Where’s Waldo Wednesday: Did He Say “Impetration”?

Published on by D. G. Hart

We are told that God saves us in His mere mercy, by a renovating work of the Holy Spirit, founded on the redeeming work of Christ; and we are told that this renovating work of the Holy Spirit was in order that we might be justified and so become heirs. Here the purchase by the death of Christ is made the condition precedent of the regeneration of the Holy Spirit; but the action of the Holy Spirt is made the condition precedent to justification and adoption. We are brought unto God by Christ in order that we may be brought to God by the Holy Spirit. And in bringing us to God, the Holy Spirit proceeds by regenerating us in order that we may be justified so as to be made heirs. In theological language, this is expressed by saying that the impetration* of salvation precedes its application: the whole of the impetration, the whole of the application. And in the application, the Spirit works first by regenerating the soul, next justifying it, next adopting it into the family of God, and next sanctifying it. In the more vital and less analytical language of our present passage [Titus 3:4-7], this is asserted by founding the gift of the Holy Ghost upon the work of Christ: “which He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our saviour”; by including in the work of the Holy Ghost, regeneration, justification, adoption, and a few verses lower down, sanctification; and by declaring that the regeneration of the Holy Spirit is “in order that being justified we might be made heirs.”

. . . . This is encouraging teaching for believers! Shall they, then, because they are saved out of God’s mercy and not out of works in righteousness which they have done themselves, be careless to maintain good works? I trow** not;; and the Apostle troweth not. Because of this, they will now be careful “to maintain good works.” Let us see to it then that by so doing we approve ourselves as true believers, saved by God’s grace, not out of works but unto good works, which He hath afore prepared that we should walk in them! This is what the Apostle would have us do. (B. B. Warfield, “The Way of Life,” in Faith and Life, pp., 399-400)

*Impetration: 1. The act of impetrating, or obtaining by petition or entreaty.

** Trow: Archaic to think, believe, or trust.

9 thoughts on “Where’s Waldo Wednesday: Did He Say “Impetration”?”

  2. This is good. It might be best in light of the whole of the conversation if “definitive sanctification” were re-classified (or un-re-classified) under “regeneration.”

    Like

  3. Jeff:

    For Murray, definitive sanctification wasn’t classified under regeneration. In fact, regeneration was part of definitive sanctification. As I read him, the Father’s calling plus the Spirit’s regenerating plus the believer’s being identified with Christ’s burial and resurrection. More to the point, the identification with Christ is identification with the judgment executed upon sin. It’s a freedom from sin that is rooted in a forensic declaration:

    “Admittedly, it is difficult for us to grasp this juridical aspect of deliverance from the power of sin and it is also difficult to make clear what is involved. But the difficulty arises perhaps from our failure to think through and appreciate this strand of New Testament teaching. In any case, we must look more carefully at the immediate context and the broader aspects of New Testament doctrine on this subject.”

    “It should be noted that Paul in the context refers to the lordship of sin, of the law, and of death — of sin when he enjoins: “Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body” (Rom. 6:12) and when he asserts: “Sin shall not lord it over you, for ye are not under law but under grace” (Rom. 6:14); of the law when he says: “But now we have been discharged from the law, having died to that in which we were held, so that we might serve in newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter” (Rom. 7:6: cf. vss. 1, 4); of death when he reflects on the significance of Jesus’ death and resurrection: “Christ being raised from the dead dies no more: death no longer lords it over him” (Rom. 6:9). It is this notion of reigning power as applied to sin, the law, and death that helps us to recognize not only the relevance but the necessity of the judgment executed if we are to be freed from their thraldom, judgment executed in Christ’s death.” Emphasis Added.

    Murray seems to be stressing Christ’s forensic role in DS.

    Like

  4. Jeff, why tinker? Just call it regeneration. What would we gain, for example, for reclassifying faith as “definitive trust”? If it ain’t broken . . . If it is, would someone please admit it?

    Like

  6. Jeff, – If I were a bettin’ man I would say cause he want you get all the way there.

    Like

  7. Or in English as opposed to engrish, ” I would say because he wants you to get all the way there.”

    Like

  8. I think that there is good reason to use the term “definitive sanctification”.

    First, it was used by one of the founding members of a faithful denomination. Now, certainly dgh can appreciate this since he cites Machen in support of his not feeling comfortable praying in public. But it is more than simply appealing to the words of John Murray. It is Murray’s appeal to Scripture that is so compelling. Read his articles on definitive sanctification and critique them. Start there. Don’t simply say “well, it’s not the regular language.”

    That’s a cop-out.

    Deal with the argument, please. Second, I prefer Murray’s language because I think that it gets to the fact of the matter – we are definitively sanctified, made holy, set apart – in our union with Christ. We are no longer polluted just as we are no longer guilty. That has significance both theologically as well as practically.

    Third, it is a good argument for which no answer has yet been given. Sure, you can say that justification has priority – and I will agree with that to an extent – but no good reason has yet been provided (biblical, theological, historical or otherwise) to abandon the understanding of soteriology that in our union with Christ we are justified, adopted and sanctified. We are even glorified since we are seated in the heavenly places with Christ.

    We don’t have part of Christ and we don’t have part of our salvation – we have it all in Christ.

    Let justification be the material principle of the Reformation. That’s good, fine, great and necessary. No one in the union camp (that I know of) is arguing against that. But let’s not simply end the discussion there. Let’s talk, as Vos did, about the significant differences in soteriological formulations between the Lutheran and Reformed. Let’s be precise.

    Now dgh, when are you going to start writing a weekly blog on this notion that the Mosaic Covenant is nothing more than a republication of the Covenant of Works. Do you hold, as many at WSC do, that the the MC is not part of the Covenant of Grace? If so, how do you reconcile that with your understanding of the WCF, particularly 7.5?

    Like

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.