of those points are part of the gospel?). Your only hint is “Jesus loves me, this I know”, but a terribly lot of people who believe the false gospel could and would affirm that.
So why do I care about ignorance of the gospel and faith in the gospel, when I so much stress that the elect are justified by what’s outside of them (Christ’s death for the elect, Christ’s righteousness). Because I say with John 10 that Christ’s sheep will hear Him and follow Him. This is not saying that their hearing and following is the righteousness. Rather belief of the gospel which continues day to day through the Christian life is a necessary result and consequence of God’s imputation of righteousness.
This is not me talking about a “regenerate church membership”. Nor am I talking about “at least one regenerate parent”. This is me talking about what gospel a person professes to believe. The mouth speaks what’s in the heart (which is what the Bible calls the mind and will). None of us can judge infallibly, but we all do judge, and we should not be judging disposition and regeneration but by the “rule” (the canon of Galatians 6) —- we glory and boast in the cross alone. If a person says that the cross was for everyone, many of whom will perish, I know that they are not boasting in the cross. They may be elect and if so, they will later be justified. But as of yet they don’t even know the gospel yet.
For sake of completeness, let me repeat that we don’t infallibly know that a person who does profess faith in election and effectual atonement, we don’t know for sure that they are justified elect. For the visible boundaries of a congregation, it’s not only that we can’t go by anything more, it’s also that we SHOULD NOT GO BY ANYTHING ELSE. Well, you could say, that unitarian sure looks to be “living a sanctified life”. Doesn’t matter–doesn’t profess the true gospel. Well, you could say that person who confesses what the WCF says about election and atonement and justification doesn’t look very sanctified to me, she looks like a bigger sinner than the unitarian does.
Doesn’t matter. Yes, sin matters. So we admonish that sinner, and when we do that we don’t say–you maybe are not a Christian because you are still a sinner and we can see it. No, we are all sinners. And those of us who are think we sin less than other sinners are most likely the most self-righteous. No, it’s necessary to admonish a person who professes to believe the gospel about sin, with the charitable presumption that they are Christians. When you go to the whore, that doesn’t prove that you are not a Christian. On the contrary, you take Christ with you to the whore.
Terry, I understand why you think I wouldn’t care about faith in the gospel (or sin in the Christian) because I talk so much about justification of the ungodly because of Christ’s righteousness. But the simple explanation is the difference between condition and result. Knowledge of the glory of God in the salvation of the elect is “necessary” for what reason? It’s not “necessary” as the righteousness, because faith is not the righteousness. But knowledge and faith in the gospel is “necessary” as the result of righteousness. When the righteousness is imputed, the Spirit is given so that faith in the gospel is created. When the sons are adopted, they are made to “hear” the gospel of life.
Terry, I am trying to follow Mike Horton’s recent admonishment for us to fairly represent those with whom we disagree, so I hope I have accurately given the sense of what you are trying to get out. Call me on it if I haven’t. Thank you.
LikeLike
Terry: That tiny bit of faith that results from regeneration is also a gift of God but is the instrument that results in the full merits of Christ being imputed to us
mark: I am not going to review the old discussions about “instrumental cause” although I do think the warnings of Bavinck are more needed than ever in our day. But let me give two brief words here. 1. Faith in the gospel results not only from regeneration but from God’s imputation of righteousness. Logically, regeneration is a result and not a condition of God’s imputation to the ungodly, which means that faith results from regeneration which results from the righteousness imputed, and thus the Spirit is given by Christ, rather Christ being given by the Spirit. And no, I am not saying that you have to say it that way to know the gospel. (To know the gospel you do have to know that Christ’s death was for the elect alone, because you can’t glory in the cross without knowing it’s purpose and extent. People who know the gospel don’t deny election, and you don’t need to be afraid to talk to them about election.)
2. The point here, Terry, is not how “tiny” the bit of faith is, not the quality or the quantity of the faith. I would say in this regard that not only we can’t judge infallibly but we shouldn’t judge about quantity and quality. My point is and has always been about the object of faith. The object of faith is not faith. The object of faith is Christ’s righteousness, which is not conditioned on faith, because the righteousness causes faith in the true gospel.
As much as I agree with John Owen against the idea of double jeopardy, I think we need to be careful about how we use Owen’s trilemma about all the sins of all people, or all the sins of some people (the third hypothetical of course being some of the sins of some people).
The cross-work (the righteousness) of Christ not only entitles the elect to justification (even before they are justified) but also entitles the elect to the effectual call in which they learn the gospel and come to profess faith in the gospel.
What does the application of Christ’s work mean? It means that God imputes that work (not only the status or benefits of but the righteousness) to the elect. Before the cross, God imputed the work to some of the elect. After the cross, God continues to impute the work to some of the elect.
So there is a difference between Christ’s work and the imputation of Christ’s work. Romans 6 describes being placed into the death of Christ. There is a difference between the federal union of all the elect in Christ before the beginning of the world and the legal union of the elect with Christ when they are justified.
The application (purchased by Christ for the elect, part of their inheritance) includes the effectual call by the gospel which logically follows God’s imputation. Galatians 3:13-14: “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham would come…, so that we would receive the promised Spirit through faith.” Romans 8:10–”the Spirit is life because of righteousness.”
II Peter 1:1 “To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ.” The reason we need to be careful about John Owen’s trilemma
is that Christ did not die to forgive any elect person of the final sin of unbelief of the gospel. Christ died to give every elect person faith in the true gospel.
I am not saying that John Owen did not know this. I am only saying that the trilemma (as it is often used by Cavinists) does not take into account the time between Christ’s work of righteousness and God’s application of Christ’s work.
The trilemma in itself does not give us the necessary reminder that Christ died to obtain not only the redemption but also the application of the redemption. Christ did not need to die for final disbelief by the elect because Christ died that the elect will not finally disbelieve the true gospel.
LikeLike
Abraham Booth, Glad Tidings
p238 “According to fatalism, the word of truth having no influence, is of no use in regeneration, the salutary and important change being produced entirely without it..It is too hastily assumed that the mind is prepared to receive the light of spiritual knowledge before the truth have any influence on it.”
p247 “Now the question is: Do the Scriptures lead us to conclude that the mind and the conscience are brought into the new state by an immediate divine energy, without the medium of either the law or the gospel? I think not. It is written: by the law is the knowledge of sin.
p249 “For an ‘awakened sinner’ to be persuaded that regeneration is effected without the instrumentality of divine truth, is to give an injurious direction to his prayers and expectations.
“The entrance of thy word gives light” — Psalm 119:130.
“The sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God” — Ephesians 6:17.
“The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life” –John 6:63.
“In Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel” — 1 Corinthians 4:15.
“Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of first-fruits of his creatures” — James 1:18.
“Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which lives and abides forever” — 1 Peter 1:23.
“He called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ” — 2 Thessalonians 2:14.
“Ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you” — John 15:3.
“God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed, from the heart, the model of doctrine into which ye were delivered” — Romans 6:17.
“The gospel, which is come unto you, as it is in all the world, and brings forth fruit” — Colossians 1:5, 6.
“You have purified yourselves in obeying the truth, through the Spirit” – 1 Peter 1:22
“The gospel of Christ — is the power of God unto salvation, to every one that believes” — Romans 1:16.
“The word of the cross is to us who are saved the power of God” — 1 Corinthians 1:18.
LikeLike
Mark Mcculley: II Peter 1:1 “To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ.”
RS: There are multiple ways of looking at this verse. “A faith” can simply mean the Christian faith or the truths of the Christian faith. It can also mean that by the work of Christ in His life and death each person that has had faith purchased for him or her will then have that faith. But to say that this is the imputed righteousness of Christ is perhaps not the best interpretation of the text.
Mark Mcculley: The reason we need to be careful about John Owen’s trilemma is that Christ did not die to forgive any elect person of the final sin of unbelief of the gospel. Christ died to give every elect person faith in the true gospel.
RS: But we all need to be careful here and see both sides (or more sides if need be). If unbelief is a sin, then it must be forgiven. The sin of unbelief must be given and then that sin must be taken away so that there will be belief. Another way to put it would be that Christ died for the sinner so that his or her unbelieving heart could be forgiven and taken away and also that the person could be given as a free gift a believing heart. It is a two-sided issue that cannot be separated, though as you point out it can be distinguished. The unbeliving heart must be taken away for there to be a believing heart.
LikeLike
The difference between “moderates” (Calvinists who think that Arminianism is the gospel) and those they dismiss as “John Owenites” is not for the need of the Spirit’s work or faith in the gospel. Even though at the end of the day, we have different gospels (objects of faith), we do not disagree about justification being through faith. We who are called “Owenites” do not teach eternal justification, or justification apart from faith, even though our accusers claim that this makes us inconsistent.
We do NOT teach that the elect are free from condemnation before being “baptized into Christ”. Although John Owen taught that God only imputed the sins of the elect to Christ, John Owen did not teach that all the elect were justified as soon as Christ bore those sins. Owen taught with Romans 6 that the elect must come into legal union with Christ’s death. Until the elect are placed into that death, they remain under the wrath of God.
But those who accuse us of thinking there is no need for faith or knowledge of the gospel claim that it is not consistent for us to teach such a need for faith. If the substitution has already been
made, then all for whom it was made should logically already be justified. If the righteousness has already been obtained for the elect alone, then all for whom it was earned should logically already
be justified by it. This is the claim made by those deny that the exact substitution was already made at the cross. These people want to say that the righteousness of Christ is potentially universal.
It’’s clear that Owen did not teach justification apart from faith. It’s also clear that Owen did not teach that faith was a mere recognition that we were already justified. (See Carl Trueman’s
various books and essays on John Owen).
Those who think we are inconsistent in insisting on faith in the gospel, what is it that those folks are teaching about the atonement? Some like the Torrance brothers think that saying that Christ died only for the elect leads to a denial of the need for faith in the gospel.. Some like Andrew Fuller and John Piper think that Christ’s purchase of faith is what’s limited about the intention of the
atonement. (Andrew Fuller is not the only one to have regarded the transfer of the sins of the elect to Christ as figurative and as not legally possible.)
LikeLike