I am falling behind on responses to the last post — the hazards of moving and orchestrating a relocation. TMI alert! But — dare I say — I am still leading family worship, pious Reformed Protestant that I try to be (TMI warning!), and this morning encountered the following from Martin Luther. It strikes me that this understanding of faith, and its different measures among the saints, is way more reassuring than the ecstasy that may accompany desiring God. Not to be missed is that Luther rightly favors the object of faith over the act of faith. The same, I would argue, could be said about charity or any of the other fruits of the Spirit.
In this Christian brotherhood no man possesses more than another. St. Peter and St. Paul have no more than Mary Magdalene or you or I. To sum up: Taking them all together, they are brothers, and there is no difference between the persons. Mary, the Mother of the Lord, and John the Baptist, and the thief on the cross, they all possess the selfsame good which you and I possess, and all who are baptised and do the Father’s Will. And what have all the saints? They have comfort and help promised them through Christ in every kind of need, against sin, death, and the devil. And I have the same, and you, and all believers have.
But this also is true, that you and I do not believe it so firmly as John the Baptist and St. Paul; and yet it is the one and only treasure. It is the same as when two men hold a glass of wine, one with a trembling, the other with a steady hand. Or when two men hold a bag of money, one in a weak, the other in a strong hand. Whether the hand be strong, or weak, as God wills, it neither adds to the contents of the bag, nor takes away. In the same way there is no other difference here between the Apostles and me, than that they hold the treasure firmer. Nevertheless, I should and must know that I possess the same treasure as all holy Prophets, Apostles, and all saints have possessed.
Old Life 
Praise God for the simple fact that Luther uses holding a glass of wine as a metaphor for grasping Christ by faith. It is, of course, an entirely and sacramentally appropriate image for faith in Christ.
Shame it is so unlikely today.
LikeLike
Thanks Dr Hart…that was poignant and appropriate, esp. the object of faith over the act of faith. Christ’s mustard seed parable is there for a reason.
LikeLike
the object of faith over the act of faith
Edwards and Piper have the same priority.
LikeLike
Thanks for that. It’s part of why I wrote “The Tale of Two Adams.” A person can really come away from the “Desiring God” book having completely forgotten that God is pleased with him or her only for the sake of Christ’s imputed righteousness.
LikeLike
Mark,
I don’t agree. Edwards, Finney, Piper, and other “experimental” Calvinists seem to focus on the inward experience of faith. Thus, faith becomes too intertwined with one’s subjective sense of feeling saved or not. On the contrary, Scripture teaches that God’s favor on the elect is objective, and, as such, is in no way dependent on my inward experience of it.
LikeLike
As I was reading your string of comments and this post I was thinking some audio commentary from Sega Genesis’ NBA slam would be fitting… “He’s heating up… He’s on fire!!”
LikeLike
Bob,
You cannot seriously be calling Finney an experimental Calvinist.
LikeLike
DGH,
Hey now, don’t get stingy on us. You can’t drop a Luther quote like that on us without giving us the reference. Let the rest of us go Ad Fontes, too!
LikeLike
« I am still leading family worship, pious Reformed Protestant that I try to be» hmm… Give me the ordinary means of grace over all that junk anyway 😉
LikeLike
I just heaved a big sigh after reading this quote from Luther.
Thanks so much for posting it.
LikeLike
Thank you, Darryl, for the quotation from the always-helpful Luther. It was genuinely edifying. My heart was strangely warmed and lifted up to worship the one true God.
LikeLike
Most excellent addition from Luther! This is indeed the answer to the question: Why is God so worthy of man’s desiring? An answer best received in Word and sacrament.
“Then I looked, and I heard around the throne and the living creatures and the elders the voice of many angels, numbering myriads of myriads and thousands of thousands,
saying with a loud voice, ‘Worthy is the Lamb who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing!'” Revelation 5:11-12
LikeLike
“When he says that he cried for the living God, we are not to understand it merely in the sense of a burning love and desire towards God: but we ought to remember in what manner it is that, God allures us to himself, and by what means he raises our minds upwards. He does not enjoin us to ascend forthwith into heaven, but, consulting our weakness, he descends to us. David, then, considering that the way of access was shut against him, cried to God, because he was excluded from the outward service of the sanctuary, which is the sacred bond of intercourse with God. I do not mean to say that the observance of external ceremonies can of itself bring us into favor with God, but they are religious exercises which we cannot bear to want by reason of our infirmity. David, therefore, being excluded from the sanctuary, is no less grieved than if he had been separated from God himself. He did not, it is true, cease in the meantime to direct his prayers towards heaven, and even to the sanctuary itself; but conscious of his own infirmity, he was specially grieved that the way by which the faithful obtained access to God was shut against him. This is an example which may well suffice to put to shame the arrogance of those who without concern can bear to be deprived of those means, or rather, who proudly despise them, as if it were in their power to ascend to heaven in a moment’s flight; nay, as if they surpassed David in zeal and alacrity of mind.”
Calvin on verse 1 of Psalm 42.
LikeLike
Scripture teaches that God’s favor on the elect is objective, and, as such, is in no way dependent on my inward experience of it.
Edwards would agree on the objectivity and independence of God’s favor on the elect. Edwards used scripture to show how this favor is experienced by the saints. Thus, the subjective was always measured by the objective means of Scripture, thereby greatly aiding the church in distinguishing false and true religion. Would encourage you to go to the sources and read “Religious Affections and his “Personal Narrative”.
Disregard the modern day historical revisionists.
LikeLike
But Mark, Edwards did not support Christian schools.
LikeLike
Darryl, as to your non-sequiter:
“The Puritan curriculum of technologia taught Edwards a God-centered view of all reality. He grew up in a church that believed it had an obligation to teach what it meant to live a God-filled life in everything we do. That is why the textbooks of technologia began with the being of God and traced His truth through creation all the way to how it is lived out as a farmer, shoemaker, or merchant.” ~ Dr. David Scott.
LikeLike
“You cannot seriously be calling Finney an experimental Calvinist.”
–ditto.
“the object of faith over the act of faith
Edwards and Piper have the same priority.”
–ditto.
And finally:
“Then I looked, and I heard around the throne and the living creatures and the elders the voice of many angels, numbering myriads of myriads and thousands of thousands,
saying with a loud voice, ‘Worthy is the Lamb who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing!’” Revelation 5:11-12
–Too bad all these folks around the throne only understood the Lamb was worthy, but weren’t feeling or experiencing it. No, no. No “experimental” religion going on there! (Sorry, eh-hem: “…there.” No reason to emote, right?)
Sincerely, friends, this post ranks among some of the most unfortunate false dichotomies around.
LikeLike
Come on, Mark, Edwards didn’t send his kids to Christian schools. According to you and Dr. K., that makes someone a threat. Or do you guys simply decide beforehand, who you like and who you don’t.
So what gives? Was his real name Edwardsma?
LikeLike
Michael, in your quotation from Rev. 5 I see no adverbs, like saying with a “really” loud voice, or standing around the throne “exuberantly.” But I guess your affections supply adverbs where they don’t exist.
LikeLike
Well, sure Darryl, Christian Schools International hadn’t been formed yet, but he clearly believed in Christian education and related learning from a Christian perspective.
And no, his real name was not Edwardsma. It was Jonathan van Edwardstra. He changed his name and moved to an Indian outpost after a coalition of marauding Anabaptists and Lutherans, with hammer and nails in hand, threatened to teach van Edwardstra a literal “theology of the cross” unless he abandoned his Dutch Reformed world and life view.
LikeLike
You cannot seriously be calling Finney an experimental Calvinist.
Of course Finney was an experimental Calvinist. He started in the Presbyterian Church. As I understand it, one day he was experimenting in the lab, and got a mixture wrong (or was it right?), and the resulting explosion broke the beaker and the Westminster Standards and historic, correct exegesis of the NT went up in smoke. In one bang he lost biblical historia salutis and ordo salutis.
LikeLike
Darryl:
thanks for your response. However, I believe it has some flaws. I will list one here for your consideration.
Your implication that affections or [strong] emotions in the text of Scripture always require modification by adverbs in order to be identified by readers of Scripture as affections or emotions in the text simply will not withstand the proof of Scripture. For example, “Jesus wept” (John 11:35). You will notice no adverbs here, and none are needed. When God wrote this verse he knew that we readers would be acquainted enough with human experience to know what the Lord is experiencing. Or do you want to argue that Jesus was stoic here? Of course you don’t.
In addition, Rev. 5:11-12 possesses the ADVERBIAL phrase “with a loud voice” which modifies “saying”. So, contrary to your response, an adverbial idea does exist here. And for the reason above, God wants us to know in what manner they were speaking. Are you really claiming that they were not experiencing anything, nor engaging in experimental religion? Really? In the presence of the Almighty and the Lamb?
I’m wondering if the ax you’re grinding has wounded your humanity. I urge you to reconsider your position.
Besides, you never responded to my comment that “desiring God or faith in Christ?” is a question which ranks among some of the most unfortunate false dichotomies around.
To sum up, I suppose one could say that one’s reasonable humanity acknowledges affections where they do exist.
More could be admitted here, but I will refrain, my friend.
May the LORD give us all understanding to see the error of our thoughts and ways.
Please read the following and be blessed:
Click to access Recovering_Experimental_Religion.pdf
http://fountainsofgrace.blogspot.com/2008/01/letter-what-is-experimental-religion.html
LikeLike
I don’t know about this one… “desiring God or faith in Christ.” You’ve kind of made it sounds so pit against each other. “VS.” Which one will win? Which one is right and which one is wrong. Which one is good and which one is evil… I don’t see why what Luther said isn’t compatible with Piper’s emphasis that a Christian, whether “weak” or “strong,” would desire God.
Thus, there seems to be confusion here. Darryl, if you don’t mind me asking here, have you had something brewing in your thoughts against a teaching of Pipers? Please excuse me for saying so, but perhaps you’re reading current contentions into other things you’re reading, looking for others to backup preconceived notions.
LikeLike
Ryan, I’m not sure Luther would have used the word, “hedonism,” to describe a believer’s love of God. Is it just I, or should words like self-control and moderation characterize Christian devotion? Hedonism, in whatever form, seems like a form of affectional disorder.
LikeLike
Now, Darryl, Luther has never been known to ruffle a feather with his choice wording… ;0)
Not to argue—but let’s talk. Self-control. What is it? What is being controlled? Does it mean to put a damper on all the hatches? Does it mean “be cautious of loving God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength,” you might actually like it?
I know “christian hedonism” is a colourful word; a bit pragmatic. But what of the content behind it? It’s nothing new. It’s Religious Affections by Jonathan Edwards. Thus perhaps a better question would be, not what do you think of Piper and his unorthodox word, but what you of Edwards’ book?
LikeLike
Ryan, you’re kidding, right? I’ve been saying for a while that Edwards is not the answer.
LikeLike
Sorry, just stumbled across the above post here. Didn’t see that one. Thanks for your patience and a link ;0)
LikeLike
Horatius Bonar: God reckons the believing person as having done all righteousness, though he has not done any, and though his faith is not the righteousness. The work of Christ for us is the object of faith; the Spirit’s work in us is that which produces this faith:
The bringer of the sacrifice into the tabernacle was to lay his hand upon the head of the sheep or the bullock. But the laying on of his hand was not the same as the victim on which it was laid. The serpent-bitten Israelite was to look at the uplifted serpent of brass in order to be healed. But his looking was not the brazen serpent. We may say it was his looking that healed him, just as the Lord said, “your faith has saved you”; but this is figurative language. It was not his act of looking that healed him, but the object to which he locked. So faith is not our righteousness.
Faith is not what saves us.. It was not faith that was born at Bethlehem and died on Golgotha for us. It was not faith that loved us, and gave itself for us; that bore our sins in its own body on the tree; that died and rose again for our sins. Faith is one thing, Jesus the Christ is another. Faith is one thing, and the cross is another. Let us not confound them, nor ascribe to a poor, imperfect act of man, that which belongs exclusively to the Son of the Living God.
Faith is not perfection. Yet only by perfection can we be saved; either our own or another’s. That which is imperfect cannot justify, and an imperfect faith could not in any sense be the righteousness. If it is to justify, it must be perfect. It must be like “the Lamb, without blemish and without spot” . God has asked and provided a perfect righteousness; He nowhere asks nor expects a perfect faith
In no sense and in no aspect can faith be said to satisfy God, or to satisfy the law. Yet if it is to be our righteousness, it must satisfy. Being imperfect, it cannot satisfy; being human, it cannot satisfy, even though it were perfect. That which satisfies must be capable of bearing our guilt; and that which bears our guilt must be not only perfect, but divine. It is a sin-bearer that we need, and our faith cannot be a sin-bearer. Faith can expiate no guilt; can accomplish no propitiation; can pay no penalty; can wash away no stain; can provide no righteousness.
Faith is not Christ, nor the cross of Christ. Faith is not the blood, nor the sacrifice. Faith does not work, but accepts a work done ages ago.
LikeLike
McMark: Faith is not perfection. Yet only by perfection can we be saved; either our own or another’s. That which is imperfect cannot justify, and an imperfect faith could not in any sense be the righteousness. If it is to justify, it must be perfect. It must be like “the Lamb, without blemish and without spot” . God has asked and provided a perfect righteousness; He nowhere asks nor expects a perfect faith
In no sense and in no aspect can faith be said to satisfy God, or to satisfy the law. Yet if it is to be our righteousness, it must satisfy. Being imperfect, it cannot satisfy; being human, it cannot satisfy, even though it were perfect. That which satisfies must be capable of bearing our guilt; and that which bears our guilt must be not only perfect, but divine. It is a sin-bearer that we need, and our faith cannot be a sin-bearer. Faith can expiate no guilt; can accomplish no propitiation; can pay no penalty; can wash away no stain; can provide no righteousness.
Faith is not Christ, nor the cross of Christ. Faith is not the blood, nor the sacrifice. Faith does not work, but accepts a work done ages ago.
RS: Nevertheless, while it is true what you are saying, Scripture does speak in that way at times. If Scripture uses the word “faith” and thinks of it as having the object of faith at the same time, perhaps there are human authors who speak in the same way.
Romans 4:5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness,
LikeLike
Scripture does not count faith as the righteousness. God does not count faith as the righteousness. God’s declaration of righteousness is based on the reality of legal union of the elect with Christ’s death. Christ died only for those already in union (by election) with Him.
http://www.creedcodecult.com/what-counted-as-abrahams-righteousness/
1. Romans 4:6 says that God imputes righteousness without works. Does that mean that God imputes faith without works? It seems like we could say that, if faith is the righteousness. Isn’t faith something which is imparted, not something which is imputed?
2. When Romans 10:10 says “it is believed unto (not ‘as’ ) righteousness”, what is that righteousness? Does this mean “believed unto believing”? Is the righteousness of Romans 10:10 the righteousness of faith we see in Romans 10:6? And is this righteousness the same as “the righteousness of God” in Romans 10:3? Romans 10:6 also says “confessed unto salvation”. Notice the unto (not “as”). Confession is not salvation. Believing is not the righteousness.
3. When Romans 10:3 says that they “did not submit themselves to (not ‘as’) the righteousness of God”, does this mean that the righteousness is submitting yourself to God? If so, then the phrase means “did not submit themselves to submitting themselves.” But the phrase does not mean “believe in believing”, because the righteousness is not the same as faith in the righteousness.
4. When Romans 1:17 says “the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith”, does that mean “the faith revealed from faith to faith”? It should if faith is the righteousness. How could the righteousness be divine (of God) if it’s the faith God gives humans? Is it my faith which is “revealed” in history, or is it God’s righteousness done in the obedience of Christ revealed in history?
5. When I Cor 1:30 says that Christ is our righteousness, does that mean that faith is our righteousness? Is your faith your Christ?
6. When Romans 3:22 speaks of a righteousness through faith unto all who believe, does that mean simply that faith is unto all who believe? But if faith is the righteousness, we should be able to substitute the word faith for the word righteousness and say that “faith is unto all who believe”.
7. Hebrews 11:7 says that Noah became a heir of righteousness by faith. Does that mean that faith is his inheritance? Does that mean that Noah became a heir of faith? That he got faith by faith? But logically it would mean this if faith is the righteousness.
LikeLike
mark mcculley: Scripture does not count faith as the righteousness. God does not count faith as the righteousness. God’s declaration of righteousness is based on the reality of legal union of the elect with Christ’s death. Christ died only for those already in union (by election) with Him.
RS: I am agreeing with what you are saying, but simply saying that since Scripture uses this as a synecdoche, it may be that some people in history may have and perhaps some today use it that way as well.
LikeLike
I don’t disagree that “people” confuse faith with faith’s object. But they shouldn’t. God doesn’t. And it’s not “both” either. It’s not faith plus the object of faith. It’s the object of faith. This is one of the many ways Edwards went wrong, by making the “fittingness” of justification depend not on Christ’s death alone but also on all the future moments of faith in the God-enabled sinner.
Does God credit our faith (a gift from God to us) as the righteousness which saves us? In chapter 4 of his new book on justfication (P and R, 2013) Vickers describes Romans 4: “Paul contrasts two kinds of counting. In the first, wages are counted as the reward for works; in the second, faith is counted as righteousness. This immediately raises the important question: is faith in Christ a replacement for works? Just as works are rewarded with what is due, is faith rewarded with righteousness? This is not the way Paul describes it. God is contrasting two things, not simply swapping one thing for another thing.”
mcmark: I agree so far. The works are not rewarded with more works. The works are rewarded with wages. The faith is not rewarded with more faith. The faith is not rewarded by God counting the faith as works. But then comes the problem…. Vickers: “God counts one thing for what it is, but the other thing is received by grace AND IS COUNTED FOR SOMETHING ELSE.
mcmark:I agree with the contrast between works and grace, between works and faith. But I disagree that God counts faith as the righteousness. You could say that God “swaps” wages for works, or that God rewards for works, but you should NOT say that God “swaps” faith for righteousness. Remember his question: Is faith a replacement for works? Vickers wants to say no to that. But he can’t stay consistent in saying it. Vickers does think that God counts the gift of faith as the righteousness when he says that ( p76) ‘faith is counted for something else”
The Second London Confession (1689) addresses this question: “Those whom God effectually calls He also freely justifies, not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting them as righteous, not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ’s sake alone. They are not justified because God reckons as their righteousness either their faith, their believing, or any other act of evangelical obedience. They are justified wholly and solely because God imputes to them Christ’s righteousness. “
LikeLike
Vickers on one hand seems to know that God does not count faith as the righteousness. Thus he makes important qualifications. “Faith must not be thought of apart from its object.” Good. “Justification is not because of faith but by faith.” Correct. And then Vickers uses some more confessional language about “instrumental means” of righteousness instead of faith being the righteousness, or being counted as a substitute or an equivalent for the righteousness. And he concludes, “if faith is the righteousness in question, then faith is a work.” (p77). Again, I agree, but this won’t help much because the Arminians and the Neo-nomians (Baxter, new law for righteousness) will all simply explain that faith however is NOT a work, and therefore they will argue that it’s just for God to count faith as the righteousness, and then they will begin to try to describe this faith (in very similar terms to what Vickers himself does-working!).
Faith is a work.
No, faith is not a work.
The debate won’t take you very far. Even if the debate is about if faith comes from fallen man’s freewill contribution, the Calvinist accusation that says “well then it’s a work” does not do much because the Arminians will quickly explain that they never say it’s a work and that they know it’s not a work.
In this concern that Vickers has about God accepting faith as the righteousness would make faith a work, he’s right to contrast faith and works, but he won’t get far as long as HE ALSO AGREES THAT GOD COUNTS SOMETHING (faith) FOR SOMETHING ELSE (righteousness). And Vickers’ understanding of “imputation” has incorrectly brought in the idea of God counting something for what it is not.
LikeLike
Use count, credit, reckon, declare, as you like, but the meaning of imputation down to two ideas. One, a simple analytic (forensic) declaration. We count God as just because God is just. God counts what Phinehas did as righteous because it was righteous. So all “imputing” has this “declaring what it is” idea to it. But two, in some cases, there is the idea of God ‘s sharing what belongs to one person or persons with another person or persons.
Notice, I say, in some cases. In all cases, there is forensic declaring. But in some cases, God creates (appoints, constitutes) a legal solidarity between two persons, so that what one person has also gets used to arrive at a declaring about the second person. So it’s not only judge and defendant, but a third party. In the case of Christ’s righteousness, the righteousness is the wages due to Christ for his work. The righteousness of Christ is God’s analytic declaration about what was accomplished in Christ’s death and resurrection.
I don’t care if you call this metaphorically Christ’s treasury of wages. The metaphor doesn’t bother me. Salvation is by work, not our works, but by Christ’s work. I don’t care if you accuse this of being “contract talk” and “legalism” (as the Barthians like the Torrances do, or as those who reject any idea of a “covenant of merit” for Christ)).
Sometimes it’s not only two parties, but also a third party. God imputes sin to all humans when they are born (Christ the God-man excepted). God. Humans. The third party is Adam. (Adam is human) And there are not only two parties (God and the elect) but Christ the third party, whose righteousness is imputed to the elect. (Christ is God)
Romans 4:6 just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works:
Romans 4:6 does not say the righteousness of Christ, does it? And maybe “to whom counts righteousness” only means “ counts righteous” and maybe that only means “justifies”, so there is no legal sharing with a third party. Many protestants, including Vickers, have effectively debated against these two objections, and I have nothing to add. If you are “new perspective” enough to say that Christ’s death and resurrection have nothing to do with the counting in Romans 4, you can simply deny the third party.
But I want to stay focused on my objection to the very common idea that God DOES count faith in the third party as the righteousness. It leaves us with an “as though” version of imputation.
Imputation is always, in every case, analytic declaration, God judging according to truth. Even in the cases in which there is a third party, and a legal sharing with the third party, the relationship is not “as if”. For example, between Christ and the Trinity, in the imputation of the sins of the elect to Christ, the imputation does not cause an internal change in Christ (God forbid), but Christ really (legally, not fictionally) became guilty (under the law) until Christ died once and thus is no more under the law (Romans 6).
And if you think this is ‘contract talk” and “legalism” and a bad metaphor over-used, I simply don’t care. Better this metaphor than those who agree that “union” has an eternal and legal aspect, and then go right on to use the word “union” as if it meant a “transformation inside us conditioned on the faith God gives us on the inside.”….
LikeLike
mark mcculley: I don’t disagree that “people” confuse faith with faith’s object. But they shouldn’t. God doesn’t. And it’s not “both” either. It’s not faith plus the object of faith. It’s the object of faith. This is one of the many ways Edwards went wrong, by making the “fittingness” of justification depend not on Christ’s death alone but also on all the future moments of faith in the God-enabled sinner.
RS: Look at this in a little different way, then. Justification is by faith in order that it may be by grace. A sinner is declared just by God on the basis of Christ alone, yet that is by grace alone through faith alone. God could declare Abraham just based on Christ in the future, so clearly God can declare people just at one moment while takin into account future things. But let us not forget that P in TULIP. The only people who are truly converted are those who endure to the end, yet God declares people just before they are given the grace to persevere. Yet those who do not persevere were never truly declared just. In some way, then, we must take into account the fact that God only justifies those who will persevere and yet this perseverance is also seen by Him. Yet all that perseverance is by grace alone that is received by faith alone as well. I don’t think that Edwards is teaching that justification depends on Christ alone plus our perseverance, but that God declares sinners just knowing that they will persevere because it is He who upholds them in faith and that faith receives grace. Not an iota of that perseverance contributes to their justification, but those who don’t persevere are not those that God justified.
Romans 4:16 For this reason it is by faith, in order that it may be in accordance with grace, so that the promise will be guaranteed to all the descendants, not only to those who are of the Law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all,
LikeLike
mcmark: I agree so far. The works are not rewarded with more works. The works are rewarded with wages. The faith is not rewarded with more faith. The faith is not rewarded by God counting the faith as works. But then comes the problem…. Vickers: “God counts one thing for what it is, but the other thing is received by grace AND IS COUNTED FOR SOMETHING ELSE.
mcmark:I agree with the contrast between works and grace, between works and faith. But I disagree that God counts faith as the righteousness. You could say that God “swaps” wages for works, or that God rewards for works, but you should NOT say that God “swaps” faith for righteousness. Remember his question: Is faith a replacement for works? Vickers wants to say no to that. But he can’t stay consistent in saying it. Vickers does think that God counts the gift of faith as the righteousness when he says that ( p76) ‘faith is counted for something else”
RS: Very true. Faith cannot be swapped for anything else, but instead is that which receives grace. As you have noted, faith is not righteousness but it is Christ who is our righteousness. But it is faith that receives Christ and grace.
McMark: The Second London Confession (1689) addresses this question: “Those whom God effectually calls He also freely justifies, not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting them as righteous, not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ’s sake alone. They are not justified because God reckons as their righteousness either their faith, their believing, or any other act of evangelical obedience. They are justified wholly and solely because God imputes to them Christ’s righteousness. “
RS: A delightful statement. I also don’t think Edwards would disagree with that at all.
LikeLike
McMark: And if you think this is ‘contract talk” and “legalism” and a bad metaphor over-used, I simply don’t care.
RS: It is simply biblical language.
McMark: Better this metaphor than those who agree that “union” has an eternal and legal aspect, and then go right on to use the word “union” as if it meant a “transformation inside us conditioned on the faith God gives us on the inside.”….
RS: Metaphors and langauge can confuse some real issues. Despite all the confusions and the reasons attached, we can simply say, however, that the person that has Christ as his life and the Spirit working in Him will be a different person. As justification is not because a person has faith, but a person has faith because God is going to justify (declare) him. So a person that Christ lives in does not have Christ and His Spirit because of faith, but because God wants to manifest His glory in and through that person.
LikeLike
I certainly don’t disagree that those God justifies know and believe the gospel, and that they persevere in knowing and believing the gospel. The problem is when we think that people are Christians who don’t know the gospel. People who think that God counts faith as the righteousness don’t know the gospel. People who think that Christ died for those who perish don’t know the gospel. We don’t need Mormons and Roman Catholics to persevere in their faith. We need to repent of their faith, and not to attempt to “reform” them into something better.
We don’t need “revival”. We need the truth of the gospel. But Sproul patronizingly assumes that “infant converts” are both semi-Pelagians and also already Christians.
Sproul: What is the difference between revival and reformation? As the etymologies of the words suggest, revival describes a renewal of spiritual life, while reformation describes a renewal of the forms and structures of society and culture. It is not possible to have true reformation without first having true revival. The renewal of spiritual life under the power of the Holy Spirit is a necessary condition for reformation but not a sufficient condition for it. Therefore, though it is not possible to have reformation without revival, it is possible to have revival without reformation. Why is that the case? There are at least two reasons. The first is that revival brings with it the conversion of persons to Christ, who are at the moment of conversion spiritual babes. Infants have little impact on the shaping of cultural institutions. It is when vast numbers of converted people approach maturity in their faith and sanctification that the structures of the world are seriously challenged and changed. If vast numbers of people are converted but remain infantile in their spiritual growth, little impact is made by them on society as a whole. Their faith tends to remain privatized and contained within the confines of the arena of mere religion.
The second reason concerns the scope and intensity of the revival. If the revival is limited in scope and intensity, its impact tends to be restricted to a small geographical area and also tends to be short-lived. Yet it may have rivulets of abiding influence into future generations. Such a rivulet is the work of Jonathan Edwards presented and discussed in this book. The Great Awakening that occurred in New England in the mid-eighteenth century has left an indelible mark on America, though that mark has faded dramatically over time.
Excerpted from R.C. Sproul’s Introduction to The Spirit of Revival, edited by Archie Parrish.
LikeLike
My great distress about Calvinists who put the emphasis on regeneration, faith and perseverence, is that they tend not to be that specific about the object of faith. Vickers, for examples, gives and then takes away. For example, I rejoice to read his comments on how we use “mere” (as in alone, sola!): “We have to be practical that we neither practically de-emphasize forgiveness in efforts to uphold another vital biblical doctrine nor mistakenly speak of it in ways that downplay the astonishing truth that in Christ our sins are forgiven.” (p82)
Great, but it’s about to be taken away—who is the “our”. Is it the elect? Is it those who look outside themselves to Christ? The soundbite keeps repeating itself. “The promise to Abraham is secure”. It’s objective and unconditional. But is the promise for you? “His promise will be kept with a certain sort of people”. P 109. What sort of a person are you? Are you a sinner just as you were, even after regeneration, still in need of forgiveness? Genesis 18:22—the promise will come to those who do righteousness and justice”. Do you? Have you? Will you?
Too many Calvinists are so alarmed by the idea of God justifying the ungodly (Romans 5) that they misread Romans 6 to be talking about “death to sin” as some kind of transformation by regeneration. But Christ’s death was not transformation by regeneration. And Romans 6 is about legal sharing in Christ’s one death.
Vickers does not really deal with the idea that the law “is not of faith” (Galatians 3:12) He tends to equate all disobedience with lack of faith, so that lawlessness is not having faith in the gospel. This makes it difficult to even talk about Christian believers who sin!
When you confuse law and gospel, all sin is works righteousness, and true righteousness is faith righteousness, so there are two kinds of doing, a right way of doing and a wrong way of doing.
But what about the comforting idea of not doing (no works, not even of the right kind) but resting in what Christ has done? Vickers explains: “recognizing the do this element in the law in no way negates faith, because the people of Israel needed to believe that God was who He said He was”. (p112) But it turns out that if you really do believe God is who God says God is, then “the right sort of people” believe this means that they will need to do what God says to do if they are going to be saved.
I suppose the wrong sort of people think that Christ is the fulfillment of the law for righteousness for all the justified elect.
LikeLike
I’m having a little problem I cant seem to be able to subscribe your rss feed, I’m using google reader fyi.
LikeLike