As I continue to come across Edwards’ writings — his Faithful Narrative is part of the reader for American Heritage at Hillsdale College — I continue to be amazed at the Northampton pastor’s broad appeal, even down to the “Jonathan Edwards is my homeboy” T-shirts. Granted, Edwards has much to admire. The thought of a pastor on the frontier of the British colonies, cut off from books and libraries, living with the constant threat of Native American attacks, writing philosophical works that continue to attract regular and academic readers is indeed remarkable. But has the warm glow surrounding Edwards obscured other aspects that his admirers and expert interpreters have neglected? One topic that has recently generated a little attention is Edwards and slavery. Since he owned slaves, and since slaveholders are only a few steps up the chain of wickedness from child molesters for modern Americans, I can’t help but wonder why more of the evangelical fans of Edwards have not had a reaction to him similar to their regard for nineteenth-century southern Protestants.
Another oddity about the Edwards phenomenon is the way that few of his admirers seem to comment on his descriptions of converts in A Faithful Narrative. Not only do these accounts raise questions about the propriety of revealing the identities of specific church members — think confidentiality. But they also raise doubts about Edwards’ capacity to acknowledge the excess to which his own brand of revivalism ran. I am thinking in particular of the case of the four-year old convert, Phebe Bartlet. Why would anyone put any stock in the spiritual labyrinth of a child’s soul? More important, why would any pastor or mother let a child go through what Edwards describes:
She was born in March, in the year 1731. About the latter end of April, or the beginning of May 1735 she was greatly affected by the talk of her brother, who had been hopefully converted a little before, at about eleven years of age, and then seriously talked to her about the great things of religion. Her parents did not know of it at the that time, and were not wont, in the counsels they gave to their children, particularly to direct themselves to her, by reason of her being so young, and as they supposed, not capable of understanding: but after her brother had talked to her, they observed her very earnestly to listen to the advice they gave to the other children; and she was observed very constantly to retire, several times in a day, as was concluded, for secret prayer, and grew more and more engaged in religion, and was more frequent in her closet, till at last she was wont to visit it five or six times in a day; and was so engaged in it , that nothing would at any time divert her from her stated closet exercises. . . .
She once of her own accord spoke of her unsuccessfulness, in that she could not find God, or to that purpose. But on Thursday, the last day of July, about the middle of the day, the child being in the closet, where it used to retire, its mother heard it speaking aloud, which was unusual, and never had been observed before: and her voice seemed to be as of one exceedingly importunate and engaged; but her mother could distinctly hear only these words . . . “Pray, blessed Lord, give me salvation! I pray, beg, pardon, all my sins!” When the child had done prayer, she came out of the closet, and sat down by her mother, and cried out aloud. Her mother very earnestly asked her several times, what the matter was, before she could make any answer; but she continued crying exceedingly, and writhing her body to and fro, like one in anguish of spirit. Her mother then asked her, whether she was afraid that God could not give her salvation. She answered, “Yes, I am afraid I shall go to hell!” Her mother then endeavored to quiet her; and told her she would not have her cry; she must be a good girl, and prayer every day, and she hoped God would give her salvation. But this did not quiet her at all; but she continued thus earnestly crying, and taking on for some time, till at length she suddenly ceased crying, and began to smile, and presently said with a smiling countenance, “Mother, the kingdom of heaven is come to me!” Her mother was surprised at the sudden alteration, and at the speech; and knew not what to make of it, but at first said nothing to her. The child presently spoke again, and said, “There is another come to me, and there is another, there is three;” and being asked what she meant, she answered, “One is, Thy will be done, and there is another Enjoy him forever;” by which it seems, that when the child said, “there is three comes to me,” she meant three passages of her Catechism that came to her mind.
Huh (on SO MANY!!! levels)!?!
Mind you, the problem is not simply for the evangelical advocates of Edwards. The scholarly community does not appear to be troubled by these truly bizarre reports. I will be more than happy to be corrected either by the fans or scholars of Edwards.
But in the meantime, I couldn’t resist seeing what the leading guru on rearing children among conservative Presbyterians, Paul Tripp, considers the age appropriate level of moral awareness and spiritual discernment. Here’s one example:
Our children were too young to grasp the abstract, strategic, and often theological purposes underlying my instruction. Even if I explained everything in as age-appropriate a way as I could, they would still have no actual understanding. They just didn’t yet have the categories or the capacity to grasp the parental logic behind the plan or command.
So I did the same thing again and again. I would kneel down in front of them at eye level and say, “Please look at Daddy’s face. Do you know how much I love you? Do you know that your Daddy isn’t a mean, bad man? Do you know that I would never ask you to do anything that would hurt you or make you sick? I’m sorry that you can’t understand why Daddy is asking you to do this. I wish I could explain it to you, but you are too young to understand. So I’m going to ask you to do something—trust Daddy. When you walk down the hallway to do what Daddy has asked you to do, say to yourself, ‘My Daddy loves me. My Daddy would never ask me to do something bad. I’m going to trust my Daddy and stop trying to be the Daddy of my Daddy.’”
I know, I know. Eighteenth-century expectations for children were different from ours. Even so, to consider Edwards’ willingness to see little Phebe go through this spiritual anguish, along with his use of Phebe’s example to promote revivals, is hard to square with the pastor-theologian’s alleged brilliance and spiritual insight.
Old Life 
Perhaps he was beside himself; much learning hath made him mad?
LikeLike
It all seems familiar. I recall reading John Gerstner’s book “Jonathan Edwards: Evangelist” – ostensibly a sympathetic account of Edwards’s approach – when I, a disaffected Anglican, was exploring Reformed theology. It biased me against Edwards for life. After reading it several times – just to make sure I indeed got it – and concluding that whatever this was, it was not BibIical Christianity, I became Lutheran. SDG!
LikeLike
Well, in defense, at least she had some articles of the catechism at hand in her anguish.
Though I hope I’m not boasting to report that just last week I nearly choked up during services when my four-year old daughter and her friend at church recited the Lord’s Prayer with voices clear and strong, only to be followed a few days later by a near spotless recitation of the Creed at evening prayers. I couldn’t hope for any more or less from a young baptized saint, and I’m not anxiously awaiting her conversion.
Remind me why Edwards is considered a Reformed theologian?
LikeLike
Oh, and the blessed piety of the same daughter comforting her mother at her own great-grandmother’s death: “Don’t worry, Mommy, she’s in heaven with Jesus.”
Why oh why do we want or expect our children to be in anguish over the Gospel?
LikeLike
Brian, maybe the answer is that Reformed has more status than Baptist or enthusiast.
LikeLike
Brian, funny, that was Nevin’s question.
LikeLike
As much as I deeply respect DGH’s insights, I sometimes feel like the beating Edwards takes by R. Scott Clark and other fellows whom I also deeply, deeply admire is a bit over-enthusiastic.
Would such solid reformed guys be so critical of the relatively modest failings of Edwards if he were not currently in vogue among predestinarian congregationalists?
“Edwards is popular among the Piperites; there must be some heterodoxy somewhere!”
I say this as a self-identified Old Sider. I will take John Thomson over Gilbert Tennent any day, I promise!
LikeLike
The Gospel of grace alone does not cause anguish, but sin does. The case of Phebe Bartlet is simply the way the Puritans and the older Reformed people in Engand and America practiced evangelism. Souls were to be truly convicted of sin, brought to sorrow for sin, and then brought to a deep humiliation (being emptied of self and all hope in self) before there could truly be real faith. After all, a soul cannot trust in grace alone until it no longer trusts in self at all.
Jonathan Edwards is considered Reformed because he was Reformed through and through. Our day has simply not caught up with his day in terms of biblical theology or experimental Christianity. If salvation is truly by grace alone and the only kind of grace is sovereign grace, then God grants grace to whom He pleases and as He pleases. The human soul that truly believes in sovereign grace (the only kind of grace there is) knows that it can do nothing to force or ply God to give grace. It may plead with God to humble it so that it will not trust in itself, but that may require anguish of soul.
Phebe Bartlet’s case demonstrates a great deal of spiritual wisdom and insight by Edwards and blasting him for her anguish is simply a misunderstanding of the way biblical evangelism was practiced by the Puritans and Edwards. Remember, the little girl was converted. Was she wrong to cry out to God to save her? Should she have done something in her own power to save herself? To whom should she cry out to and trust in to give her a new heart? Should she look to herself or to the sacraments to give her a new heart? No, it takes the very mighty power of God to give a new heart which is a believing heart (Eph 1:17-21). Edwards was right.
LikeLike
I would suspect a strong degree of imitation in little Phebe’s actions. On the other hand, I wouldn’t want to remove the possibility that Christ himself relieved her suffering, with Holy Spirit’s recalling to her childlike mind her catechism. Edwards himself seems to regard Phebe’s case as unusual, given her age, and not “typical.” It fits into his early analysis of observable effects of a strong, spiritual tide during his ministry, often called revival.
And can he really be held accountable for either the parental “laissez-faire” (non-discouraging) or active promotion of their daughter’s disposition? There are different ways of responding to the phenomena of new situations. One can outright oppose them. One can outright embrace them. Or, one can observe them for a while, and make judgments; while recognizing that even these are limited in some way by our providential setting and the influences we’ve borne. The 18th century revivals saw all three of these reactions, and Edwards’ was surely the latter sort.
Furthermore, while I’m more inclined to agree with Tripp that (especially in our common age) our children must be brought along by sheer, overwhelming repetition of the lesson, a long and patient discipline; it behooves us to make a rather large allowance for the value of the “setting” as contributive to this discipline. Our children are imitative–massively so–and the Phebe of 18th century New England was subject to what can only be deemed a highly “disciplined” culture, within which was her highly disciplined–and religious–household.
In contrast, we today are situated in a highly undisciplined culture. And for all my intentions to instill a counter-cultural discipline in my (large) family, I must admit that the undisciplined nature of the wider culture impacts the quality of our parental inputs. We stand out (embarrassingly? happily?) when as ones and twos, or as a whole family, we go places; and our children are conspicuously well-behaved. And yet, our creature-comforts and the sheer ease of living in 21st century USA make our not-so-well-off lifestyle still rather indolent, compared to the demands of living in this land 250 years ago, or even much closer to us.
Please don’t mistake these observations for an unqualified endorsement of the New England experiment. I am a Puritan in many ways, but distinctly Presbyterian in ecclesiology, and as regards covenant-nurture. We aren’t about looking for an experience of conversion. We are about looking for evidence of growth and continuance in grace (2Pet.3:18). We aren’t about discipline that is largely “social” in nature. We are about discipline, that is 24/7 shepherding whatever sheep and lambs are under various spans-of-control.
Christians aren’t very good about doing what we ought, and so we must be constantly depending on the grace available to us in the gospel. Compassion for our lamb’s inadequacy, and a sense of our own, will have us relying more on the means of grace, and less on the law, to pursue the best ends.
I think a sympathetic view of Edwards will acknowledge that he was a decent pastor for his time and place. His later observations on the very mixed nature of “revivals” show maturity in reflection. He almost lived long enough to become a Presbyterian, and how that might have changed him for the better (or what baleful results for the Presbyterians were avoided) cannot be told with any certainty.
I think it is too hard for us (than we generally admit) to hold up Edwards, or any past respected figure, to our present expectations. Obviously, all the appeals to what folks like about him need to be balanced by an open discussion of the downside. I’m glad for the comparison that DGH offered here between Edwards and Tripp, especially as my current experience probably coheres more with the latter’s.
But I also think that the right response to one-sided adulation is not one-sided censure, as implied by DGH’s grudging reference to Edwards “alleged brilliance and spiritual insight.” It’s just so blanket a criticism, and doesn’t sound like the kind of measured and specific criticism offered by Hodge, et al.
LikeLike
Sounds a lot like the conversion experience of Augustine in The Confessions Book 8.
LikeLike
Neoz, you may have a point but it doesn’t address the point at hand. Was Edwards strange to write about a 4 year old’s conversion, and do so this way? If you admire Edwards, irrespective of how you regard me or Clark, how uncomfortable do these bits of Edwards make you?
LikeLike
Richard Smith, so does that make Paul Tripp’s feeling his children’s pain wrong? And why would so many contemporary fans of Edwards also turn out by bus loads to hear a more child-centered approach from Tripp?
LikeLike
Bruce, wouldn’t “idiot” and “fraud” count as one-sided censure?
LikeLike
Mike, was Augustine 4? Was he writing about someone else?
LikeLike
Maybe I’m missing your point, but it seems to me that Augustine was speaking of his own experience in the garden commendably. I don’t see the relevance of his age, I don’t think explaining ones conversion experience in those terms is appropriate. Or is it?
LikeLike
Mike, how one speaks about one’s own experience in a diary is different from how one describes one’s experience for public consumption. But Edwards was writing about the private experience of someone else. Hence the reference to rules of confidentiality.
LikeLike
D.G. Hart: Richard Smith, so does that make Paul Tripp’s feeling his children’s pain wrong? And why would so many contemporary fans of Edwards also turn out by bus loads to hear a more child-centered approach from Tripp?
RS: From my point of view Tripp’s feeling his children’s pain may be that he is too child-centered. Most contemporary fans of Edwards, as far as I can tell, have only interpreted him through the lense of Piper. That is not a great lense to interpret Edwards. The greatest love a parent or anyone else can have for a child is to be an instrument of the glory of God to a child so that the child may behold His glory. Tripp’s method may or may not work that way, but I think Edwards is more biblical.
D.G. Hart: But Edwards was writing about the private experience of someone else. Hence the reference to rules of confidentiality.
RS: But remember that when people give their testimony, they are not so concerned with confidentiality but with the glory of God. Maybe the parents gave him permission to do so. After all, it was the parents that gave him most of the information in that case. As far as rules of confidentiality, I don’t think they were quite so concerned about that in the same way in that time. Frankly, that seems like a rather strange way to approach this particular issue.
LikeLike
Bruce: Please don’t mistake these observations for an unqualified endorsement of the New England experiment. I am a Puritan in many ways, but distinctly Presbyterian in ecclesiology, and as regards covenant-nurture. We aren’t about looking for an experience of conversion. We are about looking for evidence of growth and continuance in grace (2Pet.3:18).
RS: You are not looking for an experience of conversion? The Puritans and many older Presbyterians did look for an experience of conversion. A person that has been made a new creature and has been spiritually born most likely will know that something happened to him or her. There is a distinct difference between the doctrine of the new birth and then a person that has truly been born of God. When Paul instructs people to examine themselves in II Cor 13:5, he tells them to see if Christ is in them. The new birth and conversion of a person is when the living God comes to dwell in their souls. I would think that it is not wrong, though it does not always happen in the same way, for people to know that something has happened to them. No longer are they slaves to sin, they are the temples of the living God. Phebe Bartlet just may have been born from above and she had Christ in her soul and this was not an imitation of others, but an imitation of Christ in her.
LikeLike
Richard,
Have you read Tripp’s “Shepherding a Child’s Heart” or seen his videos under the same name? He is eminently and thoroughly Biblical. The child’s heart and the child’s relationship to God are his primary concerns. He welcomes true conversion, but eschews the all too common evangelical impulse to use any means necessary to get your kids to say the “magic” invite Jesus into the heart prayer. He has been endorsed throughout the reformed (using the term loosely here) spectrum–from confessional Presbyterians to dispensational predestinarians like John McArthur. Also, from your comments, I assume that you have read a good deal of Puritan literature. But have you ever read any of the labyrinthine and tortured conversion narratives by some of the more everyday folks in the Puritan fold? Self-examination is good and we take time to do it often on my church on Sunday morning, but self examination and morbid introspection are two different things. Also, though I am no Anglican, have you read any of J.I. Packer on the Puritans? He admires them, but also says that one of their flaws was failing to really grasp God as Father, as Abba. In this way, I think the quotation from Tripp shows that in this regard at least, he is more Biblical than his Puritan forebears.
LikeLike
Richard, privacy and confidentiality are at the heart of Matt. 18. Plus, you’ve never been a tad uncomfortable with another believer’s testimony? Do you hang out with charismatics much?
LikeLike
D.G. Hart: Richard, privacy and confidentiality are at the heart of Matt. 18. Plus, you’ve never been a tad uncomfortable with another believer’s testimony? Do you hang out with charismatics much?
RS: I am afraid I cannot see that in Matthew at all. Yes, I have been uncomfortable with the testimonies I have heard, but that does not mean that recording the conversions of others was wrong. They used to record the last sayings of people as they died as well. No, I don’t hang out with charismatics much and actually not at all if you mean by that the modern folks who speak in tongues and dance in the aisles.. Neverthless, back to Phebe, the parents and the girl were evidently happy for Edwards to set out the glory of God in her conversion and so I am not sure whey we should be so uptight about it. After all, Romans 10:9 does speak of confessing Christ with your mouth. Scripture gives us many “testimonies” of conversions and since all believers belong to God and He recorded those in Scripture, I think we have a pattern to go by.
There are also books out there recording the conversions and even deaths of very young people. I am not sure that to single out Edwards and question him alone about this is really all that objective. Until all books about the testimonies of others are questioned, I am not sure that Edwards is the real issue.
LikeLike
Jeffrey: Have you read Tripp’s “Shepherding a Child’s Heart” or seen his videos under the same name?
RS: I have tried, but have not been impressed enough to make it all the way through.
Jeffrey: He is eminently and thoroughly Biblical. The child’s heart and the child’s relationship to God are his primary concerns.
RS: Perhaps I would disgree with his methods, then.
Jeffrey: Also, from your comments, I assume that you have read a good deal of Puritan literature. But have you ever read any of the labyrinthine and tortured conversion narratives by some of the more everyday folks in the Puritan fold?
RS: Yes, I have read many of those conversion narratives, but I would not refer them to tortured conversion narratives. I would describe them as souls that God was dealing with by thoroughly convicting them of sin and showing them their utter helplessness before Him.
Jeffrey: Self-examination is good and we take time to do it often on my church on Sunday morning, but self examination and morbid introspection are two different things.
RS: Yes, but what you term “morbid introspection” may simply be God’s way of breaking sinners from their pride and self-centeredness.
Jeffrey: Also, though I am no Anglican, have you read any of J.I. Packer on the Puritans? He admires them, but also says that one of their flaws was failing to really grasp God as Father, as Abba. In this way, I think the quotation from Tripp shows that in this regard at least, he is more Biblical than his Puritan forebears.
RS: I have read Packer and find the Puritans themselves better than Packer on the Puritans. While he points to their flaws, that may be nothing more than revealing his own flaws. I am not sure how the quote from Tripp shows him to be more biblical than the Puritans, but it may show a real difference in approaches. The Puritans believed that unconverted children were children of the devil and in need of conversion. They (some) would not have the child repeat the Lord’s Prayer because God was not their Father and they were not allowed to sing certain songs because that would be untruthful if they were to praise God in word while hating Him in their hearts. I find it much more biblical to teach children that they are not the children of God and need to be born from above rather than teach them that God is their Father.
LikeLike
D.G Hart: Richard, privacy and confidentiality are at the heart of Matt. 18. Plus, you’ve never been a tad uncomfortable with another believer’s testimony? Do you hang out with charismatics much?
RS: David was one who spoke of the Lord and told what the Lord had done for his soul in public and in print. Paul was not shy about speaking about this (see Acts) and then writing about it as well.
Psalm 9:1 For the choir director; on Muth-labben. A Psalm of David. I will give thanks to the LORD with all my heart; I will tell of all Your wonders.
Psalm 34:1 A Psalm of David when he feigned madness before Abimelech, who drove him away and he departed. I will bless the LORD at all times; His praise shall continually be in my mouth. 2 My soul will make its boast in the LORD; The humble will hear it and rejoice. 3 O magnify the LORD with me, And let us exalt His name together. 4 I sought the LORD, and He answered me, And delivered me from all my fears.
Psalm 66:16 Come and hear, all who fear God, And I will tell of what He has done for my soul.
1 Timothy 1:16 Yet for this reason I found mercy, so that in me as the foremost, Jesus Christ might demonstrate His perfect patience as an example for those who would believe in Him for eternal life.
Acts 8:39 When they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord snatched Philip away; and the eunuch no longer saw him, but went on his way rejoicing.
Acts 13:48 When the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.
LikeLike
One of Frame’s bullet points describing common view espoused by “Escondido” theologians:
Jonathan Edwards and D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones were not Reformed.
Escondido graduate Brian chips in on a post trashing Edwards:
Remind me why Edwards is considered a Reformed theologian?
Score one for Frame for a pretty good resemblance.
LikeLike
Jonathan Edwards: “We are really saved by perseverance…the perseverance which belongs to faith is one thing that is really a fundamental ground of the congruity that faith gives to
salvation…Though a sinner is justified in his first act of faith, yet even then, in that act of justification, God has respect to perseverance as being implied in the first act.”
Hunsinger: “Faith as a subjective act and disposition was interpreted by Edwards as a secondary derivative reason why the believer was pleasing to God and rewarded by God. The idea of faith as a pleasing disposition that God would reward then opened the door to themes that the Reformation had excluded. Inherent as opposed to alien holiness, active as opposed to passive righteousness… entered in Edwards’ doctrine in a way that, to some degree, undermined his basic Reformation intentions (“An American Tragedy: Jonathan Edwards on Justification,” in Justified, Ryan Glomsrud and Michael Horton, p.56).
LikeLike
RS: I have read Packer and find the Puritans themselves better than Packer on the Puritans. While he points to their flaws, that may be nothing more than revealing his own flaws.
JB: This belies an assumption that would make it impossible to criticize anyone or anything or take anyone’s criticism seriously: The critic is just revealing his own shortcomings; the group being criticized is better than the critic in certain or all respects, so the criticism is invalid or not worth bothering about. That kind of thinking makes for good monologue, but doesn’t really show humility or the ability to see the potential flaws or blind spots in our own heroes or our own theology.
As to Ted Tripp’s methods, I don’t think you can make assumptions about those off of one quotation here and a partial reading of his book. His methods are teaching and preaching to your children the gospel and the Scriptures, praying all the while that God will apply His word to their hearts and minds, and that they will see themselves as sinners in danger of God’s wrath and in need of a Savior. How could anyone disagree with these methods?
As to one of your other points, how can a child who is holy, according to Paul, at the same time be a child of the devil? I am really not trying to get into a debate here about the covenant and covenant children and baptism, etc., but obviously you do not share the confessionally Reformed and Presbyterian view of children of believers, the sacraments, etc., which is where our disagreement over this issue would really lie. I neither have the time nor the expertise nor the desire to get into a protracted or even short discussion/debate about these issues, but if we disagree on these fundamental theological issues, then we won’t resolve this issue.
As to the Puritan conversion narratives, I would appeal to your own criteria of a pattern in Scripture. Much of the pattern in Scripture is repent and believe and be baptized and it all happens very quickly. Second, many of the conversion narratives were overly subjective–the person’s surety rested almost if not completely exclusively on his or her subjective feelings and thoughts about his or her inward state. Examining oneself is important, but I suppose we disagree about what that entails.
LikeLike
Richard,
One last addition to the end of last post: It comes dangerously close in some of these cases to these people trusting and relying on their own subjective feelings and experiences to save them instead of the objective work of Christ. “Could my tears forever flow, could my zeal no respite know, all for sin could not atone, Thous must save and Thou alone.”
LikeLike
That 4 year-old needed Prozac more than she needed converting. In all seriousness, this kind of emotional torture could be construed as child abuse. I wouldn’t be surprised if the little one grew up carrying more baggage than an episode of Dawson’s Creek.
It may not be popular, but DGH is correct to question Edwards’ Reformed credentials. The above incident proves that this questioning is not an example of being mean or of scoring academic points. Alien influences to Reformed theology, piety and practice can have devastating effects on the most vulnerable members of the church, i.e. the children. A consistent Covenant Theology should provide a warm, stable environment for a child. We should commend any attempt, by DGH or others, to protect our churches from Satan dressed as an angel of light.
LikeLike
Richard, fine. I question all the conversion narratives if they are of this type. I’ll take Paul’s any day over this.
LikeLike
Richard, if you don’t see a difference between the length and matter of Edwards’ account and the biblical citations you list, then I am not sure you are in a position to evaluate Edwards’ narrative.
LikeLike
Mark, are you taking cues from Johnny Cochrane (how multicultural of you)? Instead of actually defending the accused, you sully the messenger?
Your inability to defend Edwards is telling.
And if you want to go there with Frame and Escondido, are you willing to countenance juggling in worship as part of Calvin’s liturgy?
LikeLike
Jeffrey, on your point about covenant children being holy and of the devil, ding ding ding ding ding.
LikeLike
Thanks, Nick. But you have to understand, Mark is only interested in making 2kers look bad, not in the truth. It surely would be bad form to mention that Edwards did not send his children to a Christian school because for Mark this is a sign and seal of being Reformed.
LikeLike
If Christian schools are a sine qua non of all things Reformed, then what of the Presbyterian fatherland here in Scotland? We don’t have the option of sending our kids to Christian schools. Are we un-Reformed? (This time it’s all about me).
LikeLike
Nick, that’s an easy one. You’re not Dutch.
LikeLike
Darryl, since you’ll be examining Frame’s bullet points, I was merely pointing out the accuracy of Frame’s point about Escondido folks thinking Edwards is not Reformed . Not exactly a great revelation, I know, but how does that sully the messenger by pointing out a clear exhibit of it? You should be saying “amen” and “atta boy, Brian”.
As for defending Edwards, you know I’ve done that at greater length elsewhere. Or are you just interested in sullying the Dutch Reformed {like Van Til} with their commitment to Christian education {not merely “schools”}?
LikeLike
Nick, there’s always the option of homeschooling, but don’t tell the PRCs if you want to hold office (it’s verboten). I guess you’re just going to have to keep handing your kids over to Molech.
LikeLike
Mark, without trying to be nasty, the Ryan Glomsrud and Michael Horton article on Edwards and justification was a hatchet job.
LikeLike
Zrim, I’m just about to send my firstborn to school this summer. I have to choose between secular-humanist, non-denominational state-schools or state-funded RC schools. Or of course, I could sell my house and move to one of Glasgow’s dangerous housing schemes (projects?) in order to afford home schooling.
LikeLike
Jeffrey: One last addition to the end of last post: It comes dangerously close in some of these cases to these people trusting and relying on their own subjective feelings and experiences to save them instead of the objective work of Christ. “Could my tears forever flow, could my zeal no respite know, all for sin could not atone, Thous must save and Thou alone.”
RS: Jeffrey, it is virtually impossible to say a lot in settings like these. While it may be that some will trust in their subjective feelings, the whole Puritan practice was so that people would not trust in themselves and their feelings. The practice was that the work of Christ must be applied to the soul and that true faith came by a work of the Spirit by grace who worked in the souls of people to drive them from any and all trust in themselves. There is a difference between the objective work of Christ and the application of Christ to the soul.
If you wish to see the Puritan method, more or less dealt with in a shorter way, you could read Buchanan’s work on the Holy Spirit. While Scripture does set out in narrative form that people must repent and believe, it also tells us what it takes to repent and believe. A person can only trust in Christ alone if that person does not trust in self at all. We also know that Christ dwells in His people, but we also know that He only dwells in the humble and contrite in spirit. It is simply Scripture interpreting Scripture.
As to the child who is holy, you must also remember that the text you are speaking of also speaks of the unconverted spouse being holy as well. As to being confessional, I do not hold to the covenant view of children because that is not taught in Scripture. However, if you will read carefully the WSC questions 29 -35, you will see the seeds of Puritan evangelism that is part of the confessional history.
LikeLike
D.G. Hart: Jeffrey, on your point about covenant children being holy and of the devil, ding ding ding ding ding.
RS: So covenant children are as holy as unregenerate adults? That is what I Cor 7:14 tells us. So children born of believers are not really born dead in trespasses and sin are are not by nature children of wrath? You might recall that there is not one NT example or command of children being covenant children.
LikeLike
D.G. Hart: Richard, fine. I question all the conversion narratives if they are of this type. I’ll take Paul’s any day over this.
RS: Would you take Paul’s sermons (as given in Scripture) over preachers of that time period as well? We do know that after Paul found out what dust tasted like he spent three days without food and water. Was he simply resting comfortably or was he dealing with his heart?
D.G. Hart: Richard, if you don’t see a difference between the length and matter of Edwards’ account and the biblical citations you list, then I am not sure you are in a position to evaluate Edwards’ narrative.
RS: Scripture gives us a short narrative on many things that take a lot longer outside of the written pages. How long did David have agony of soul? Did he just have it for five minutes and then begin to write?
LikeLike
Mark, you still haven’t proven — yet, you assume — that criticism of someone means they were not Reformed. For you, any criticism of Kuyper is infidelity. Meanwhile, my disagreement with Edwards or Kuyper means — in Frame’s words — I’m not Reformed.
Can we have a serious discussion of weaknesses and strengths within the various strains of Reformed Protestantism? So far, your wing of Dutch Reformed onze volk have not shown a great capacity to hold up a mirror to yourselves.
BTW, since Frame goes out of his way to say that he follows Kuyper and Van Til, what on earth do Edwards or Lloyd-Jones have to do with the issue, aside from apparently allowing Frame to land a punch and for you as judge to award points? If the Dutch are the standard, how exactly do Edwards and Lloyd-Jones stand out?
LikeLike
Nick: That 4 year-old needed Prozac more than she needed converting. In all seriousness, this kind of emotional torture could be construed as child abuse. I wouldn’t be surprised if the little one grew up carrying more baggage than an episode of Dawson’s Creek.
RS: This is what people say when they do not interpret Scripture in light of Scritpure but by modern and humanistic psychology.
Nick: It may not be popular, but DGH is correct to question Edwards’ Reformed credentials.
RS: No, it brings questions as to how far modern Reformed people have moved from what used to be considered Reformed.
NIck: The above incident proves that this questioning is not an example of being mean or of scoring academic points. Alien influences to Reformed theology, piety and practice can have devastating effects on the most vulnerable members of the church, i.e. the children.
RS: I would think that what is really devastating to children is to tell them that they are converted when they are not. It is really devastating to children to tell them that they don’t need any pain of soul but can simply affirm a few propositions and they will be fine. Jesus learned obedience through suffering and if you think He needed drugs then so be it, but agony of soul is God’s method that is seen in Scripture over and over. There are plenty of people who think God the Father was guilty of child abuse if He poured out His wrath on Jesus at the cross.
Nick: A consistent Covenant Theology should provide a warm, stable environment for a child. We should commend any attempt, by DGH or others, to protect our churches from Satan dressed as an angel of light.
RS: How do you find that in Scripture or your confessions? The confessions teach that children are born dead in sins and trespasses and must be born again.
LikeLike
mark mcculley: This is one of those times when I need to point out that there are two Marks in this conversation. But then I ask myself if I want to be in the conversation. As a baptist, I don’t want to make a case for the non-conversion of “covenant children”. But as somebody who agrees very much with the confessional standards (both Westminster and London Baptist) on justification, I do not think it irrelevant to point out ways in which the Jonathan Edwards is closer to Rome than to Calvin and Hodge.
so call me mcmark:
Yes, Hunsinger is a Barthian universalist, but he is not the first or the last to notice how non-reformed Edwards is concerning the gospel doctrine of justification. The New England theology built out of the speculations of Edwards remains one of the worst influences on Reformed (and baptist) churches. Of course what his successors did what Edwards wrote is not his fault, but his “subjectivity” is at the root of much legalistic revivalism.
RS perhaps want to do a hatchet job on Hunsinger ( or Horton and Westminster West), but just saying so doesn’t make it so. There will always be another academic to say that the last academic has not read Edwards the correct way….
LikeLike
Darryl, I’ve never said that any criticism of someone means they are not Reformed. Nor have I ever said say that criticism of Kuyper = infidelity. Critique away, but don’t twist words and history to do so. I’m sure you’d agree the issue is whether the criticism is a fair representation or not. That standard applies to Frame. It applies to you and me.
As to the connection between Escondido theology and the repeated criticism of Edwards and Lloyd Jones, I have some theories, but haven’t come to any firm conclusion.
LikeLike
Gerstner, one of Edwards’ apologists, used to talk about “little vipers in covenantal diapers”. But I don’t where that soundbite originated. I do know that Gerstner thought of justification as a “complex involving regeneration”. I do know that Gerstner thought that Thomas Acquinas was Protestant and Reformed.
LikeLike
Richard, is Edwards infallible? It would be good to be clear where we start when discussing him.
LikeLike
RS, you’ve been reading too much Edwards. Try Reformed stuff. You’d know that children baptized are non-communicant members. You’d know that they are reared in the faith, taught at home, go to worship. How would you ever tell them to convert from their Christian past?
LikeLike
RS, I don’t know how long David’s agony was? But I’m pretty sure that it was not given to us to be a model for piety. After all, your agonized Paul calls us to live quiet and peaceable lives.
LikeLike
Mark, but in all of our interactions, you’ve never been able to consider that objections to parts of Reformed practice that you consider essential come from other Reformed convictions. Never. That leads to the conclusion that disagreement with you or Kloosterman or Kuyper is infidelity, even if other Reformed Protestants for Reformed reasons disagree.
Has your mind just blown up?
LikeLike
Darryl, I’m happy to consider objections that come from Reformed principles. You think my mind has blown up because I have considered many of your assertions and find them wanting. Is agreement with you the test of sanity?
LikeLike
RS: This is what people say when they do not interpret Scripture in light of Scritpure but by modern and humanistic psychology.
Nick: So then, do we go back to labelling those with mental illness as being “demon possessed” because that’s the only explicit Scriptural category we have for someone with the crazies? An adult affirming this child’s experience in a positive/biblical light is almost as disturbing as the account itself.
RS: I would think that what is really devastating to children is to tell them that they are converted when they are not. It is really devastating to children to tell them that they don’t need any pain of soul but can simply affirm a few propositions and they will be fine. Jesus learned obedience through suffering and if you think He needed drugs then so be it, but agony of soul is God’s method that is seen in Scripture over and over. There are plenty of people who think God the Father was guilty of child abuse if He poured out His wrath on Jesus at the cross.
Nick: This begs the question as to what constitutes conversion? We agree that it’s devastating to give false assurance to an unbeliever, but you’ve set up a false antithesis, i.e. either someone experience this wacky type of emotional abuse or they affirm a few propositions. What about a child raised within the Covenant of Grace, taught the gospel from birth, told to abandon his own works and embrace the imputed righteousness of Christ? What if this child grows up loving Christ, hating sin and no discernable memory of a conversion experience? Is he duped? BTW, while I realise that Jesus learned obedience from suffering, I fail to see how this equates with a young child “getting coverted”? Further, to equate my concern with a denial of penal substitution is a cheap shot.
RS: How do you find that in Scripture or your confessions? The confessions teach that children are born dead in sins and trespasses and must be born again.
Nick: More question begging. How does that born again experience take place? Through the blood and thunder of revivalism or through churchly discipleship rooted in the ordinary means? BTW, there is sufficient “wiggle room” in the Standards to accomodate those who hold to presumptive regeneration (on one the end of the trajectory) and those who hold to a more “conversionist” paradigm (on the other end). For my part, I would hold to a more nurturing paradigm and, unsurprisingly, believe that my view is the via media.
LikeLike
Richard,
Your straw man about how we think about and deal with covenant children is just one of the many reasons, like I said, that I don’t want to get into it on here.
And, of course, there is a difference between Christ’s work and the application of Christ’s work, but there are various Reformed theologies about how this works and what this looks like. Of course, we do repent and have faith, but you seem to emphasize the quality of that faith, while I and others would emphasize the quality of the object of that faith. One of the things He did for me is have perfect faith on my behalf, after all, and for that and so many other reasons, I love HIm.
Signing off,
Jeffrey
LikeLike
Richard, what is devastating to grown people is to tell them they must have a conversion experience. If it’s feelings you want, I’ll always recall the grief I had when my wife lamented the fact that she’d grown up in faith and didn’t have a antithesis narrative like mine of being reared in unbelief and coming to faith later in life. Her conversionist tradition evidently made it pretty clear that she was second class and I was privileged, and it always seemed to me that, if we’re going to stratify things, it was the other way around. Conversionism isn’t Reformed. And that’s from someone who has something to be gained from conversionism and extraordinary experience.
LikeLike
Amen to Jeffrey on the emphasis being the object of faith rather than the quality of faith. God’s imputation of Christ’s righteousness Is NOT an “experience”, though this imputation results in a true hearing of the true gospel.
Romans 4: What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was imputed to him unto righteousness.” 4 Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. 5 And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is imputed unto righteousness, 6 just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works:
7 “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered;
8 blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not impute his sin.” 9 Is this blessing then only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? For we say that faith was imputed to Abraham unto righteousness. 10 How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised.
Some translations of Romans 4 and Genesis 15:6 decide that “as righteousness” should be translated “unto righteousness”. But that difference does not explain why imputation happens or what IT is imputed.
God did not say to Abraham: if you have an experience, then I will bless you. God said, I will bless you without cause, not only so that you will believe but also so that in your offspring there will be one who will bring in the righteousness for the elect alone required by the law.
The “it” which was imputed by God to Abraham is the obedient bloody death of Abraham’s seed Jesus Christ for the elect alone.
Romans 4:24-25 “IT will be counted to us who believe in Him who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord, who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised up for our justification.”
1. Christ and His death are the IT. Faith is not the IT. Christ and His death are the object of faith. Christ and His death are the IT credited by God. The legal application of the accomplished atonement is not done by the Holy Spirit.
2. The Holy Spirit gives faith but it’s not faith or experience which is imputed. Faith in the gospel is a result of imputation.
3. God imputes according to truth. The righteousness God counts as righteousness is not our new and better experience but the merits of Christ legally “transferred” to us when Christ marries us.
LikeLike
Mark, of course not. What may be a test of sanity is reading a confession and recognizing silence about Christian education.
LikeLike
D.G. Hart: Richard, is Edwards infallible? It would be good to be clear where we start when discussing him.
RS: Not infallible at all, but perhaps the most brilliant and Reformed theologian America has ever had. Then again, close to the top of all time.
D.G. Hart: RS, you’ve been reading too much Edwards. Try Reformed stuff. You’d know that children baptized are non-communicant members. You’d know that they are reared in the faith, taught at home, go to worship. How would you ever tell them to convert from their Christian past?
RS: So the Puritans as a whole were not Reformed? I would tell unregenerate children to convert from their Christian past the same way Jesus told the covenant children of His day (Pharisees and Scribes included) that they must be born from above to see or enter the kingdom. No human being was ever born a child of God because of his or her descent, the choice of any human flesh, but rather the choice of God. Ask Esau and Judas how that covenant child thing worked out.
D.G. Hart: RS, I don’t know how long David’s agony was? But I’m pretty sure that it was not given to us to be a model for piety. After all, your agonized Paul calls us to live quiet and peaceable lives.
RS: We do know that he spent sleepless nights in tears. A quiet and peacable life would not negate a person coming to Christ in agony over his or her sin while realizing that a person would suffer much in hell if not converted. If hell is real, really realizing that one is going there will cause some inner disturbance of the soul.
LikeLike
Darryl, then perhaps you wonder whether Van Til passed the sanity test since he spoke of the “necessity” of Christian education? He believed there are some good and necessary consequences from both Scripture and the confessions that address the matter.
In any event, I do appreciate that you used the term Christian “education” vs. the more narrow term “schools”. We are making progress.
LikeLike
mark mcculley: This is one of those times when I need to point out that there are two Marks in this conversation. But then I ask myself if I want to be in the conversation. As a baptist, I don’t want to make a case for the non-conversion of “covenant children”. But as somebody who agrees very much with the confessional standards (both Westminster and London Baptist) on justification, I do not think it irrelevant to point out ways in which the Jonathan Edwards is closer to Rome than to Calvin and Hodge.
RS: Mark, you might want to read Edwards on justification and read him carefully. He is as far from Rome on justification as the boundaries of Scripture will allow him to be. Edwards must be read in context. Admittedly, he is hard to understand at times. The American Tragedy was a hatchet job because it did not take statements of Edwards in context and ended up blasting him for things that a few pages earlier or later he would state what the article said he denied.
LikeLike
Richard, thanks for letting me know where you’re coming from. I don’t suppose anything I say will change your view of Edwards. What you may want to ask yourself is how much your veneration of Edwards colors the way you read Scripture and hear other people.
LikeLike
Mark, like a good Edwardsean, who revels in experience, it’s all personal for you. Because Van Til promoted it, I believe it, that settles it.
Are you capable of arguing a case on its merits, rather than simply appealing to fallen authorities? BTW, Van Til worshiped in a communion for most of his life that did not write support for Christian schools into its form of government. So why do you view those who want to keep Christian schools out of the church order as non-Reformed? You’re not being very Van Tilian.
LikeLike
Old comment: RS: This is what people say when they do not interpret Scripture in light of Scritpure but by modern and humanistic psychology.
Nick: So then, do we go back to labelling those with mental illness as being “demon possessed” because that’s the only explicit Scriptural category we have for someone with the crazies? An adult affirming this child’s experience in a positive/biblical light is almost as disturbing as the account itself.
RS: What is mental illness? Is this somewhere between a brain disorder and spiritual problems? Are you claiming that “demon possession” was nothing more than “mental illness” in the NT? I am not clear on your point here. Any person in agony over sin is not disturbing, it is biblical. True conversion can be quite disruptive in the hearts and lives of souls God delivers from the kingdom of darkness and transfers them to the kingdom of His beloved Son.
LikeLike
Nick: This begs the question as to what constitutes conversion? We agree that it’s devastating to give false assurance to an unbeliever, but you’ve set up a false antithesis, i.e. either someone experience this wacky type of emotional abuse or they affirm a few propositions.
RS: Wacky emotional abuse? I did not set out this antithesis at all. Please read what I write carefully and don’t insert your own deductions or implications into it. A true conviction of sin is not necessarily an emotional issue much less wacky emptional abuse.
Nick: What about a child raised within the Covenant of Grace, taught the gospel from birth, told to abandon his own works and embrace the imputed righteousness of Christ? What if this child grows up loving Christ, hating sin and no discernable memory of a conversion experience? Is he duped?
RS: He could be duped. All children are born dead in sin and are by nature children of wrath. They must be born again (from above) regardless of their intellectual commitment to the best of doctrine.
Nick: BTW, while I realise that Jesus learned obedience from suffering, I fail to see how this equates with a young child “getting coverted”? Further, to equate my concern with a denial of penal substitution is a cheap shot.
RS: There was no cheap shot at you and I did not accuse you of denying penal substitution. My simple points were that Jesus suffered. Other people suffer. That is God’s method. So it is not strange at all that a young girl would have agony in her soul.
LikeLike
Nick: More question begging. How does that born again experience take place? Through the blood and thunder of revivalism or through churchly discipleship rooted in the ordinary means? BTW, there is sufficient “wiggle room” in the Standards to accomodate those who hold to presumptive regeneration (on one the end of the trajectory) and those who hold to a more “conversionist” paradigm (on the other end). For my part, I would hold to a more nurturing paradigm and, unsurprisingly, believe that my view is the via media.
RS: Add anything to grace and it is no longer grace. Call it what you will, but the means of grace do not bring God under obligation in any way. He may use the means of grace to work grace in the soul, but He is not obligated to do so. He is not obligated to save anyone He is not pleased to save. Nurture away, but it does not obligate God to show grace to any Esau and Judas. Presumptive regeneration is simply presuming on the grace of God.
LikeLike
Jeffrey: Your straw man about how we think about and deal with covenant children is just one of the many reasons, like I said, that I don’t want to get into it on here.
RS: No straw here.
Jeffrey: And, of course, there is a difference between Christ’s work and the application of Christ’s work, but there are various Reformed theologies about how this works and what this looks like. Of course, we do repent and have faith, but you seem to emphasize the quality of that faith, while I and others would emphasize the quality of the object of that faith. One of the things He did for me is have perfect faith on my behalf, after all, and for that and so many other reasons, I love HIm.
RS: Methinks you misunderstand. My emphasis is not on the quality of faith as such, but is on Christ Himself. There is no faith in the soul apart from regeneration and uniting the soul to Christ. The reason it is by faith is in order that it may be by grace. Nevertheless, Christ as the perfect object of faith has no benefit for those without true faith. True faith itself only comes by grace alone and should not be separated from Christ because there is no true faith in the soul that Christ has not put there by grace and that He would not focus on Himself.
LikeLike
RS: What is mental illness? Is this somewhere between a brain disorder and spiritual problems? Are you claiming that “demon possession” was nothing more than “mental illness” in the NT? I am not clear on your point here. Any person in agony over sin is not disturbing, it is biblical. True conversion can be quite disruptive in the hearts and lives of souls God delivers from the kingdom of darkness and transfers them to the kingdom of His beloved Son.
Nick: I’m not claiming that no. You dismissed my concerns over the mental health of the child as owing to modern psychology rather than biblical principles. I was merely trying to point out that modern psychology isn’t evil and that just by sticking a biblical label to an experience doesn’t make it so (despite your insistence on treating the little girl’s experience as almost canonical and endorsed by the Holy Ghost.) My point was that similar exegetical interpretations of history/providence have been used to label those with mental illness as suffering from demon possession.
LikeLike
mark mcculley: Amen to Jeffrey on the emphasis being the object of faith rather than the quality of faith. God’s imputation of Christ’s righteousness Is NOT an “experience”, though this imputation results in a true hearing of the true gospel.
RS: There is no imputation of the righteousness of Christ apart from union with Christ. the coming of King Jesus in the soul and delivering the soul from the kingdom of darkness is something that really happens and is not inconsistent with disturbances in the soul. Perhaps you want a quiet conversion, but when the angels in heaven rejoice over one sinner repenting it makes me think that the glory in the soul of the converted person may be cause for that person having some joy as well.
I just checked and I Peter 1:7-9 is still in my Bible.
I Peter 1: 7 so that the proof of your faith, being more precious than gold which is perishable, even though tested by fire, may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ; 8 and though you have not seen Him, you love Him, and though you do not see Him now, but believe in Him, you greatly rejoice with joy inexpressible and full of glory, 9 obtaining as the outcome of your faith the salvation of your souls.
LikeLike
ZRIM: Richard, what is devastating to grown people is to tell them they must have a conversion experience.
RS: All must be converted, but not all are converted in the same way. “Experience” means to grow in knowledge, though in the modern day it simply means to have something exciting happen to you. Okay, some people are converted without a “great experience” as such but some go through great agony of soul. I am not arguing that all have to have the same thing happen to them, but that it is not inconsistent with the Word of God for that to happen.
ZRIM: If it’s feelings you want, I’ll always recall the grief I had when my wife lamented the fact that she’d grown up in faith and didn’t have a antithesis narrative like mine of being reared in unbelief and coming to faith later in life. Her conversionist tradition evidently made it pretty clear that she was second class and I was privileged, and it always seemed to me that, if we’re going to stratify things, it was the other way around.
RS: Okay, it is feelings I want, but perhaps in a different way than you think. Tell me how the Spirit of the living God can work love and joy in the soul without feelings. How is it more privileged to be saved in one way than another? God saves those He pleases at the times He chooses to save. Both ways are by grace and grace alone. I would also argue that many people are converted later than they think, which brings many other things into question. However, Scripture is quite clear that the soul must be born from above and that there is a great difference between those that are children of God and those that are not.
ZRIM: Conversionism isn’t Reformed. And that’s from someone who has something to be gained from conversionism and extraordinary experience.
RS: Sorry, but conversion is a great doctrine of Reformed people. People have great experiences but are not truly converted. Some have great conversions without a lot of outward noise. But one of the strengths of the Puritans and the Reformed people who followed them was that they worked hard and wrestled with the doctrine of conversion. People today prefer a more gentle and intellectual approach to things where they are in control of their feelings and their own conversions, but it was not so in the past and it is not so in Scripture.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: Richard, thanks for letting me know where you’re coming from. I don’t suppose anything I say will change your view of Edwards. What you may want to ask yourself is how much your veneration of Edwards colors the way you read Scripture and hear other people.
RS: Sir, when reading your book where you were quite anti-Edwards (specifically, Relgious Affections) I was struck by the fact that you did not deal with him according to Scripture but interpreted him in the light of the experiences you did not have. I was also struck that perhaps you were interpreting Edwards by other things. Maybe your comment goes both ways.
LikeLike
When thinking of discerning the work of God the Holy Spirit in conversion I’m reminded of this from John Owen:
“Observe also, that God exercises his sovereignty in this whole matter [of conversion], and deals with the souls of men in unspeakable variety. Some he leads by the gates of death and hell, to rest in his love; the paths of others he makes plain and easy; some wander long in darkness; in the souls of others Christ is formed in the first gracious visitation.” –Pneumatologia: or, A discourse concerning the Holy Spirit, Philadelphia 1810, p. 145. digitized by Google).
LikeLike
RS: Wacky emotional abuse? I did not set out this antithesis at all. Please read what I write carefully and don’t insert your own deductions or implications into it. A true conviction of sin is not necessarily an emotional issue much less wacky emptional abuse.
Nick: I’m glad you made that qualification re conviction as not necessarily emotional. Yet the antithesis you gave was either an experience like this little girl’s, or dead acceptance of propositions. I just chose to describe the former, in the context of a four year old, as wacky emotional abuse. If you find that offensive then so be it.
And regarding the covenant child, I did say that he grew up loving Christ, hating sin and making use of the ordained means. Yet, in your own words, he could still be duped? What possible assurance can you offer anyone? Do they have to pass the Religious Affections exam? We know that God is not bound to the means of grace, but you frame it as almost exceptional that he would! They are not labelled “ordinary” means for nothing.
The implications of such teachings are horrible and reek of Gnosticism. While I know that you would abhor such a label, I can only see this brand of Christianity ending up in a kind of affection-based neonomianism.
LikeLike
Nick: I’m not claiming that no. You dismissed my concerns over the mental health of the child as owing to modern psychology rather than biblical principles.
RS: Yes, I argued that. Your language demanded that.
Nick: I was merely trying to point out that modern psychology isn’t evil and that just by sticking a biblical label to an experience doesn’t make it so (despite your insistence on treating the little girl’s experience as almost canonical and endorsed by the Holy Ghost.)
RS: I did not treat this little girl’s experience as almost canonical and endorsed by the Holy Ghost. I am arguing that there is nothing wrong with a person having distress of soul before conversion and not only that, it is biblical. Until we can find something in the human being that is not physical or spiritual, I am not sure where modern psychology with its basis in evolution and humanism has a lot to add.
Nick: My point was that similar exegetical interpretations of history/providence have been used to label those with mental illness as suffering from demon possession.
RS: Or perhaps many who are under spiritual delusions and something like possession are said to have mental illness. Richard Ganz was a Psychiatrist in New York before his conversion. After his conversion several people who were “mentally ill” for years were “cured” when they confessed sin or were confronted with the Christ of the Bible. Perhaps we are too quick to dismiss the power of the bondage of sin and what it means to be under the dominion of darkness.
LikeLike
dsanger: When thinking of discerning the work of God the Holy Spirit in conversion I’m reminded of this from John Owen:
“Observe also, that God exercises his sovereignty in this whole matter [of conversion], and deals with the souls of men in unspeakable variety. Some he leads by the gates of death and hell, to rest in his love; the paths of others he makes plain and easy; some wander long in darkness; in the souls of others Christ is formed in the first gracious visitation.” –Pneumatologia: or, A discourse concerning the Holy Spirit, Philadelphia 1810, p. 145. digitized by Google).
RS: Amen
LikeLike
Nick: I’m glad you made that qualification re conviction as not necessarily emotional. Yet the antithesis you gave was either an experience like this little girl’s, or dead acceptance of propositions. I just chose to describe the former, in the context of a four year old, as wacky emotional abuse. If you find that offensive then so be it.
RS: Sorry, what is offensive or not matters little. What matters is truth. A little girl going through the sorrow for sin and anguish of soul is not wacky and is not necessarily emotional and is almost certainly not abuse. If this was the work of God on her soul, then are you saying God could be abusing her? I think we must be careful.
Nick: And regarding the covenant child, I did say that he grew up loving Christ, hating sin and making use of the ordained means. Yet, in your own words, he could still be duped?
RS: Yes, but many people claim to love Christ and yet only love the Christ of their imaginations. Many claim to hate sin, but they only hate the results of sin. I have talked to many, many people who claimed to love Christ and yet did not.
Nick: What possible assurance can you offer anyone?
RS: I don’t offer assurance to anyone. Salvation is the work of God’s grace and true assurance is also the work of God’s grace. A careful and prayerful study of I John in seeing how God works in the soul is a good place to start.
Nick: Do they have to pass the Religious Affections exam?
RS: Well, the Bible is quite clear that apart from love nothing is acceptable to God. While love is not an affection alone, it does include the affections. The fruit of the Spirit is also joy. I cannot imagine a joy that has no affections in it at all, but more importantly I find the Scriptures full of passages telling us to rejoice.
Nick: We know that God is not bound to the means of grace, but you frame it as almost exceptional that he would! They are not labelled “ordinary” means for nothing.
RS: Grace is never ordinary. I was simply pointing out that using the means of grace does not guarantee grace.
Nick: The implications of such teachings are horrible and reek of Gnosticism. While I know that you would abhor such a label, I can only see this brand of Christianity ending up in a kind of affection-based neonomianism.
RS: I suppose we have a different idea of what Gnosticism is. Christianity throughout history as always tended to rationalism or sacramentalim or “emotionalism.” Biblical Christianity is very rational and yet full of affections as well. The lfe of Christ in the soul will bring a difference to the way we think and the way we feel about Him and His thoughts. Conversion is when the entire soul is transformed including the mind and the affections. Christians love and desire different things than do unbelievers. It is just as dangerous to deny the affections as it is to deny the mind. Where your treasure is, there you heart will be also. A person can affirm all the propositions of the Confession and not love one of them in truth, yet the soul that Christ dwells in and is the temple of the Holy Spirit will bear the fruit of the Spirit in truth and love.
LikeLike
RS: Or perhaps many who are under spiritual delusions and something like possession are said to have mental illness. Richard Ganz was a Psychiatrist in New York before his conversion. After his conversion several people who were “mentally ill” for years were “cured” when they confessed sin or were confronted with the Christ of the Bible. Perhaps we are too quick to dismiss the power of the bondage of sin and what it means to be under the dominion of darkness.
Nick: I agree. Yet it’s the opposite problem I see blighting evangelical churches.
LikeLike
Richard, I think I’m going to call it a day on this one. It’s obvious that we’re coming from different places on this, but I’ve enjoyed our frank exchanges and appreciate your irenic tone. Here’s to future discussions and friendly tete a tetes. God bless.
LikeLike
Nick: Richard, I think I’m going to call it a day on this one. It’s obvious that we’re coming from different places on this, but I’ve enjoyed our frank exchanges and appreciate your irenic tone. Here’s to future discussions and friendly tete a tetes. God bless.
RS: Now how are we going to argue if you post things like this? Thanks to you too. If have felt the iron on the iron (no reference to hard heads).
LikeLike
My opinion on Edwards and as well Whitefield for that matter is not very high. Edwards attempted to set himself apart of the radical elements after horses had left the barn and he wished to appear more academic but he was front and center involved in some of the most egregious acts of the first revival and Sinner In The Hands… was written and delivered for the express purpose of causing a swoon. A recent letter found exposes that he presided over a 5 hour “prayer” service afterward made up mostly of young people swooning and carrying on as though it were the Toronto Blessing while Edwards moved among them. The whole myth that he delivered his sermons with little expressed emotions by staring at the bell rope can be refuted by the fact that 1. you couldn’t see the rope from the pulpit and 2. his written sermons have the same slots open for extemporaneous speech in the same manner as the itinerant preachers of the time. There were a number of times that 100+ people were allowed to the communion table with little or no question of their spiritual state and on several occasions it was Edwards fencing the table.
LikeLike
Scott: My opinion on Edwards and as well Whitefield for that matter is not very high.
RS: Well, as the saying goes, what you say about classical music does not judge classical music. It judges you. The same is true of Edwards.
Scott: Edwards attempted to set himself apart of the radical elements after horses had left the barn and he wished to appear more academic
RS: Oh rubbish. Interpreting his motives at this distance with no evidence in such a negative fashion is simply going beyond what should be done.
Scott: but he was front and center involved in some of the most egregious acts of the first revival and Sinner In The Hands… was written and delivered for the express purpose of causing a swoon.
RS: Scott, that is again utter nonsense. Surely you are getting your information from someone who hated revival and Edwards and so engaged in a bit of revisionism.
Scott: A recent letter found exposes that he presided over a 5 hour “prayer” service afterward made up mostly of young people swooning and carrying on as though it were the Toronto Blessing while Edwards moved among them.
RS: As thought it were the Toronto Blessing? Oh please.
Scott: The whole myth that he delivered his sermons with little expressed emotions by staring at the bell rope can be refuted by the fact that 1. you couldn’t see the rope from the pulpit and 2. his written sermons have the same slots open for extemporaneous speech in the same manner as the itinerant preachers of the time.
RS: But then again, statements from the people who actually heard him are discounted. It has been thought lately that in his later years he preached from an outline, but in his earlier years he preached from a full manuscript.
Scott: There were a number of times that 100+ people were allowed to the communion table with little or no question of their spiritual state and on several occasions it was Edwards fencing the table.
RS: He followed his grandfather’s practice (who was the minister before him), yet when he tried to fence the table it caused a disturbance and he was eventually dismissed. He had a hard time breaking away from his grandfather’s practice, but eventually he did. I would suggest a careful reading of Edwards rather than the historical revisionism that is going on today.
LikeLike
Richard, in books I write as a historian, I don’t use Scripture. When I teach history I don’t use Scripture. If you look at Edwards from the perspective not of “the Great Awakening” but from colonial life, you may evaluate his account of Phebe Bartlet differently. And if you look at Edwards from the perspective of the Reformers’ denunciation of enthusiasm of spiritualists, you may also view Edwards’ account of Phebe differently.
BTW, I do use the Bible to evaluate Edwards as an officer in the church, and I’m having a hard time squaring this kind of torment, and the promotion of it, as anything close to the quiet and peaceable life that Paul commends.
LikeLike
Richard and dsanger: are you sitting down?
See mom? No emotions.
LikeLike
Darryl
Mortification of the old (repentance I presume) is without emotion? No ‘godly grief’ (2 Cor 3)? And the quickening of the new man (life) is emotionless? Life is an emotionless state? No rejoicing in sins forgiven. No love of God spread abroad in our hearts?
The truth is conversion is a whole person experience – mind, will and emotions. Now the various degrees to which each of these is experienced in conversion may differ but all will to some extent be present.
I have to support Richard. I think the means of entry into the new covenant is through new birth whose human side is conversion. Children are not born regenerate. Blood does not communicate life. That which is born of flesh is flesh. Indeed even those under the OC required new birth. Nicodemus and every other Jew required to be born again.
While I would question the propriety of a four year old being made to feel her sin in this way nevertheless I do think children should be increasingly made aware of their true standing before God and the need to repent and believe. In my view the church is in danger of being full of people who have no conversion story. Unconscious conversion is an oxymoron, at best an anomaly, even an enigma. The gift of the Holy Spirit always was a conscious reality in the NT.
LikeLike
“for by grace have ye been saved through faith (and some kind of definite subjective experience); and that not of yourselves (except that of your emotional response), it is the gift of God (mediated through your human inward experience)” Hmm… I think I get it now.
Is faith alone, in Christ alone, by God’s grace alone an unconscious reality, or only if I’m not feeling it? I’m really tempted to cite what the WCF says about regeneration and saving faith, but…
😉
LikeLike
Some folks here would be wise to stay away from Samuel Rutherford, Richard Sibbes, John Owen, Jeremiah Burroughs, John Bunyan, Thomas Watson, Thomas Brooks, Thomas Goodwin, Thomas Boston, Ebenezer Erskine, and other obviously “unreformed” guys who talk about the necessity of spiritual anguish and conviction of sin in conversion.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: Richard, in books I write as a historian, I don’t use Scripture. When I teach history I don’t use Scripture. If you look at Edwards from the perspective not of “the Great Awakening” but from colonial life, you may evaluate his account of Phebe Bartlet differently. And if you look at Edwards from the perspective of the Reformers’ denunciation of enthusiasm of spiritualists, you may also view Edwards’ account of Phebe differently.
RS: Neither Luther nor Calvin think of conversion as a mere intellectual activity. If there is a change of heart, there is a change of loves and desires. Edwards himself would denounce enthusiasm as such, but that is not what he was.
D.G. Hart: BTW, I do use the Bible to evaluate Edwards as an officer in the church, and I’m having a hard time squaring this kind of torment, and the promotion of it, as anything close to the quiet and peaceable life that Paul commends.
RS: This spiritual anguish (Phebe) was before conversion. Paul’s quiet and peacable life has nothing to do with this particular type of situation, but is how one is to live before unbelievers. Her situation sounds like the teaching of Acts 2, ” 37 Now when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brethren, what shall we do?” These men were convicted of sin and the text uses the English word “pierced to the heart” to describe this. The Greek word for that is used for when the soldier ran his sword up into the side of Jesus to make sure He was dead. They had an anguish in their soul when they cried out “Brethren, what shall we do?” I think this passage is quite descriptive of what Phebe Bartlet went through. There is an anguish in the soul that feels something like a sword stabbing you in the heart and you cry out to God to be saved.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: Richard and dsanger: are you sitting down?
Question 88. Of how many parts does the true conversion of man consist?
Answer: Of two parts; of the mortification of the old, and the quickening of the new man. Heidelberg Catechism, 88
See mom? No emotions.
RS: The quickening of the soul brings no affections? Notice that I am using the word “affections” (as Edwards) and not “emotions.”
LikeLike
“The true reason why faith is given such an exclusive place by the New Testament, so far as the attainment of salvation is concerned, over against love and over against everything else in man…is that faith means receiving something, not doing something or even being something. To say, therefore, that our faith saves us means that we do not save ourselves even in slightest measure, but that God saves us.”
— J. Gresham Machen (What Is Faith?)
“This is why Paul upholds the teaching of the gospel in such a forceful way … Seeing such an example and such a picture of man’s great weakness and fickleness, Paul states that the truth of the gospel must supersede anything that we may devise … he is showing us that we ought to know the substance of the doctrine which is brought to us in the name of God, so that our faith can be fully grounded upon it. Then we will not be tossed about with every wind, nor will we wander about aimlessly, changing our opinions a hundred times a day; we will persist in this doctrine until the end. This, in brief, is what we must remember.”
— John Calvin (Sermons on Galatians)
LikeLike
John T., so you are saying that the authors of the Heidelberg Catechism were wrong not to use adverbs? Or could it be that conversion is possible without being an emotional? Is there no room in the kingdom for introverts?
LikeLike
Todd, good advice. Thanks.
LikeLike
RS: who said faith was only intellectual?
You may think that after conversion comes peace and quiet, but I thought conversion was supposed to result in pedal-to-the-medal piety, or as one follower of Edwards puts it, Christian hedonism. That is not a word I associate with moderation.
LikeLike
Richard, where pray tell does the Bible tell us that joy in the Holy Ghost is an affection but not an emotion? Or do you need to have read the Earl of Shaftesbury and Francis Hutcheson to spot that difference?
LikeLike
D.G. Hart: You may think that after conversion comes peace and quiet, but I thought conversion was supposed to result in pedal-to-the-medal piety, or as one follower of Edwards puts it, Christian hedonism. That is not a word I associate with moderation.
RS: Well, in an effort to sound arrogant, that particular follower of Edwards might have strayed at that point.
LikeLike
D.G. Hart: Richard, where pray tell does the Bible tell us that joy in the Holy Ghost is an affection but not an emotion? Or do you need to have read the Earl of Shaftesbury and Francis Hutcheson to spot that difference?
RS: No need to read Earl and Franics, just need to read Edwards and then some modern writers and the point will be clear. Edwards and some older writers made a clear distinction between affections and the passions. Modern people tend to use the word “emotion” to cover both of those concepts and so the whole issue is confused. The affections were things like joy that followed the truth and were joy in the truth. Passions were those sudden and sometimes powerful feelings that drove the person (hence, the same root as “passive”). The affections in following the truth are different than the passions which drive the person, and so the passions which overwhelm and drive people are sinful. The Holy Spirit works in, with, and through the truth and so the joy the Spirit works in the soul would be the affection of joy. The enthusiasts, to bring up an old post of yours, would be those that like to work up the passions and be driven by the feelings themselves.
Another example might be that of the person that is studying Scripture and the Spirit opens the person’s eyes to “see” something of the glory of Christ. It is a very proper response (very Christlike) to have joy and even delight to see something of His beauty and glory. That would be the affections. The second type of person is one that is driven to have joy and so is driven by a feeling rather than responding to the truth. That would be the passions.
My guess is that if Edwards is read with the only option being “emotion” that there is some confusion involved. He clearly and specifically wrote that true religion consists much in the affections. False religion consists much in the passions. When that distinction is made, the real Edwards can be seen with more clarity.
LikeLike
Richard, not to undermine your expertise, but your reading is not the way lots of people read Edwards. Edwards own disappointment with the decrease of zeal in Northampton suggests he believed conversion would lead to sustained intensity.
LikeLike
Richard, I get it. Edwards wrote about affections. But you didn’t mention the Bible on the difference between affections and emotions when it comes to the fruit of the Spirit.
LikeLike
D.G. Hart: Richard, I get it. Edwards wrote about affections. But you didn’t mention the Bible on the difference between affections and emotions when it comes to the fruit of the Spirit.
RS: Actually, I did. However, a bit more below.
Romans 1:26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,
Romans 7:5 For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were aroused by the Law, were at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death.
Galatians 5:24 Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.
Colossians 3:5 Therefore consider the members of your earthly body as dead to immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and greed, which amounts to idolatry.
1 Thessalonians 4:5 not in lustful passion, like the Gentiles who do not know God;
LikeLike
D.G. Hart: Richard, not to undermine your expertise, but your reading is not the way lots of people read Edwards. Edwards own disappointment with the decrease of zeal in Northampton suggests he believed conversion would lead to sustained intensity.
RS: But he also wote on how these things waxed and waned. The religious affections are in the hands of God who is sovereign in dispensing these things and they only come to the soul by grace. Those who sympathize with Edwards tend to read him one way and those who don’t appreciate him tend to read him in way that is not very positive.
LikeLike
Richard, good, but a passion is not an emotion. Come on, do you not see that Edwards is one way to read these passages but not the only way? You seem to have more than a man-crush.
LikeLike
RS, and Edwards was disappointed when they waxed, no? That was a sign that God was not as much at work. And so if I don’t “feel” or “affect” it, I should start fretting, right? Why can’t you see that Edwards may have turned the interior life of saints into a law?
LikeLike
Richard, when I suggested that conversionism isn’t Reformed you then claimed that conversion is a great doctrine of Reformed people. But it seems that conversionists have the same problem unionists do, namely that if these things are such great doctrines of Reformed people then wouldn’t we be able to locate evidence of that in Reformed people’s doctrinal formulations? But as with union, conversion doesn’t loom large enough in Reformed ecclesial formulations. Heidelberg 88 has already been mentioned and conversion gets a passing mention in WLC 159. So conversion is certainly there, but it’s hardly clear how such modest mention sprouts into “a great doctrine.” How about a whole chapter or section before we start assigning greatness?
LikeLike
D.G. Hart: Richard, good, but a passion is not an emotion. Come on, do you not see that Edwards is one way to read these passages but not the only way? You seem to have more than a man-crush.
RS: That is precisely the way way the word “emotion” is used in the modern day. A person that cries uncontrollably is said to be emotional. A person who has an angry outburst is said to be emotional. A person that is said to smile with joy is said to show emotion. The word “emotion” used to mean a motion in the soul, but today it is used to refer to what Edwards and the older writers referred to as passions and affections. I like Edwards because he spoke of a God-centered God and how that God glorifies Himself. No one else that I ever read is so God-centered. It is not so much Edwards that I have a crush on, but the God that he spoke and wrote of.
LikeLike
D.G. Hart: RS, and Edwards was disappointed when they waxed, no? That was a sign that God was not as much at work.
RS: Disappointed is not quite the right word, or at least I don’t think so. God is constantly at work either softening hearts or hardening them. If one sign of Christ in the soul is the fruit of the Spirit, then a lack of true and peaceful joy can be a sign that God is withdrawing His presence. A sign of true love for God is to seek His presence.
D.G. Hart: And so if I don’t “feel” or “affect” it, I should start fretting, right?
RS: Not fretting, but perhaps praying that the Lord would reveal secret sin in the heart so that you could repent of it. Perhaps one could realize that one has not been seeking the Lord with all the heart but instead has turned to other things. But fretting is far removed as an option. Humility and repentance that turns to seeking is the real option.
D.G. Hart: Why can’t you see that Edwards may have turned the interior life of saints into a law?
RS: Because he didn’t. However, Paul did teach us that we should be damned if we don’t love Christ. The Greatest Commandment is that we are to love God with all of our being, and that does include the affections and desires. I Cor 13 teaches that apart from love nothing we do is of any benefit. Love, as a fruit of the Spirit, is not a cold commitment to doing things. It is also not a rapturous feeling. But all true love which only comes from the Spirit includes joy as well. I Peter 1:8, as seen below, describes a joy that cannot be expressed and is full of glory. The implication (at least) is that those who believe and love Christ have this at times. Again, it is not a cold commitment. We would never tell our wives that we love them with only a cold (no affections) commitment and expect them to believe it or even accept it. God does not accept that either.
1 Peter 1:8 and though you have not seen Him, you love Him, and though you do not see Him now, but believe in Him, you greatly rejoice with joy inexpressible and full of glory,
John 16:22 “Therefore you too have grief now; but I will see you again, and your heart will rejoice, and no one will take your joy away from you.
John 8:42 Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and have come from God, for I have not even come on My own initiative, but He sent Me.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, when I suggested that conversionism isn’t Reformed you then claimed that conversion is a great doctrine of Reformed people. But it seems that conversionists have the same problem unionists do, namely that if these things are such great doctrines of Reformed people then wouldn’t we be able to locate evidence of that in Reformed people’s doctrinal formulations? But as with union, conversion doesn’t loom large enough in Reformed ecclesial formulations. Heidelberg 88 has already been mentioned and conversion gets a passing mention in WLC 159. So conversion is certainly there, but it’s hardly clear how such modest mention sprouts into “a great doctrine.” How about a whole chapter or section before we start assigning greatness?
RS: The term “conversion” is often used as shorthand to refer to salvation from the conviction of sin that comes before regeneration and including all the doctrines of salvation. It is much like the word “Trinity” is not found in the Bible, but the concept is. Conversion includes effectual calling, regeneration, justification, and so on. It is simply a shorthand term that refers to the whole of salvation. For example, Solomon Stoddard wrote a book on The Nature of Saving Conversion. He says this: “People are said in Scripture to be converted when they are turned from heathenism to the profession of the truth. So they are said to be turned when there is some notable reformation made among them. But then persons are said to be savingly converted when they are turned from the power of Satan unto God, when they have a work of regeneration wrought in them, when they are made holy, and so are justified and made heirs of the kingdom of heaven.”
LikeLike
Darryl wrote:
Why can’t you see that Edwards may have turned the interior life of saints into a law?
Amen. Therein lies the problem with requiring any subjective experience in the believer as necessary in the Christian life. Legalism doesn’t just come along with outward standards that some would insist must be done in order to get saved or stay saved. Man is a law creature and will insinuate himself as an ingredient into his salvation if given an opening. And the inward species of law is, I would suggest, is even more insidious than the outward.
My son-in-law is a PCA pastor (and a godly man, I might add). In discussing conversion, he has told me that he couldn’t remember a time when he didn’t believe, having been raised in the covenant by godly parents, i.e. no conversion experience. I was “converted” rather powerfully at age 19, yet, interestingly, with little or no emotional response. Yet at the moment everything changed as God called me out of my darkness and sin and saved me through my initial weak yet true faith.
So a subjective experience, an emotional response, or compelling inward affection may or may not be there (not necessary), not only at “conversion” but at any particular time in our walk of faith. To insist otherwise, I think, begins to chip away at free justification through faith.
cheers…
LikeLike
Jack Miller quoting D.G. Hart: Why can’t you see that Edwards may have turned the interior life of saints into a law?
Jack Miller: Amen. Therein lies the problem with requiring any subjective experience in the believer as necessary in the Christian life.
RS: Is love necessary for the Christian life? Is Christ dwelling in the believer necessary for the Christian life? Yes, they are absolutely necessary and they are objectively necessary. However, it is because they are objectively necessary that there must be a subjective response in some way. The objective reality requires that there be a subjective reality as well. Something must really and actually happen to the sinner if there is a real change in the sinner.
JM: Legalism doesn’t just come along with outward standards that some would insist must be done in order to get saved or stay saved. Man is a law creature and will insinuate himself as an ingredient into his salvation if given an opening. And the inward species of law is, I would suggest, is even more insidious than the outward.
RS: We could debate the issue of legalism, but the least we could say is that a person keeping the commandments is neccesary if the person has been truly converted. So it is not legalism to insist that a converted/saved person must keep the commandments. But the commandments also reach the spiritual man, which includes the desires and loves of the heart and what a person has joy in. In fact, there is no keeping of the commandments apart from the affections of the heart. There is no way to truly love God with all of the heart and soul if the affections are not involved.
JM: My son-in-law is a PCA pastor (and a godly man, I might add). In discussing conversion, he has told me that he couldn’t remember a time when he didn’t believe, having been raised in the covenant by godly parents, i.e. no conversion experience. I was “converted” rather powerfully at age 19, yet, interestingly, with little or no emotional response. Yet at the moment everything changed as God called me out of my darkness and sin and saved me through my initial weak yet true faith.
RS: I am not trying to be rude or to question the conversion of you or you son-in-law, but you have brought them up as subjective evidence in the discussion. People (generally speaking) can be wrong as to the time of their conversion and they can be wrong as to whether they are converted or not. People can be wrong in thinking that they had no “emotional response.” In other words, at this point you are giving me subjective evidence and treating it as objective evidence. My argument (from above) is that if something objective happens to the soul, then there will be subjective evidence. Did Christ save sinners from love of the world to love of Himself? Yes, He has done that. When God translates sinners from the domain of darkness to the kingdom of the beloved Son and the triune God dwells in them, every aspect of their being is redeemed. Their affections, loves, and joys are changed. I say there must be subjective evidence if the objective really happened. Sometimes people use different words, don’t remember, or there can be other reasons.
JM: So a subjective experience, an emotional response, or compelling inward affection may or may
not be there (not necessary), not only at “conversion” but at any particular time in our walk of faith.
RS: Notice the word “so” here is used to conclude your argument. You used a subjective argument (you and your son-in-law) to demonstrate that a subjective experience is not necessary. What is conversion? Is the soul (including love, affection, joy) transformed or not? Does the soul become the dwelling place and temple of the infinitely joyful Jesus Christ or not? Does the soul become the temple of the Holy Spirit who works His fruit (including love and joy) in the souls of those He dwells in or not? How can the affections not be converted as well? How can the soul of a truly converted person not have joy in Christ and some degree of pleasure as s/he beholds the glory of God in the face of Christ?
JM: To insist otherwise, I think, begins to chip away at free justification through faith.
RS: Not in the slightest. The basis for justification is a real and vital unity with Christ. If one is united to Christ, who is Eternal Life Himself, then the quality of eternal life flows in and through that person. Will eternal life in heaven be with or without joy? Will we be cold people with cold hearts in heaven forever or will we praise Him with joy and pleasure for eternity? Well, I say, though it is far from what it will be then, that eternal life starts now because Christ Himself is in the saved soul. How can a sinner that has been declared just by God based on unity with Christ not have the joy of Christ? How can a sinner that has truly had his sins removed from his soul (WCF sin brings misery and death) and now has eternal life in his soul not have the misery removed and given some degree of joy? Does God remove the misery of sin and just leave the soul in neutral or does He share His joy with His children?
1 John 1:4 These things we write, so that our joy may be made complete.
JM: cheers…
RS: I thought affections were not necessary? Ah
2 Corinthians 9:7 Each one must do just as he has purposed in his heart, not grudgingly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.
LikeLike
WCF 10.3: Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit, who works when, and where, and how He pleases: so also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.
Where is the subjective experience? Where’s the conversion experience?
I guess we can say that faith or assurance or conviction are subjective experiences, but those are gifts of the Spirit. The context of the ‘subjective’ in this discussion, I thought, was that of a little 4 year old girl and her “affected” conversion experience and a believer’s necessary outward shows of anguish, emotion, joy, etc. as evidences of those inward gifts.
Breathing is a necessary subjective experience in order to be alive, without which one cannot be saved!
LikeLike
Richard, ecclesiastical faith agrees with experiential faith that a sign of true love for God is to seek his presence. But it holds that that is done by attending his appointed means of grace on his appointed day, not by diving inward and summoning him forth 24/7. Do you see the important difference in terms of who does what, when and how?
But instead of it being a mere aspect of salvation, I rather think “the great doctrine of Reformed people” is justification, something both unionists and conversionists seem to have a hard time seeing.
LikeLike
Darryl
I made allowance for different temperaments. But even introverts have emotions – machines don’t but people do. I made no comment about the confession. I would suspect the writers (only two, so less reliable anyway than one with ‘many counsellors’ judging by recent comments) assumed the missing adverbs, they must have done if they were truly biblical. After all the bible is clear that as a result of justification we rejoice and the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts. In Gals 3 Paul assumes that the Galatians remember receiving the Holy Spirit – presumably experiential. Assurance of salvation is emotional as well as intellectual. At least part of the fruit of the indwelling Spirit is affective.
By the way Darryl surely you are not using ‘quiet and peaceable’ as a text to refute excited emotions. Firstly, both times of quiet and times of strong emotions are not incompatable, simply human experience. However, secondly, and more importantly ‘quiet and peaceable’ refers to the external circumstances of our lives with no reference to the inner emotions of our hearts. People whose external circumstances are ‘quiet and peaceable’ may have all kinds of engaged emotions.
My main concern difficulty however, is conceiving that conversion can take place without being aware of it. By its very nature it is conscious, cognitive, affective and volitional.
LikeLike
Darryl,
I’m grateful that you quoted the section in some length, because it points to the fact that the child soon found comfort not in her experience, but in the objective promises of the Word of God as communicated to her in the catechism. If you want to say with the one hand that Edwards’ was ill-advised to use a small child’s experience as a public example, fine (you would have that in common with Isaac Watts), but you cannot with the other hand say that he was a revivalist like Finney having no room for catechetical nurture. It is an advertisement for the benefits of catechetical nurture.
Bill
LikeLike
Jack Miller: WCF 10.3: Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit, who works when, and where, and how He pleases: so also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.
Where is the subjective experience? Where’s the conversion experience?
RS: Yes, but where is the faith and evidences of faith? Were they ever catechized or nurtured in the covenant? However, John the Baptist leaped in the womb upon Mary’s greetings. It is my position that all elect infants leap in the womb when they are regenerated.
JM: I guess we can say that faith or assurance or conviction are subjective experiences, but those are gifts of the Spirit. The context of the ‘subjective’ in this discussion, I thought, was that of a little 4 year old girl and her “affected” conversion experience and a believer’s necessary outward shows of anguish, emotion, joy, etc. as evidences of those inward gifts.
RS: What is wrong with anyone having some anguish when the Spirit illumines the Word to show someone that s/he is lost and has some joy when the soul has the presence of the Holy Spirit which is holy joy?
JM: Breathing is a necessary subjective experience in order to be alive, without which one cannot be saved!
RS: But does one know if one is breathing or not? Christ is the very life of the living soul. Can the soul have the joy of Christ in the soul?
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, ecclesiastical faith agrees with experiential faith that a sign of true love for God is to seek his presence. But it holds that that is done by attending his appointed means of grace on his appointed day, not by diving inward and summoning him forth 24/7. Do you see the important difference in terms of who does what, when and how?
RS: I see what you are saying, but biblical faith is one that receives Christ Himself on a continual basis. Christ does live in the believer and the believer is the temple of the Holy Spirit. There is a sense where we must dive inward as such, but it is as the soul bows in submission to Christ and God is pleased to show grace that the soul receives grace. You think I am saying we can do inward to get as we please, yet I think your position seems to say that as long as you apply the means of grace you obtain grace. I am actually saying that all grace is as God pleases and when He pleases and no one has a right to grace and nothing we do obligates God to give grace.
Zrim: But instead of it being a mere aspect of salvation, I rather think “the great doctrine of Reformed people” is justification, something both unionists and conversionists seem to have a hard time seeing.
RS: Just to be clear, what to you mean by “unionists” and “conversionists” in your statements?
LikeLike
RS,
Leaping infants… leaping lizards!
RS: RS: What is wrong with anyone having some anguish when the Spirit illumines the Word to show someone that s/he is lost and has some joy when the soul has the presence of the Holy Spirit which is holy joy?
Jack: Nothing wrong with it at all. In fact, it is a good thing, a biblical thing… The question is: Is anguish a necessary component of regeneration, without which there can be no salvation? In other words, without an emotional, experiential moment of “anguish for my sin” can there be no effectual calling and saving faith? If it’s there, then praise the Lord. If it’s not, then praise the Lord. In both cases a lost lamb has been found and saved by Christ alone. What is necessary for salvation?
RS: But does one know if one is breathing or not?
Jack: I think, therefore I am?
LikeLike
Richard, ecclesiastical faith does not say there is a guarantee between attending the means of grace and obtaining grace anymore than experiential faith says that there is a guarantee between cultivating the interior life and obtaining grace. But the real difference lies in who does what, when and how. We’re both after the presence of God, and we both know that our respective methodologies don’t guarantee or obligate God to anything (though I would contend that there is something inherent to experiential faith that does seem to lend itself to it). But how we get there is very different.
Unionists and conversionists are those who prioritize union and conversion in way that competes with or otherwise diminishes justification or how sinners are made right with God. But confessionalists deem how we are made right with God to be the great doctrine of Reformed faith.
LikeLike
Jack
Thanks for comment over at TT’s blog. Good to agree where we do.
I would make two points regarding children of believers who die in infancy. If regenerate clearly they have no personal faith nor the indwelling Spirit. They have no conscious existence at least in a way parallel to ours. We cannot use them as any kind of parallel. They have no faith at an either emotional, cognitive, or volitional level.
But the bigger question is where is the proof that the children of believers are regenerate/saved? Where is such a promise given? After all even in terms of the OC ‘not all Israel are of Israel’. The only ones we are assured are are those of Abraham’s faith. When we come to the NC the notion of covenant children is on an even greater level of tenuousness but that is another issue.
My point is not that they are not the objects of God’s mercy but that we have very little proof that they are.
LikeLike
Jack Miller: RS, Leaping infants… leaping lizards!
RS: I hope you know that I said that for two reasons: 1) Infants with the Spirit can have a reaction. 2) Just thought a little humor wouldn’t be such a bad thing.
Jack: The question is: Is anguish a necessary component of regeneration, without which there can be no salvation? In other words, without an emotional, experiential moment of “anguish for my sin” can there be no effectual calling and saving faith? If it’s there, then praise the Lord. If it’s not, then praise the Lord. In both cases a lost lamb has been found and saved by Christ alone. What is necessary for salvation?
RS: Surely one has not seen sin for what it is if one does not see it as against God (Psa 51:4-5). If that is true, then what is the response of one who understands sin and knows that s/he is under His wrath? It is hard for me to understand how one cannot have some degree of sorrow or horror. When reading the conversions that we have listed in the Scriptures, that seems to be the pattern. Jesus came to call sinners, not the righteous. People need to see themselves as undone sinners and when that happens, something like Isaiah 6 is not out of the question.
RS: But does one know if one is breathing or not?
Jack: I think, therefore I am?
RS: If you think you are breathing, then most likely you are.
LikeLike
Jack Miller: What is necessary for salvation?
RS: One must have Christ in reality to really be saved. But of course to have Christ one just be regenerated, united to Him, and declared just based on the fact that the believer is one with Christ. The question, then, at least in this context, is if King Jesus can come in, take away the misery of sin, take away the dominion of darkness, and then take His throne in the soul and be its life without making a stir in the person’s heart. It is rather hard for me to see it that way.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, ecclesiastical faith does not say there is a guarantee between attending the means of grace and obtaining grace anymore than experiential faith says that there is a guarantee between cultivating the interior life and obtaining grace. But the real difference lies in who does what, when and how. We’re both after the presence of God, and we both know that our respective methodologies don’t guarantee or obligate God to anything (though I would contend that there is something inherent to experiential faith that does seem to lend itself to it). But how we get there is very different.
RS: Experiential faith, at least as I am using it in this case and in this sense, means that anything and everything that is spiritual in the soul is by the grace of God. Every spiritual thought must come from Him and every spiritual joy must come from Him. Therefore, if I have true spiritual joy it is not because I have done something to obtain it, but God has done something that I may share in His joy.
Zrim: Unionists and conversionists are those who prioritize union and conversion in way that competes with or otherwise diminishes justification or how sinners are made right with God. But confessionalists deem how we are made right with God to be the great doctrine of Reformed faith.
RS: Well, what a place to start. There is no justification apart from union with Christ, so it is not that union with Christ competes with justification. In fact, union with Christ makes justification possible. The believing soul must be united to Christ so that the sin of the believer is legally counted as Christ and so that the righteousness of Christ may be legally the believers. Matthew 18:3 gives us the worsd of Jesus on conversion:, “Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.”
WCF ch XI
II. Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and His righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification:[4] yet is it not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but works by love.[5]
RS: Faith receives Christ Himself. Faith is always accompanied by all other saving graces. Faith is not a dead faith, but always works by love.
WCF: IV. God did, from all eternity, decree to justify all the elect,[11] and Christ did, in the fullness of time, die for their sins, and rise again for their justification:[12] nevertheless, they are not justified, until the Holy Spirit does, in due time, actually apply Christ unto them.[13]
RS: Sinners are not actually justified until the Holy Spirit actually applies Christ unto them.
WCF XXVI I. All saints, that are united to Jesus Christ their Head, by His Spirit, and by faith, have fellowship with Him in His grace, sufferings, death, resurrection, and glory:[1] and, being united to one another in love, they have communion in each other’s gifts and graces,[2] and are obliged to the performance of such duties, public and private, as do conduce to their mutual good, both in the inward and outward man.
RS: All that are truly saints are united to Jesus Christ by His Spirit. They do all that they do to their mutual good, “both in the inward and outward man.”
The Confession teaches union with Christ as well and teaches that we are to seek the good of other believers which includes their inward man. Paul spoke (II Cor 1:24) of being workers together with the church at Corinth for their joy.
Deut 28 speaks of the great danger of not serving the Lord with joy: 47 “Because you did not serve the LORD your God with joy and a glad heart, for the abundance of all things; 48 therefore you shall serve your enemies whom the LORD will send against you, in hunger, in thirst, in nakedness, and in the lack of all things; and He will put an iron yoke on your neck until He has destroyed you.
LikeLike
JT,
you wrote: But the bigger question is where is the proof that the children of believers are regenerate/saved? Where is such a promise given?
This has to do with God’s election. The promise of salvation is not to children of believers per se, but to those infants who die and are elect of God. Those could include elect infants of believers as well as unbelievers. It depends solely on God’s sovereign and secret choosing, not flesh and blood. So those God elects he regenerates and saves as he wills (Rom. 8:30; 9:11; 11:29)
Even in this life, when a person is “converted” and “becomes” a believer (or grows up in a Christian family as a believing child), that person may walk away from Christ, possibly never to return to faith. Was he saved? Was he elect? This much we know, all that are Christ’s God sovereignly “chose in him before the foundation of the world, that [they] should be holy and without blemish before him in love” (Eph 1:4) and “this is the will of him that sent me, that of all that which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day” (John 6:39).
Thus the WCF article I quoted above states: “Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit, who works when, and where, and how He pleases: so also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.”
Notice how I used a little scripture to defend and explain the confessional article?
😉
blessings…
LikeLike
Richard,
I asked: What is necessary for salvation?
you answered: RS: One must have Christ in reality to really be saved. But of course to have Christ one just be regenerated, united to Him, and declared just based on the fact that the believer is one with Christ.
How about faith, the alone receiving instrument of salvation? WCF 14.I: The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls, is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts…
And 14.2: … But the principle acts of saving faith are, accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace…
blessings…
LikeLike
RS: you asked, “How can a sinner that has been declared just by God based on unity with Christ not have the joy of Christ? How can a sinner that has truly had his sins removed from his soul (WCF sin brings misery and death) and now has eternal life in his soul not have the misery removed and given some degree of joy? Does God remove the misery of sin and just leave the soul in neutral or does He share His joy with His children?”
Could it be because saints are still schlubs? Could it be that we sin, doubt, still try to be God? Is there room in Edwards’ piety for people of little joy and love? BTW,whatever happened to faith, which looks outward, rather than a piety that examines to see if the believer has enough affection?
You’re not really helping your case. It’s all Edwards, all the time. And if you don’t hallow the man, then there is no where to go for comfort.
LikeLike
John, you know, when Paul talks about the traits that are fitting sound doctrine, in Titus 2, he doesn’t mention emotion, affection, or passion, once, as I recall. It all about moderation, control, discipline, order. Critics of the revivals saw an excess of subjectivity. They had a point. But the revivalist crowd has yet to take the counsel to head or heart.
LikeLike
Bill, Edwards may have kept catechesis and earnestness together. He may have had the benefit of those saints who went before. But did the Edwardseans keep the two together? Does Piper (just an example of the leading Edwards proponent)? So isn’t it possible that Edwards let the genie of subjectivity out so that Finney wouldn’t need it?
LikeLike
mcmark: Did i see the word “union”?
RS: There is no justification apart from union with Christ, so it is not that union with Christ competes with justification. In fact, union with Christ makes justification possible.
mcmark: Some of us have been this through this topic before and I think it important enough to discuss again. And again. 1. “Union” needs to be defined. There are different aspects of union, or different “unions”, and the definition a writer uses needs to be clarified. In the sentence above, it seems assumed that “union” is not legal union, that “union” is not the “in Christ”, but rather “Christ in us”. And us is assumed to be “the inward man”. 2. So there are competing definitions even of the word “union”. Many assume that “union” is not by election or by the transfer of Christ’s righteousness, but by the Holy Spirit. In other words, it’s difficult to see the difference between their idea of “union” and “regeneration”. 3. If “union” is defined as “the indwelling of Christ” and this is something other than the faith given to the elect so that they trust Christ”, then that definition must also be stipulated. As also the definition of faith. If emotion alone toward an idol Christ results in changes of life and other effects, does this “faith” need to have as its object the gospel doctrine of justification by the imputation of Christ’s atonement?
I am not being abstract or scholastic. John denies that there is any competition between “union” and “justification” and then promptly informs us that justification depends on “union”. Not only does this assume a certain definition of “union”, but it also gives priority to the work of the Spirit over the election of God the Father and the atonement made for the elect by God the Son. Those who think they honor Christ by teaching that Christ died for everyone with no regard for election, and then have the Spirit “apply” this atonement only to the elect, are teaching a false gospel which compromises God’s justice and Christ’s satisfaction of God’s law.
My point is not at all to say that justification is eternal or to deny the need for regeneration and the work of the Holy Spirit. No elect person is justified apart from faith in the gospel. This of course does not mean that a certain emotional quality needs to be attached to this faith. But my main point is that Christ was given an elect people, and that the righteousness Christ merited for these elect people is legally imputed by God. If RS denies that this legal imputation is an “union”, or “one aspect of union”, then what we have are COMPETING definitions of the relationship between justification and “union”.
WCF: IV. God did, from all eternity, decree to justify all the elect,[11] and Christ did, in the fullness of time, die for their sins, and rise again for their justification:[12] nevertheless, they are not justified, until the Holy Spirit does, in due time, actually apply Christ unto them.[13]
LikeLike
Darryl,
I very much appreciate your admission that Edwards held these things together personally.
As for those who followed him or who now claim him, well, let’s just say that I would join with you in critiquing many of them. To what extent is Edwards to blame for this? Hard to say; every Barthian I have met wants to claim Calvin as father. However, perhaps there are some ways that Edwards could have better safeguarded the tradition. Mainly, I doubt that he would have imagined that people would be reading him in isolation from the larger body of the confessional orthodoxy that he took for granted. I think I say something along these lines in my book: http://www.continuumbooks.com/books/detail.aspx?BookId=163642&SubjectId=1080&Subject2Id=1740.
Bill
LikeLike
Richard,
You wrote: RS: Yes, but where is the faith and evidences of faith? Were they ever catechized or nurtured in the covenant?
Regarding my son-in-law, obviously… The evidence consist in the good works that do follow, not in the emotional response.
LikeLike
Jack Miller: Richard, I asked: What is necessary for salvation?
you answered: RS: One must have Christ in reality to really be saved. But of course to have Christ one just be regenerated, united to Him, and declared just based on the fact that the believer is one with Christ.
Jack Miller: How about faith, the alone receiving instrument of salvation? WCF 14.I: The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls, is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts…
And 14.2: … But the principle acts of saving faith are, accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace…
RS: Yes, but faith itself does not save, Christ saves. One cannot have faith without Christ and one cannot have Christ without faith. The regenerate soul responds in faith and yet there is no life in the soul without Christ. The soul must have Christ to be saved.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: RS: you asked, “How can a sinner that has been declared just by God based on unity with Christ not have the joy of Christ? How can a sinner that has truly had his sins removed from his soul (WCF sin brings misery and death) and now has eternal life in his soul not have the misery removed and given some degree of joy? Does God remove the misery of sin and just leave the soul in neutral or does He share His joy with His children?”
Could it be because saints are still schlubs? Could it be that we sin, doubt, still try to be God? Is there room in Edwards’ piety for people of little joy and love?
RS: You did not answer the questions at all. If sin leads to misery and God removes the sin and the misery and the Spirit of love and joy dwells in that soul, something has to change. The discussion, as I have been understanding it, is not that people have to have rapturous joy, but whether something has to change if Christ is in the soul. It started off with Phebe and her initial misery which you basically mocked and thought questioned Edwards’ intelligence and wisdom. I argued that what you read there was simply the Puritan way of evangelism. But I thought it had moved where people were basically arguing that virtually nothing had to happen and I have been arguing against that. Sure people can have differing amounts of love and joy, but there has to be something there.
D.G. Hart: BTW,whatever happened to faith, which looks outward, rather than a piety that examines to see if the believer has enough affection?
RS: Are you so sure faith has to look outward? Where is Christ right now? Sure He is at the right hand of the Father, but isn’t He also in all true believers? The question is not to see if one has enough affection, but whether one has Christ Himself.
Hebrews 3:14 For we have become partakers of Christ, if we hold fast the beginning of our assurance firm until the end,
Hebrews 6:4 For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit,
2 Peter 1:4 For by these He has granted to us His precious and magnificent promises, so that by them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world by lust.
RS: Believers are partakers of Christ, partakers of the Holy Spirit, and are partakers of the divine nature. They are new creatures in Christ and Christ is in them. Faith is not just looking way up in the heavens, it is beholding the glory of God in the face of Christ. What is a sign of a believer having Christ? Is it to look to himself to see if s/he has faith or if s/he has Christ? II Cor 13:5 says that we are to examine ourselves. What for? To see if Jesus Christ is in you. I think people should look in themselves rather than looking in outer space. It is biblical more to do that.
D.J. Hart: You’re not really helping your case. It’s all Edwards, all the time. And if you don’t hallow the man, then there is no where to go for comfort.
RS: How am I not helping my case? You made the post about Edwards and my argument is that Edwards’ position is more biblical than the opposing view. It is not about hallowing him, it is about hallowing the God that he preached and exalted.
LikeLike
Richard,
You seem to play with words. The soul acquires Christ through faith, a gift of God. Faith is the instrument by which the believer receives Christ and is saved.
Westminster Shorter Catechism:
Q. 86. What is faith in Jesus Christ?
A. Faith in Jesus Christ is a saving grace, whereby we receive and rest upon him alone for salvation, as he is offered to us in the gospel.
“The true reason why faith is given such an exclusive place by the New Testament, so far as the attainment of salvation is concerned, over against love and over against everything else in man…is that faith means receiving something, not doing something or even being something. To say, therefore, that our faith saves us means that we do not save ourselves even in slightest measure, but that God saves us.”
— J. Gresham Machen (What Is Faith?)
LikeLike
Old Post: RS: There is no justification apart from union with Christ, so it is not that union with Christ competes with justification. In fact, union with Christ makes justification possible.
McMark: In the sentence above, it seems assumed that “union” is not legal union, that “union” is not the “in Christ”, but rather “Christ in us”. And us is assumed to be “the inward man”.
RS: That is not assumed by me. In fact, union with Christ is a legal union but it is also one in which Christ is in the person and the person is in Christ. All spiritual blessings are given in Christ and yet Christ Himself is the very life of the believer.
McMark: If RS denies that this legal imputation is an “union”, or “one aspect of union”, then what we have are COMPETING definitions of the relationship between justification and “union”.
RS: God will not declare anyone just unless that person is legally one with Christ. The dual imputation of sin (believer’s sin to Christ and the righteousness of Christ to the believer) can only happen in a legal way and the way that happens is by a real union of Christ and the believer. These are not competting views at all.
LikeLike
Jack Miller: Richard, You wrote: RS: Yes, but where is the faith and evidences of faith? Were they ever catechized or nurtured in the covenant?
JM: Regarding my son-in-law, obviously… The evidence consist in the good works that do follow, not in the emotional response.
RS: Jack, this is not against your son-in-law, but is dealing with your position. If good works are an evidence of faith, then are all good works evidence of faith? The Pharisees did a lot of good works.
LikeLike
Jack Miller: Richard, You seem to play with words. The soul acquires Christ through faith, a gift of God. Faith is the instrument by which the believer receives Christ and is saved.
RS: I am not playing with words. though if it appears that I am I will try to stop. The word “by” has different meanings, and one is as you noted above is that faith is an instrument. But even that does not get at the whole issue. The evidence of true faith, then, is Christ Himself. What is the evidence that one has Christ Himself in the soul? Surely something in the soul changes if Christ is there. The soul will have the loves, desires, and joys of Christ rather than the loves, desires, and joys of the world.
JM: Westminster Shorter Catechism:
Q. 86. What is faith in Jesus Christ?
A. Faith in Jesus Christ is a saving grace, whereby we receive and rest upon him alone for salvation, as he is offered to us in the gospel.
RS: Yes, but then again there are all those false types of faith. Believing that the facts are true is a historical faith. Notice again, however, that according to the WSC faith itself is a saving grace and that true faith will receive Christ alone. Christ Himself is received by grace through faith.
JM: “The true reason why faith is given such an exclusive place by the New Testament, so far as the attainment of salvation is concerned, over against love and over against everything else in man…is that faith means receiving something, not doing something or even being something. To say, therefore, that our faith saves us means that we do not save ourselves even in slightest measure, but that God saves us.”
— J. Gresham Machen (What Is Faith?)
RS: We need to go one step more, however. The true reason that God saves sinners apart from anything they are and anything the can do is to the praise of the glory of His grace. So what is the evidence of that grace in the soul of human beings? If God delights in Himself and His own glory above all things, then wouldn’t an evidence of that grace in the soul and of Christ in the soul be that the soul would have some joy or perhaps delight in the glory of God?
LikeLike
D.G. Hart: BTW,whatever happened to faith, which looks outward, rather than a piety that examines to see if the believer has enough affection?
Rom 14:17 for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.
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.
Romans 15:13 Now may the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, so that you will abound in hope by the power of the Holy Spirit.
Philippians 4:4 Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, rejoice!
Col 1:11 strengthened with all power, according to His glorious might, for the attaining of all steadfastness and patience; joyously 12 giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified us to share in the inheritance of the saints in Light.
1 Peter 1:8 and though you have not seen Him, you love Him, and though you do not see Him now, but believe in Him, you greatly rejoice with joy inexpressible and full of glory,
LikeLike
But Darryl an excesss of emphasis on emotion is not best countered by a denial of emotion. To be sure the stress in Titus is not on emotion but elsewhere emotion is mentioned. It is a case of holding the whole counsel of God on this matter as all else.
Jack… good… I like the use of Scripture… only I don’t think the Scriptures quoted say anything about whether children are elect or not. But as my instincts are with you on this I don’t have the heart to argue the point. I merely comment it is mostly conjecture. There is little revelation on this matter.
LikeLike
‘D.G. Hart: BTW,whatever happened to faith, which looks outward, rather than a piety that examines to see if the believer has enough affection?
Darryl, The problem here is the straw man you employ. Firsly, looking outward and inward are not mutually exclusive. At times one is called for and at times the other. Few today would call for a piety that is absorbed by self-examination. I certainly wouldn’t. I would argue that ‘looking out’ is the normal and proper way of piety. I would say this very looking out is what creates the emotional, moral and intellectual responses that are part of the life of faith.
LikeLike
RS repeats himself, and I will try not to do that.
Old Post: RS: There is no justification apart from union with Christ, so it is not that union with Christ competes with justification. In fact, union with Christ makes justification possible. McMark: In the sentence above, it seems assumed that “union” is not legal union, that “union” is not the “in Christ”, but rather “Christ in us”. And us is assumed to be “the inward man”.
RS: That is not assumed by me. In fact, union with Christ is a legal union but it is also one in which Christ is in the person and the person is in Christ
mcmark: The bare assertion is not convincing. The “but it is also” is evidence that RS, despite the formal nod to legal imputation, continues to assume that “Christ in the inward man” is the “real” union. An person being IN CHRIST is either by election or by legal justification, and not by the indwelling.
RS: All spiritual blessings are given in Christ and yet Christ Himself is the very life of the believer.
mark: Notice the “yet”. Nobody is saying that one excludes the other. The question is priority. And RS assumes that imputation is conditioned on the “real union”
RS: God will not declare anyone just unless that person is legally one with Christ. The dual imputation of sin (believer’s sin to Christ and the righteousness of Christ to the believer) can only happen in a legal way and the way that happens is by a real union of Christ and the believer. These are not competting views at all.
mcmark: This is a typical two step. First, it is agreed that the indwelling and faith is a logical part of the “union”, but second that formal agreement is soon forgotten so that the work of the Spirit in the elect sinner becomes the prerequisite for imputation.
I want to offer a bit of “subjective evidence”. I myself experienced a “real”, sincere conversion to the false Arminian gospel when I was 12 years old. I went three days and three nights without sleep or food, because I was a very serious and sincere person convinced that Christ’s death for all sinners depended on the sinner to make it work, and that I had to make a decision. After three days, the decision was emotional, cathartic. Now I had signed the check and so “jesus” would save me, and my faith I did not consider a work, but I knew that my faith was the difference between saved and lost.
About 12 years, when I was 45 years, I learned what the true gospel was. I learned that God had either already imputed the sins of a sinner to Christ or not. I learned that Christ’s death saves the elect. Over a process of time, I came to repent of my idolatry. I grew to become ashamed of the things I once gloried in. I never gloried in my immorality. I never thought my immorality recommended me to God’s favor. But from the time I was 12 I had gloried in my “conversion”.
In analogy to Paul’s testimony in Philippians 3, I learned to “flush” my old emotional conversion. I don’t try to reform it, redeem it, explain, re-narrate it, polish it. I count it as nothing. I count it as dung. Surely my repentance from Arminianism has not been without emotion. It cannot be dismissed as “mere assent”. But God’s effectual calling always has its object the true gospel and effects a turning away from the false gospel.
My story doesn’t prove anything. I don’t think anybody on this list is saying that “conversion” to a Mormon gospel or a Roman Catholic gospel results in eternal life. Rather the question assumes a true gospel, and then asks about the emotional effects. But the “what gospel” can never be escaped. If we tell our children that they are already in the new covenant, that’s one thing, and if we tell them they are already in the church, that’s another thing, But if we tell them a false gospel conditioned on the sinner, and promise them that they will be saved if they believe it, then we have not told the truth and we have not given the glory to the God revealed in the Scriptures.
The true good news is not first of all about what happens in my heart to cause me to be believe the true good news. Even though Christ indwells the justified elect, they do not look inside themselves for the righteousness. THIS IS AN EITHER OR. They look for a righteousness that is in heaven, they look for the righteousness which is the merit (value) of Christ’s work outside them. They look to Christ’s death and resurrection.
If I look inside, despair. If you tell me to look both out and inside, despair. If you tell those who look out to look in, and those who look in to look out, despair. Assurance is found in Christ’s finished work.
LikeLike
ok, I knew I shouldn’t be writing this early in the morning!
I wrote: “First, it is agreed that the indwelling and faith is a logical part of the “union”, but second that formal agreement is soon forgotten so that the work of the Spirit in the elect sinner becomes the prerequisite for imputation.”
I should have written: “first it is agreed that election and imputation are logical aspects of the “union” but….
Perhaps some will think that I have unwittingly revealed the truth about myself–that I mcmark only give formal assent to indwelling and faith. But let me remind you that I do NOT think faith is merely a recognition of an already pre-existing state. I deny that we are born justified. When I learned to understand and believe the gospel, it was not as a person who already had the righteousness but as a person who needed the righteousness! I deny that there can be any justification apart from faith in the true gospel.
LikeLike
Richard – you say that kids brought up in a covenantal and nurturing context can be duped. And kids brought up in a conversionist and revivalist context can’t? ! I walked the freakin aisle 5 or 6 times add a kid into adulthood. This stuff drives people insane and it doesn’t square with how the Bible presents our kids.
LikeLike
RS, you’re not helping because you can’t admit that believers have flaws, or that Edwards has flaws. So perhaps the links between Edwards and Finney’s perfectionism are not so thin.
From you I get no relief. Is Christ in your heart? I answer, yes, but sometimes it does feel like it. Sorry, at that point I’d turn someone to look to Christ.
BTW, as for change in the converts lives, little Phebe was not all that bad a person before she went through the agony of conversion. She was going to church, obeying her parents, and learning the catechism. You want that to change?
LikeLike
RS, so do I have to be joyful to be saved? (Do you were a happy face on your lapel?) Are not there other fruit of the Spirit? And is not faith in Jesus Christ and repentance what one must do to be saved? Yes, joy will follow, as will good works. But other stuff also follows and that’s why faith points us back to Christ. If we were constantly looking to see if we were joyful or good, we (or at least I) would be up a creek.
LikeLike
John T., but with Edwardseans, the emphasis is all on emotion and internal inspection. See Richard’s unrelenting defense of Edwards. I am actually trying to bring balance. And what do I get for my trouble? I’m extreme. Huh?
If the Edwardseans could pot it down, and if evangelicals had not turned JE into a sacred cow, then no reason for critique would exist.
Like Fox News, we’re fair and balance all the time.
LikeLike
DJ and McMark, as much as I don’t like emotion or personal feelings, I do think it is important for Edwards defenders to hear other “conversion” narratives. And these raise the question of why Phebe’s narrative is any more compelling than yours. The answer appears to be that yours aren’t as important because Edwards didn’t write about them. Of course, being only a man (I’m hoping Richard will not disagree), he could not write about 21st century believers. But why didn’t he try to understand people who were godly and did not convert because they grew up in the faith? Richard might say it’s because Edwards was only doing what Puritans had been doing in their requirements for conversion and preparation. Great. Then let’s also get rid of that little black hole of Puritanism.
This is an onion and the more you peel the layers, the more you weep.
LikeLike
Most of the obvious immorality in my life was after the experience as a twelve year old. And now? It seems that I am not yet a “better person”…. But if dgh were to write about my conversion from my conversion, my de-conversion from “evangelicalism”, would not Hart’s celebrity status make my little narrative a bit more weighty?
The irony of a choice against my choosing is not lost on me. But neither is the idea that we have but no choice but to choose. Not all “conversions” are to (and from) the damnable doctrines of Arminianism, but to my shame I confess that I was flattered enough by puritan legalism to become even more self-righteous after I became a “Calvinist” who never needed to repent of “evangelicalism”
That stuff about imputation and election, well it was only the extra, the cherry on top of my ice cream sundae experiences. “Becoming a Calvinist” was like having a “second work”, an exciting “more” added on to my other s—-.
I flushed. I flush.
Phil 3:8–“I am counting them as rubbish to gain Christ and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness.”
Romans 6:17—“You have become obedient from the heart to the standard of doctrine to which you were handed over, and having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness…
Romans 6:21–“But what fruit were you getting at that time from the things of which you are now ashamed”.
LikeLike
JT,
wrote: Jack… good… I like the use of Scripture… only I don’t think the Scriptures quoted say anything about whether children are elect or not. But as my instincts are with you on this I don’t have the heart to argue the point. I merely comment it is mostly conjecture. There is little revelation on this matter.
John, the issue is the mystery of God’s election, not about children. We don’t know all the whys and hows, but Scripture does affirm certain things.
I’ll leave you with this: Are you a believer who truly trusts in Christ for your salvation? You answer, Yes! Therefore you would agree that God chose you in Christ (election) before the foundation of the world? Yes! That occurred before you were born, right? Right. Were you ever an infant? Of course. As an infant were you one of God’s elect? It must be so… Is God’s purpose of election sure?… His gifts and callings irrevocable? Yes If you had died as an infant, would God’s sure election (foreordained in Christ) have held and would He still bring you to salvation as He purposed eons before? Or would you not be saved because you missed out on a moment in time of a conversion experience?
Romans 9:
11 for the children being not yet born, neither having done anything good or bad, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth,
12 it was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
13 Even as it is written, Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.
14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.
16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that hath mercy.
23 and that he might make known the riches of his glory upon vessels of mercy, which he afore prepared unto glory…
Our trust for salvation is wholly in God’s certain purposes and mercy freely (He needs nothing from us) poured out upon his people. We are mere recipients of His gratuitous grace.
Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition…
😉
LikeLike
mcmark: The bare assertion is not convincing. The “but it is also” is evidence that RS, despite the formal nod to legal imputation, continues to assume that “Christ in the inward man” is the “real” union. An person being IN CHRIST is either by election or by legal justification, and not by the indwelling.
mark: Notice the “yet”. Nobody is saying that one excludes the other. The question is priority. And RS assumes that imputation is conditioned on the “real union”
RS: It is true that I belive that imputation cannot happen apart from a real union with Christ. I don’t assume a legal union apart from a real union. I believe that when God declares a sinner righteous in His eyes that sinner is really and truly righteous because of Christ. When the soul is regenerated by grace alone that creates a believing soul, yet what is a believing soul that is not receiving Christ? The legal declaration is not a legal fiction (as Roman Catholicism claims) because it is not fiction but is based on the real and perfect imputation of the righteousness of Christ which is given to all sinners who are married to Christ.
LikeLike
McMark: My story doesn’t prove anything. I don’t think anybody on this list is saying that “conversion” to a Mormon gospel or a Roman Catholic gospel results in eternal life. Rather the question assumes a true gospel, and then asks about the emotional effects. But the “what gospel” can never be escaped. If we tell our children that they are already in the new covenant, that’s one thing, and if we tell them they are already in the church, that’s another thing, But if we tell them a false gospel conditioned on the sinner, and promise them that they will be saved if they believe it, then we have not told the truth and we have not given the glory to the God revealed in the Scriptures.
RS: Part of the true Gospel, however, is the kingdom of God. Where does God reign and rule? In the hearts of His people. Colossians 1 gives us part of this picture: “25 Of this church I was made a minister according to the stewardship from God bestowed on me for your benefit, so that I might fully carry out the preaching of the word of God, 26 that is, the mystery which has been hidden from the past ages and generations, but has now been manifested to His saints, 27 to whom God willed to make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.”
The great mystery that was hidden for so long is a major part of the Gospel which Paul was to preach. This mystery and the riches of the glory of this mystery is Christ in you, the hope of glory. It is not that there is a Gospel and then there is Christ in you, this is part and parcel of the good news. This is the kingdom of God in His people after they have been delivered from the dominion of darkness.
mcmark: The true good news is not first of all about what happens in my heart to cause me to be believe the true good news.
RS: So Jesus was wrong when He told Nicodemus that he must be born from above to see or enter the kingdom? It is not good news that God gives faith by grace? It is not good news that regeneration of dead sinners is by grace alone and that I don’t have to work up this faith by myself?
mcmark: Even though Christ indwells the justified elect, they do not look inside themselves for the righteousness.
RS: But Christ dwells in them and they live in Him.
mcmark: THIS IS AN EITHER OR. They look for a righteousness that is in heaven, they look for the righteousness which is the merit (value) of Christ’s work outside them.
RS: Where is heaven that we are to look to? God is everywhere and He is especially in the hearts of His people. Sure enough Christ earned the perfect righteousness outside of the sinner, but how does the sinner become united to Christ in order for that righteousness to be legally his? It is not based on fiction, but on truth and reality. When Christ is united to the soul that soul is really and truly in unity with Christ (marriage) and the sinner and Christ are really and truly (as well as legally) one. God legally declares the sinner righteous because the sinner is married to Christ and all the righteousness of Christ is imputed to the sinner.
Romans 8:10 If Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, yet the spirit is alive because of righteousness.
1 Corinthians 1:30 But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption,
mcmark: They look to Christ’s death and resurrection.
RS: But why was Christ resurrected? While there are many reasons, at least one of them is so that the living Christ could be the very life of His people.
mcmark: If I look inside, despair. If you tell me to look both out and inside, despair. If you tell those who look out to look in, and those who look in to look out, despair. Assurance is found in Christ’s finished work.
RS: But the work of Christ is applied by the Holy Spirit. Assurance is found, according to Scripture, by examining yourself to see if Christ is in you II Cor 13:5. We are told how assurance is found in several places in I John as well. But notice how it all refers to the God who abides in you.
I Jn 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.
3:15 Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer; and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.
16 We know love by this, that He laid down His life for us; and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.
17 But whoever has the world’s goods, and sees his brother in need and closes his heart against him, how does the love of God abide in him?
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.
14 We have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son to be the Savior of the world.
15 Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God.
16 We have come to know and have believed the love which God has for us. God is love, and the one who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him.
LikeLike
DJ cimino: Richard – you say that kids brought up in a covenantal and nurturing context can be duped. And kids brought up in a conversionist and revivalist context can’t? ! I walked the freakin aisle 5 or 6 times add a kid into adulthood. This stuff drives people insane and it doesn’t square with how the Bible presents our kids.
RS: Yes, people brought up in the hyper-conversionist context can certainly be duped. The Bible says that all are born dead in sin and by nature are children of wrath. The Bible says that all must be regenerated and born again. Walking the aisle is almost always (if not always) a denial of that, but the covenantal and nurturing context can be as well.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: RS, you’re not helping because you can’t admit that believers have flaws, or that Edwards has flaws. So perhaps the links between Edwards and Finney’s perfectionism are not so thin.
RS: I have not denied that every single individual that has ever been born (including Edwards) or will ever be born other than Christ will have flaws. What is thin is your effort to tie Edwards who believed in total depravity with Finney who denied original sin.
D. G. Hart:From you I get no relief. Is Christ in your heart? I answer, yes, but sometimes it does feel like it. Sorry, at that point I’d turn someone to look to Christ.
RS: But Scripture specifically and clearly tells people to examine themselves to see if Christ is in them (II Cor 13:5). How are you going to have them see Christ? Where will you tell them to look? It is more than just feelings, but it is also more than just an intellectual look.
D. G. Hart: BTW, as for change in the converts lives, little Phebe was not all that bad a person before she went through the agony of conversion. She was going to church, obeying her parents, and learning the catechism. You want that to change?
RS: As the Scripture so clearly teaches, anyone can do all of those things without love for God in the soul. Apart from love for God, the best things that a person does is wicked and enmity against God. The Pharisees went to chruch and obeyed their parents. The Pharisees memorized large portions of the Bible, but none of that saved them. As Jesus told Nicodemus, “you must be born from above.” Yes, I would want her heart to be changed.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: RS, so do I have to be joyful to be saved? (Do you were a happy face on your lapel?)
RS: Does one have to be saved from the misery of sin to be saved from sin? The issue is not what one wears on the lapel, but what one has in the heart.
D. G. Hart: Are not there other fruit of the Spirit?
RS: No, there is only one fruit, or at least that is what the grammar of Galatians 5:22 indicates. The nine things that follow are simply descriptions of what the fruit of the Spirit is. “The fruit of the Spirit” is singular. In other words, for one to have one then one must have them all to some degree.
D. G. Hart: And is not faith in Jesus Christ and repentance what one must do to be saved?
RS: One must have faith in Christ and there must be repentance, yes. But true faith works by love and there is no love without some degree of joy. There is nothing that a person can do apart from love that is truly Christian. In fact, true repentance is being turned from self-love and self-centeredness to the love of God and God-centeredness.
D. G. Hart: Yes, joy will follow, as will good works. But other stuff also follows and that’s why faith points us back to Christ. If we were constantly looking to see if we were joyful or good, we (or at least I) would be up a creek.
RS: But I continue to argue that we must always look to Christ. The question, however, is how one looks for Christ and how does one see Christ. We are not to look to idols or images of a physical form, so we must be looking for Him in another way. Scripture tells us to examine ourselves to see if Christ is in us (II Cor 13:5) and we are told that the way we can know we are saved is if the love of God abides in us (I John). So how are you going to direct people to look to Christ if not as the Bible teaches which is to look inside of ourselves to see if He is there exerting His life and power? So what do you mean when you tell people to look to Christ?
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: John T., but with Edwardseans, the emphasis is all on emotion and internal inspection. See Richard’s unrelenting defense of Edwards. I am actually trying to bring balance. And what do I get for my trouble? I’m extreme. Huh?
RS: But you are not bringing balance at all, and yes your position is extreme. The emphasis of this Edwardsean is not an emphasis on some kind of emotion, but that there must be the life of Christ in the soul which is the temple of the Holy Spirit and that this can be understood and known. This started over your criticism of Edwards over the Phebe Bartlet case. Your statement on that was not balanced at all. I would also say that I am not some much defending Edwards as the biblical position of the vital importance of the indwelling of Christ.
D. G. Hart: If the Edwardseans could pot it down, and if evangelicals had not turned JE into a sacred cow, then no reason for critique would exist.
RS: Edwards is no sacred cow.
D. G. Hart: Like Fox News, we’re fair and balance all the time.
RS: Maybe most of the time, but not with Edwards, Phebe Bartlet, and the necessity of Christ dwelling in the soul.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: DJ and McMark, as much as I don’t like emotion or personal feelings, I do think it is important for Edwards defenders to hear other “conversion” narratives.
RS: But they need to be examined as well. Why is one accepted and not the other?
D. G. Hart: And these raise the question of why Phebe’s narrative is any more compelling than yours. The answer appears to be that yours aren’t as important because Edwards didn’t write about them.
RS: No, he was attacked in his time for the revival. He was writing about conversions and the like in defense of the work of God in revival.
D. G. Hart: Of course, being only a man (I’m hoping Richard will not disagree), he could not write about 21st century believers. But why didn’t he try to understand people who were godly and did not convert because they grew up in the faith?
RS: Because he was defending the work of God in revival at that time.
D. G. Hart: Richard might say it’s because Edwards was only doing what Puritans had been doing in their requirements for conversion and preparation.
RS: As Flavel would call that, it is the method of grace. In other words, this is how the grace of God works in souls. A person must have faith to be saved, but how does that come? Is it just a decision that a person makes or is it something that God has to work in the soul? If the soul must have faith in Christ alone, then the soul must be brought off of all other trust.
D. G. Hart: Great. Then let’s also get rid of that little black hole of Puritanism.
This is an onion and the more you peel the layers, the more you weep.
RS: This statement you just made makes me weep. The Reformation was actually a time of great revival and the Puritan movement carried that on. You want to get rid of that? God is sovereign over all people at all times and He still lives and works today. Salvation is completely His work from beginning to end. You tell people to look to Christ? Are they to look to Christ in their own power and strength?
Here is Solomon Stoddard defending this position:
“The work of regeneration being of absolute necessity unto salvation, it greatly concerns ministers especially, in all ways possible, to promote the same; and in particular that they guide souls aright who are under a work of preparation. There are some who deny any necessity of the prepatory work of the Spirit of God in order to a closing with Christ. This is a very dark cloud, both as it is an evidence that men do not have the experience of that work in their own souls, and as it is a sign that such men are utterly unskillful in guiding others who are under this work. If this opinion should prevail in the land, it would give a deadly wound to religion. It would expose men to think of themselves as converted when they are not.”
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: Of course, being only a man (I’m hoping Richard will not disagree), he could not write about 21st century believers. But why didn’t he try to understand people who were godly and did not convert because they grew up in the faith?
RS: It is a very dangerous position to hold that people can simply grow up in the faith. It may be true that people may not be able to point to a specific time, but people must be born from above at some point. One does not just grow into that and one is not nurtured into that. It is the choice and act of God who will only do this by grace alone and not because one was nurtured or not. Esau was a child of the covenant as was Judas. Perhaps both were nurtured in the faith. The Pharisees were covenant children who were nurtured to the faith. The children of believers are still children born dead in sins and trespasses and by nature children of wrath. Children are not saved because they are children of believers or not, they are saved by grace and grace alone.
LikeLike
Richard, again, we are all looking to Christ, but you’re right that the difference is in how. And again, the difference between experiential faith and ecclesiastical faith is the difference between looking within and looking without. Experientialists roam the interior life looking for evidence of Christ. But ecclesiasticals take their cues from Luther who, in the course of having to assure his introspective prone friend and colleague Mel, said that Christ is entirely outside us. That advice may cause experientialists a lot of spiritual angst, but it warms ecclesiastical hearts and is music to our ears. See, we can well up too.
LikeLike
But, Richard, ecclesiastical faith is not at all opposed to the necessity of being born from above. And you know what they say about geese and ganders–covenant children of experiential faith also need second birth. And so what never ceases to amaze is how experientialists hardly ever seem aware that roaming the interior life can be just as feigned as learning the catechism. The question is what’s prescribed biblically and confessionally, and lo and behold it’s covenantal nurture.
LikeLike
As a recovering revivalist/conversionist (someone who sees Phebe’s experience as not only unquestionably positive, but also often, and perhaps ideally, normative), this post made me want to dance in an understated, introverted, orderly, and mostly invisible fashion.
From my vantage point as a layman (if only an armchair layman), early Edwards is a mess of sympathetic and admirable traits (his Resolutions?) combined with youth and inexperience, like the borderline paranormal accounts of his wife’s devotional life.
At the risk of being excommunicated from the Reformed faith according to the Internet, “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” is also an example of mixed qualities. It’s laden with well-intended zeal, much unlike sermons from most modern pulpits, and I once gave it preeminence in my understanding of true religion. Now, I regard it frankly as atrocious; there’s no regard for the prooftext’s original context beyond noting that it was said to the Israelites, whose flagrant idolatry is transformed to a vague state of covenantal unconversion appropriate for Edwards’s time, and Jesus doesn’t make so much as a cameo. Although the congregation is informed that “Christ has thrown the door of mercy wide open, and stands in calling and crying with a loud voice to poor sinners,” this perhaps referred to the pulpit down the road, as all He had to say here was “He that believeth not is condemned already,” and “Ye are from beneath,” again with all the context of a fortune cookie.
Unfortunately, the sermon is universally beloved as far as I can tell, so perhaps I just shot myself in the foot. But some — including R Scott Clark — made reference to Edwards maturing and growing out of his approach at Northampton. I’d be interested in seeing more on this. Did either Jeff Waddington or Marsden discuss it in their work on Edwards? Has anyone developed it?
I do, regardless, recognize Edwards’s brilliance and profoundly inspirational death in seeking to endorse the smallpox vaccine, at the risk of sounding like a mainline Presbyterian. But to make the ground of assurance and credible professions of faith a sufficiently convincing, subjective conversion experience instead of the certainty of Christ’s work and God’s promises has had disastrous consequences.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, again, we are all looking to Christ, but you’re right that the difference is in how. And again, the difference between experiential faith and ecclesiastical faith is the difference between looking within and looking without.
RS: Okay, but how do you tell if Christ who is outside of you has done anything inside of you? How do you look to Christ outside of you? It sounds like those of the ecclesiastical faith limit all things to the external and then to the activity of the brain. The Puritan experiental way of thought is that God actually works in people. I might add that there are passages of Scripture that are too numerous that speak of Christ in people and the work of the Spirit in people.
Zrim: Experientialists roam the interior life looking for evidence of Christ.
RS: Which is exactly what II Cor 13:5 tells us to do. Faith receives Christ, it does not just believe facts about Him that has happened in history. It believes in King Jesus who reigns and rules in the heart.
Zrim: But ecclesiasticals take their cues from Luther who, in the course of having to assure his introspective prone friend and colleague Mel, said that Christ is entirely outside us. That advice may cause experientialists a lot of spiritual angst, but it warms ecclesiastical hearts and is music to our ears. See, we can well up too.
RS: I will just state that Luther was quite big on unity with Christ. A book was published in the last few years on just that subject. Colossians 1:27 stands firm on how it is Christ in us that is our hope of glory. A few more verses to show that He is not entirely outside of us, though the righteousness He earned in His life on this planet was entirely outside of us.
John 17:26 “and I have made Your name known to them, and will make it known, so that the love with which You loved Me may be in them, and I in them.”
Romans 8:10 If Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, yet the spirit is alive because of righteousness.
Galatians 2:20 “I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me.
Galatians 4:19 My children, with whom I am again in labor until Christ is formed in you–
Ephesians 3:17 so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith; and that you, being rooted and grounded in love,
LikeLike
Zrim: But, Richard, ecclesiastical faith is not at all opposed to the necessity of being born from above. And you know what they say about geese and ganders–covenant children of experiential faith also need second birth. And so what never ceases to amaze is how experientialists hardly ever seem aware that roaming the interior life can be just as feigned as learning the catechism.
RS: I am acutely aware of that.
Zrim: The question is what’s prescribed biblically and confessionally, and lo and behold it’s covenantal nurture.
RS: I would just comment on the fact that the Westminster standards were written by very experiential theologians (the Puritans). If you think that the Puritans were a black hole, then you have to throw out the Westminster as well. The Heidelberg is also quite experiential in places (see below). I would argue that what is prescribed biblically, and I have given many passages to back that up, is that Christ lives in His people and He makes Himself and His live in them known to them. After all, He is eternal life Himself.
Heidelberg Catechism: Lord’s Day 33
Q. 88: Of how many parts doth the true conversion of man consist?
A. Of two parts: of the mortification of the old, and the quickening of the new man.
Q. 89: What is the mortification of the old man?
A. It is a sincere sorrow of hear that we have provoked God by our sins; and more and more to hate and flee from them.
Q. 90: What is the quickening of the new man?
A. It is a sincere joy of heart in God, though Christ, and with love and delight to live according to the will of God in all good works.
LikeLike
Mike K: At the risk of being excommunicated from the Reformed faith according to the Internet, “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” is also an example of mixed qualities. It’s laden with well-intended zeal, much unlike sermons from most modern pulpits, and I once gave it preeminence in my understanding of true religion. Now, I regard it frankly as atrocious; there’s no regard for the prooftext’s original context beyond noting that it was said to the Israelites, whose flagrant idolatry is transformed to a vague state of covenantal unconversion appropriate for Edwards’s time, and Jesus doesn’t make so much as a cameo. Although the congregation is informed that “Christ has thrown the door of mercy wide open, and stands in calling and crying with a loud voice to poor sinners,” this perhaps referred to the pulpit down the road, as all He had to say here was “He that believeth not is condemned already,” and “Ye are from beneath,” again with all the context of a fortune cookie.
RS: This was not one of his early sermons. It was preached in 1741 which was over 20 years after he preached his earliest sermons on record. You might also consider that he had a Sunday evening service as well, not to mention that his view of evangelism (as indeed the Puritans as a whole did) was quite a bit different than what is going on now. People were urged to awaken from their sottish conditions and from trusting in the fact that their parents were believers and not to trust in the sacraments and all of those things. It is a fantastic sermon in which sinners are reminded over and over that the only thing that keeps them out of hell is the sovereign hand of God and His mere pleasure. The call to Christ is more than you suggest, but most likely he picked that up at another service. Perhaps it is not best to judge his calling people to Christ based on one sermon, especially when people would come to ministers for more instruction if their souls had been awakened.
It is also true that in the evangelism of Jesus He would do things like tell the Rich Young Ruler, in answer to the questions what he might do to obtain life, was to keep the commandments. He did not come to save the righteous, but sinners. Therefore, on the basis of the teachings of Jesus people need to see their danger and the nature of sin. We also have Jesus teaching Nicodemus and He did not tell Him anything but that He needed to be born from above and that this had to happen by the Spirit as He pleased.
As to the context, you might want to read that very carefully and then read the way Paul applied the Old Testament to the people of his time.
LikeLike
Mike K: But to make the ground of assurance and credible professions of faith a sufficiently convincing, subjective conversion experience instead of the certainty of Christ’s work and God’s promises has had disastrous consequences.
RS: So there is a certainty of the work of Christ. What is that certainty? According the the Scriptures, part of that work of Christ is in His people and assurance comes from His work in the soul.
What are God’s promises? He has promised that He will dwell in His people and open their eyes to His glory and love. He has promised in the New Covenant to dwell in His people. He has promised the Holy Spirit to dwell in them and work in them. What is the need to take away sin? Like the OT temple, there had to be cleansing so God would dwell in HIs people. So now the blood of Christ cleanses His temple and He lives in them.
How does one know that God’s saving love is on and in the person? Is it something one has to work up to believing or is it because the love of God dwells in the person? According to I John 4:7-16, it is the love of God that dwells in the soul. A person can believe the facts about Christ and not have the love of Christ in the soul. A person can be brought to tears by hearing about Christ and the sacraments, but still not have the love of God in the soul. God and His love must abide in the soul if we are going to know it. Perhaps some men would like to tell their wives that they love them at a distance but do not want to be around them. But the Gospel is that God cleanses the soul from sin and His love abides in that soul. After all, fellowship was lost by sin at the fall and in and by Christ fellowship is restored by the love of God in the soul.
LikeLike
Richard, evidence of Christ within may be what one does without. In other words, while the Spirit is its power, the law is the structure of personal sanctification. HB 88 is only a couple questions in from the third section, which is of thankfulness, and after delineating of what the two parts of conversion consists (mortification of the old and quickening of the new), 92-113 concerns good works. So, in a word and to answer your question about how tell if Christ who is outside of you has done anything inside of you, conversion is actually evidenced by obedience to the law. And so, no, ecclesiastical faith does not limit things to the activity of the brain but looks to the actions of the hands.
LikeLike
Bavinck— “When the Scriptures say of this justification in “a concrete sense” that it takes place by and through faith, then it does not intend to say that it is produced and wrought through that faith,
since Jesus Christ is all our righteousness and all benefits of grace are the fruits of his labor and of his labor alone; they are entirely contained in his person and are not in any need of any addition on our part… Saving faith directs our eyes and heart from the very beginning away from ourselves and unto God’s mercy in Christ.”
RS: So Jesus was wrong when He told Nicodemus that he must be born from above to see or enter the kingdom? It is not good news that God gives faith by grace? It is not good news that regeneration of dead sinners is by grace alone and that I don’t have to work up this faith by myself?
mcmark: I guess it’s easier to put words in others’ mouths, if you don’t pay attention to what they actually write. Neither I nor anybody on this list has denied the absolute need for the new birth. What some of us have said is that this “regeneration” should not be defined as “union” and it should not be given priority over God’s imputation of righteousness. We have said that the Spirit does not do the imputing. We have asked for a definition of “union”. But RS simply keeps using the word “union” in the way he assumes everybody must, and begs the question about priority.
RS: Where is heaven that we are to look to? God is everywhere and He is especially in the hearts of His people.
mcmark: I guess that covers it. Nothing more needs to be said. No need to speak of the incarnation of the Lord Jesus Christ, No need to speak of the ascension of the Lord Jesus, and the real absence of the humanity of Christ until the second Advent. Even if you aren’t Zwinglian, or Calvinist, even if you are Lutheran, we can’t only talk about “God everywhere”. We need to be Christocentric. The Holy Spirit is Christ’s gift to the church. Christ baptises the elect with the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit does not baptize the elect into Christ. The elect in Christ are legally joined to the redemptive-historical merits of Christ by God’s imputation.
In heaven, Christ sits. Why? Because the work that saves Christ has finished. But why waste your time on what Hebrews when all you know and need to know is that “God is everywhere”?
Hebrews 9:28–“Christ, HAVING BEEN offered ONCE to bear the sins of many, will appear a
second time, not to deal with sin but to save them that eagerly await Him.”
What sense could that make? If Jesus Christ is simply everywhere, who cares if He comes again, since we have Him by His Spirit already in our hearts? Please pay attention, RS, I am not denying that Christ indwells the hearts of those who have been justified, but I am suggesting that the way you talk about Christ’s kingdom puts the present in competition with what Christ got done at the cross.
Of course you also don’t deny that things like atonement and justification are part of the gospel. Of course you would sign the Westminster Confession paragraphs on justification, as would Edwards . Sure, you agree with that basic overall “Reformed” position, so no need for you to keep talking about that stuff when Edwards can move on to talk about our loves, our experiences, our speculations…
No, Rs, whether I am talking to a five year old or to a old old man on his death bed, I don’t want this “God anywhere and everywhere.” I want “Him who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord who was handed over because of our trespasses and raised because/in order to our justification.” (Romans 4:25).
Romans 5 (love in our hearts through the Spirit who has been given us) begins with peace with God by means of justification. Justification is not the Spirit’s gift. The Spirit is God’s gift to the justified elect. Romans 5:9 We have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by Him from the wrath of God.
I look to heaven, not simply because the God-man who died with the imputed sins of all the elect has ascended there, but also He is coming from there. And these historical events are not below my navel or under my chest. The righteousness by which the justified REIGN is NOT a righteousness imparted (or infused) in us by the Holy Spirit.
Romans 5:17 expalins that those who receive (by imputation, like the guilt of Adam is received)” the free gift of righteousness REIGN in life through the one man Jesus Christ. Romans 5:21 continues the theme into Romans 6. “Grace reigns through the righteousness” of that one man. Romans 6:9–“death no longer has dominion over Christ. For the death HE died HE died to sin, once for all.”
Christ’s triumph over the powers, Christ’s kingdom, none of this can or should be set over against His finished work of righteousness. The Holy Spirit is Christ’s gift, and it is not the Holy Spirit baptizing in Romans 6.
RS: how does the sinner become united to Christ in order for that righteousness to be legally his? It is not based on fiction, but on truth and reality. When Christ is united to the soul that soul is
really and truly in unity with Christ (marriage) and the sinner and Christ are really and truly (as well as legally) one.
mcmark: I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but I don’t see how to read this except as saying that the “legally” is not the “real and true”. On the one hand, you have agreed, sure the legal is part of “union”, but when it gets right down to it, you think that the atonement and justification is somehow less real and true than what you think is happening in your heart.
Romans 8:10 If Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, yet the Spirit is alive because of righteousness.
mcmark: I won’t take the time to do the full exegesis, but nobody is denying that Christ is in the justified elect, nobody is denying that this happens by the Spirit alive in the justified elect, but the point in question concerns the righteousness. Is that righteousness what you think God is doing in you? Or is that righteousness what God did in Christ’s satisfaction of the law? Which is in the “righteousness of faith” in this context?
Romans 10:6 But the righteousness of faith says: Do not say in your heart, who will ascend into heaven (to bring Christ down), or who will descend (to bring Christ up from the dead). The word (about what? is the news about what Christ did to satisfy the law?) is near you, in
your mouth and in your heart…
LikeLike
Bavinck: “Many have in later years, when the confessional power of the Reformation weakened, entered the way of self-examination, in order to be assured of the sincerity of their faith and their salvation. Thus was the focus shifted from the promise of God to the experience of the pious.
It is not we who approach the judgment of God, after self-examination, with the sincerity of our faith, in order to receive there the forgiveness of our sins; God does not sit in judgment by himself in heaven to hear the parties and to pronounce sentence, a representation which is according to Comrie, too anthropomorphic and unworthy of God. But He himself comes to us in the gospel. The foundation of faith lie outside ourselves in the promise of God; whoever builds thereupon shall not be ashamed.
“If justification in every respect comes about after faith, faith becomes a condition, an activity, which must be performed by man beforehand, and it cannot be purely receptive. But if the righteousness, on the ground of which we are justified, lies wholly outside of us in Christ Jesus, then faith is not a “material cause” or a “formal cause.”
Faith is not even a condition or instrument of justification, for it stands in relation to justification not as, for example, the eye to seeing or the ear to hearing. Faith is not a condition, upon which, nor an instrument or organ, through which we receive this benefit, but it is the acceptance itself of Christ and all his benefits, as He presents Himself to us through word and Spirit, and it includes therefore also the consciousness, that He is my Lord and I am his possession.
Faith is therefore not an instrument in the proper sense, of which man makes use in order to accept Christ, but it is a sure knowledge and a solid confidence which the Holy Spirit works in the heart…
This faith forms a contrast with the works of the law. It also stands opposed to the works of faith …
FAITH AND JUSTIFICATION
H. Bavinck, Gereformeerde Dogmatiek, Vol. IV ( Kampen: J. H. Kok, 1930), p.198
LikeLike
Why reinvent the wheel when I can copy a litte more Bavinck?
“Calvin never weakens either the objective atonement of Christ or the benefit of justification; but nevertheless, his perspective results in the righteousness of Christ being presented to us much more as a gift bestowed by God than as something which we accept through faith. The objective gift precedes the subjective acceptance.
Under the influence of Socinianism and Amyraldianism, there developed a neonomiam representation of the order of redemption which made forgiveness of sins and eternal life dependent on faith and obedience which man had to perform in accordance with the new law of the gospel.
Parallel with this development, Pietism and Methodism arose which also shifted the emphasis to the subject, and which either demanded a long experience or a sudden conversion as a condition for obtaining salvation.
As a reaction against this came the development of anti-neonomianism, which had justification precede faith, and antinomianism which reduced justification to God’s eternal love. Reformed theologians usually tried to avoid both extremes, and for that purpose soon made use of
the distinction between “active” and “passive justification.” This distinction is not found in the reformers; as a rule they speak of justification in a “concrete sense.” They do not treat of a
justification from eternity, or of justification in the resurrection of Christ…. The gospel mentions no names and does not say to anyone, personally: Your sins have been forgiven. Therefore it is not proper for any man to take as his starting point the belief that his sins have been forgiven.
The atonement of Christ is particular rather than universal. The preacher of the gospel can assure no one that his sins have been forgiven since he does not know who the elect are; and the man who
hears the gospel is neither able nor permitted to believe this, inasmuch as he cannot be aware of his election prior to and without faith. As a result, the conclusion appeared rather obvious that the
boldness to know one’s sins to have been forgiven and to have assurance of eternal salvation only came about after one has fled unto Jesus in faith….
LikeLike
RS isolates I John 3:9 from its context to talk about assurance. He thinks it means that we should supplement the looking to Christ with some looking in ourselves to see if we are sinless persons? I guess not, so we look to see if we are “better persons”? Better today than yesterday? Going in the right direction usually?
Let’s think about the context. I John 3:12–“We should not be like Cain, who was of the evil one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his own deeds were evil and his brother’s righteous.”
What is an evil deed? What is a righteous deed? Is the evil deed here the murder? No, even though murder is an evil deed, Cain murdered Abel (his “covenant child brother?) because of Cain’s status as a condemned sinner. Can did not believe God’s gospel.
Cain was a bad tree who thereby necessarily brought forth fruit which was all bad, all unacceptable. So it’s not a matter of better and more, but of either/or. There are those who abide in God’s gospel and those who do not. Two states.
I John is not comparing morality with immorality. You can’t NOT hate mere morality and still be “the world”. It was not morality that Cain hated. Cain hated Abel’s gospel because that gospel said that even Cain’s best efforts to please God (the best of his fruits, with all sincerity) were an abomination to God. (Yes, I know Vos would not approve this reading, but I don’t care.)
Cain’s works were evil, according to God’s gospel. For this reason, Cain murdered Abel. For this reason, the world hates those who believe the gospel and who have passed out of death into life. (I John 3:13).
But isn’t I John about one of the “pegs of assurance”?: better morality, without being perfectionist about it? I John 4:16 tells the good news of God’s love for “us”, not for those who “went out from us”.
I John 4:17 explains that God’s election (love) is “perfected with us, so that we have confidence in the day of judgment, because as He is so also are we in the world.”
Even though I John 4:17 does not use the word imputation, that is the only way the elect can be as He is in the world. (Check out your commentaries on this: even those who deny that the righteousness of Matthew 5:20 is imputed, even those who deny that the “fine linen” of the saints is by imputation, even most of these commentators agree that God’s love here results in the elect having legal union with Christ’s obedience even to death).
Now we can make distinctions where we say, yes my ultimate hope is imputed righteousness (not as that which makes up the difference, but as that which is sufficient for the elect), but right now my assurance of that verdict also depends on this new morality with which I have been graced.
But I John 3 is about the difference between a religious Cain and a religious Abel. Think of the context. The religion of Cain? And Cain’s religion God counts as nothing but evil deeds.
You don’t have to be effectually called to become ashamed of murder. But the reason Cain murdered was that He wanted to glory in/ rejoice in (Phil 3:3) the deeds done by his false god in his body. Cain refused to put to death those deeds (Rom 8:13), even though “religious and moral” deeds by a unjustified unbeliever are an abomination to God. (we talk of common “grace” another time!)
Those deeds were motivated by a mercenary spirit seeking assurance by means of deeds. Cain in the flesh “could not please God” (Rom 8:8), not even with claims of having a better nature on the inside or with his religious worship.
To pass over from death to life is to be put into the new creation, the one new man, to be given a new legal state, in which one’s confidence is not in what God does in you but rather in what God has done in Christ outside you. Only in this way can we be in the world as Christ was in the world.
Two positions: “those who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the mind to the standard of information to which they are committed” (Rom 6:17) so that there are “things of which you are now ashamed” (Rom 6:21).
You may have been ashamed of immorality before, but not of your false worship. The Cains of this world are ready for a self-examination in terms of their morality. But they will not come to the light, because they love darkness and the light of the gospel will tell them their deeds are evil, all their deeds, even their moral deeds. (John 3:19)
Abel abided in the gospel. Abel “did what was true”.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, evidence of Christ within may be what one does without. In other words, while the Spirit is its power, the law is the structure of personal sanctification. HB 88 is only a couple questions in from the third section, which is of thankfulness, and after delineating of what the two parts of conversion consists (mortification of the old and quickening of the new), 92-113 concerns good works. So, in a word and to answer your question about how tell if Christ who is outside of you has done anything inside of you, conversion is actually evidenced by obedience to the law. And so, no, ecclesiastical faith does not limit things to the activity of the brain but looks to the actions of the hands.
RS: I would simply point to the the questions and answers again. I don’t think that they can be reduced to obedience to the law, if that is but the actions of the hands. 1) It is speaking of conversion 2) It speaks of sorrow for sin and hating sin 3) It speaks of a love and delight to live according to the will of God. In other words, it is not just the work of the hands but it is a joy, love, and delight to live in a way where the hands are doing the will of God. But it is not just doing the will of God, it is doing them with joy, love, and delight.
Heidelberg Catechism: Lord’s Day 33
Q. 88: Of how many parts doth the true conversion of man consist?
A. Of two parts: of the mortification of the old, and the quickening of the new man.
Q. 89: What is the mortification of the old man?
A. It is a sincere sorrow of hear that we have provoked God by our sins; and more and more to hate and flee from them.
Q. 90: What is the quickening of the new man?
A. It is a sincere joy of heart in God, though Christ, and with love and delight to live according to the will of God in all good works.
LikeLike
Old mcmark: The true good news is not first of all about what happens in my heart to cause me to be believe the true good news.
RS responding to McMark: : So Jesus was wrong when He told Nicodemus that he must be born from above to see or enter the kingdom? It is not good news that God gives faith by grace? It is not good news that regeneration of dead sinners is by grace alone and that I don’t have to work up this faith by myself?
mcmark: I guess it’s easier to put words in others’ mouths, if you don’t pay attention to what they actually write.
RS: Your comment was that “The true good news is not first of all about what happens in my heart to cause me to be believe the true good news.” My response was to that comment and not whether you believed in the new birth or not. It is great news that I as a sinner who was born dead in sins and trespasses could be made alive (in my inner man) and that I as one who was by nature a child of wrath could be now by nature (a new nature) a child of God. I am saying that it is good news of what Christ does in the inner person. If this is not done in the inner person, then what good news is there?
mcmark: What some of us have said is that this “regeneration” should not be defined as “union” and it should not be given priority over God’s imputation of righteousness. We have said that the Spirit does not do the imputing. We have asked for a definition of “union”. But RS simply keeps using the word “union” in the way he assumes everybody must, and begs the question about priority.
RS: I have not asserted those things. I have given a definition of union, though I did not use the word “definition” before it. But as you wish along with some addition. Union with Christ is when the Spirit baptizes the soul into Christ and the soul is one with Christ (as in marriage). Union with Christ is when Christ is the life of the soul and the soul is in Christ. I am not asserting priority of the union with Christ over imputation, but simply saying that impuation will not happen on the basis of anything else but union with Christ.
mcmark: I guess that covers it. Nothing more needs to be said. No need to speak of the incarnation of the Lord Jesus Christ, No need to speak of the ascension of the Lord Jesus, and the real absence of the humanity of Christ until the second Advent. Even if you aren’t Zwinglian, or Calvinist, even if you are Lutheran, we can’t only talk about “God everywhere”.
RS: But again, please listen to the point I was and am making. What does it mean to look to Christ? We are not to have images of Him, so obviously you can’t look to some image of Him. He is a divine Person with a divine nature. What does it mean to look to Christ? Does it mean look and believe that He has done something in history?
Mcmark: We need to be Christocentric. The Holy Spirit is Christ’s gift to the church. Christ baptises the elect with the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit does not baptize the elect into Christ.
RS: The Word of God says that it is the Spirit who baptizes us into Christ. 1 Corinthians 12:13 “For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.”
Mcmark: The elect in Christ are legally joined to the redemptive-historical merits of Christ by God’s imputation.
RS: How does that work? How does God give you the righteousness of Christ by God simply giving them to you? On what basis can He do that legally and in a righteous manner? All grace that God gives is in Christ. All spiritual blessings are in Christ. Any act that God does in saving sinners is in Christ and only those united to Christ are in Christ.
Mcmark: In heaven, Christ sits. Why? Because the work that saves Christ has finished. But why waste your time on what Hebrews when all you know and need to know is that “God is everywhere”?
RS: Christ sits in heaven in His human nature, but His divine nature is in all places at all times. Indeed the saving work of Christ in that sense is finished, but it still must be applied by the Holy Spirit. It is not just something with Him in heaven, but these things must be applied in our hearts.
LikeLike
Hebrews 9:28–”Christ, HAVING BEEN offered ONCE to bear the sins of many, will appear a
second time, not to deal with sin but to save them that eagerly await Him.”
Mcmark: What sense could that make? If Jesus Christ is simply everywhere, who cares if He comes again, since we have Him by His Spirit already in our hearts? Please pay attention, RS, I am not denying that Christ indwells the hearts of those who have been justified, but I am suggesting that the way you talk about Christ’s kingdom puts the present in competition with what Christ got done at the cross.
RS: Perhaps that is the way you are hearing me, but remember I hear you say things as well. Communication is a difficult thing. The only way there is the kingdom of Christ in the soul is because of what He accomplished in His life, at the cross, and in the resurrection and ascension. However, I don’t try to separate what He has done and the application of what He has done. We should exalt in the cross of Christ both because of what He accomplished and how that is applied in the souls of His people today.
mcmark: Of course you also don’t deny that things like atonement and justification are part of the gospel. Of course you would sign the Westminster Confession paragraphs on justification, as would Edwards . Sure, you agree with that basic overall “Reformed” position, so no need for you to keep talking about that stuff when Edwards can move on to talk about our loves, our experiences, our speculations…
RS: Not at all. There is no moving beyond the atonement and justification, but not just because they are historical facts. These things also have present results. It is only because the wrath of God has been propitiated that the love of God can dwell in the souls of His people. Remember, Jesus Himself said that apart from Him we can do nothing. We have to talk about the present if we are going to be members of the body of Christ and if Christ is going to be manifested through HIs body, the Church.
mcmark: No, Rs, whether I am talking to a five year old or to a old old man on his death bed, I don’t want this “God anywhere and everywhere.” I want “Him who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord who was handed over because of our trespasses and raised because/in order to our justification.” (Romans 4:25).
RS: Well, I think you are making a big mistake then. I would want to tell the man that the same God who raised Jesus Christ can also raise him from the spiritual dead and He can do that anywhere in all creation as He pleases.. I would tell that man that the same Lord Jesus who was resurrected has resurrection power to give faith and that this man should look to this ever present Christ who can give him faith too.
LikeLike
mcmark: I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but I don’t see how to read this except as saying that the “legally” is not the “real and true”. On the one hand, you have agreed, sure the legal is part of “union”, but when it gets right down to it, you think that the atonement and justification is somehow less real and true than what you think is happening in your heart.
RS: It is legal because it is real and true. The atonment is more real when it is applied to the soul and justification is more real because Christ who justifies is in the soul. Apart from unity with Christ, there is no real justification because there would be no legal imputation.
Romans 8:10 If Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, yet the Spirit is alive because of righteousness.
mcmark: I won’t take the time to do the full exegesis, but nobody is denying that Christ is in the justified elect, nobody is denying that this happens by the Spirit alive in the justified elect, but the point in question concerns the righteousness. Is that righteousness what you think God is doing in you? Or is that righteousness what God did in Christ’s satisfaction of the law? Which is in the “righteousness of faith” in this context?
RS: The imputed righteousness is all that Christ has earned for His people and there is nothing that can be added to that or is needed to be added. Christ fully satisfied the righteous demands of the law and the perfect justice of God. Nothing can be added to that. However, we also need to have Christ in us now so that the Law can be fulfilled in us. Romans 8:1 “Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. 3 For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, 4 so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.
LikeLike
mcmark: RS isolates I John 3:9 from its context to talk about assurance. He thinks it means that we should supplement the looking to Christ with some looking in ourselves to see if we are sinless persons? I guess not, so we look to see if we are “better persons”? Better today than yesterday? Going in the right direction usually?
RS: No isolation here. I have been told that we are not to look within us but look in heaven where Christ is for assurance. The text speaks of the seed of God abiding in the person and the context is about how one knows that s/he is a child of God.
mcmark: But isn’t I John about one of the “pegs of assurance”?: better morality, without being perfectionist about it? I John 4:16 tells the good news of God’s love for “us”, not for those who “went out from us”.
RS: It is about knowing if one is a child of God or not, but not about morality as such. 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.”
mcmark: I John 4:16 tells the good news of God’s love for “us”, not for those who “went out from us”.
RS: In the Greek the preposition translared “for” in this verse is the same preposition translated as “in” for the other uses in this verse and in the context. It is better to render this verse like this what follows: “We have come to know and have believed the love which God has in us.” The verse in its context is this: “15 Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God. 16 We have come to know and have believed the love which God has in us. God is love, and the one who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him. 17 By this, love is perfected with us, so that we may have confidence in the day of judgment; because as He is, so also are we in this world.
mcmark: I John 4:17 explains that God’s election (love) is “perfected with us, so that we have confidence in the day of judgment, because as He is so also are we in the world.”
RS: Election is not in this verse though it would be involved in the bigger picture. This text is speaking of the love of God in people and God Himself abiding in His people. It is “by this;” that is, that the love of God and God abides in His people (and in the context we can know and believe God’s love in us) that we can have confidence in the day of judgment. It is because His love abides in us and so we love that we are He is in the world.
mcmark: Even though I John 4:17 does not use the word imputation, that is the only way the elect can be as He is in the world.
RS: But the context demands that His people are as He is in the world because of His love abiding in them. See also I John 4:7-8 on that.
mcmark: (Check out your commentaries on this: even those who deny that the righteousness of Matthew 5:20 is imputed, even those who deny that the “fine linen” of the saints is by imputation, even most of these commentators agree that God’s love here results in the elect having legal union with Christ’s obedience even to death).
Now we can make distinctions where we say, yes my ultimate hope is imputed righteousness (not as that which makes up the difference, but as that which is sufficient for the elect), but right now my assurance of that verdict also depends on this new morality with which I have been graced.
RS: Our only hope is Christ Himself and all of His blessings that are found in Christ.
LikeLike
mcmark: To pass over from death to life is to be put into the new creation, the one new man, to be given a new legal state, in which one’s confidence is not in what God does in you but rather in what God has done in Christ outside you. Only in this way can we be in the world as Christ was in the world.
RS: If God has done nothing in person X, then why do you think He has done something for person X in Christ? This is a step to Arminianism. You simply have to believe that Christ has done something for you. But again, what evidence does person X have that he is elect if it is all done outside of him?
LikeLike
Galatians 4:5-6 –”to redeem those who were under the law, so that we would receive adoption as sons. And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!”
I Cor 12:13 simply does not teach that the Holy Spirit baptizes into Christ. The text agrees with the six other NT references to Spirit baptism. Christ baptizes with the Spirit. Christ puts the Spirit in
the justified elect.
There is no reference to the Holy Spirit in the baptism of Romans 6. To make the Spirit the agent of the baptism in Romans 6 not only reads into the text what is not there, but ignores the context which is about two states, and legal identification with Christ’s death and resurrection. Either we have a share in the righteousness or we don’t.
RS is not content with the idea that Christ by the Spirit indwells the justified sinner. He claims again that the Spirit puts Christ in the justified sinner. Since the Spirit gives faith to the elect, many in
the “Reformed” tradition assume that this faith has to be that which “unites” the elect to Christ, and thus they presume that it’s the Spirit who unites the elect to Christ.
RS seems to have no notion of “eternal life” as passing from guilt to justification, or from legal death to legal life before God. To him “new life” can only mean “new birth”. Without denying the Father’s present legal application by imputation, RS continues to assume that what Christ did in the past to be less basic than the Holy Spirit’s present work.
RS asks: “How does that work? How does God give you the righteousness of Christ by God simply giving them to you? On what basis can He do that legally and in a righteous manner? All grace that God gives is in Christ”.
mcmark answers: 1. We do make a distinction between the accomplishment and the application. The righteousness was only obtained by Christ for the elect alone. The application of the atonement is not the same thing as the atonement, but the result of the atonement. The Holy Spirit is not now deciding who or how many people the righteousness counts for. Only the sins of the elect were imputed to Christ. And Christ only died for the elect alone. If you collapse the accomplishment and the application, then the application becomes the real atonement, and what Christ is not of decisive consequence.
2. The application is by imputation. Not all the elect are justified at one time. The elect are not justified until they are placed into Christ’s death and resurrection.
3. Of course every blessing is given in Christ. But you need to remember the elect are in Christ by election, before they are justifed or born again. This is why Christ died for the elect and not for the non-elect.
4. Therefore RS has shown no need to make the new birth the priority in order to say that blessings are by grace and in Christ. Election is grace and in Christ. Imputation is grace and in Christ. So why think that this proves that the new birth is the first grace?
The Romans 6 idea of “died with Christ”, the II Corinthians 5:15 idea of “therefore all died” is that Christ died to propitiate God’s wrath because of the imputed sins of the elect alone, and that this death is credited by God to the elect. (to Abraham before the death, to Paul after some others, to the rest of us after Paul).
Christ was never under grace and is still not under grace. Christ was under the law because of the imputed sins of the elect. Romans 6 is about Christ’s condemnation by the law and His death was satisfaction of that law. Christ after His resurrection is no longer under law because Christ has satisfied the law for the elect’s sins. God legally counts Christ’s death as the death of all those who are justified.
Christ was never under the power of sin in the sense of being unable not to sin. Christ was always unable to sin. The only way Christ was ever under the power of sin is by being under the guilt of sin. The guilt of the elect’s sin was legally transferred by God to Christ.
Christ’s death to sin was death to the guilt of sin, and since the elect are united with a death like his, the death of the elect is also a death to the guilt of sin. This is what Romans 6:7 teaches: “For
one who has died has been justified from sin.”
“Set free from sin” cannot mean the elect’s transformation by the Holy Spirit because Christ was never under the power of habitual sin or any sin, and the death of those who are justified is Christ’s
death.
Romans 6:14 does not say, For sin shall not be your master, because the Holy Spirit has changed you so that you cannot habitually sin, but only occasionally and always with repentance. Romans 6:14 says, “For sin shall not by your master, because you are not under law but under grace.”
LikeLike
Charles Hodge: “one’s interpretation of Romans 8 verse 4 is determined by the view taken of Romans 8:3. If that verse means that God, by sending His Son, destroyed sin in us, then, of course, this verse must mean, “He destroyed sin in order that we should fulfill the law” — that is, so that we should be holy (sanctification). But if Romans 8:3 refers to the sacrificial death of Christ and to the condemnation of sin in Him as the sinners’ substitute, then this verse must refer to justification and not sanctification.”
LikeLike
Smeaton, Apostles Doctrine of the Atonement, p178–”Romans 8:4–That the righteousness of the law would be fulfilled in us. That is so like another expression of the same apostle, that the two passages might fitly be compared for mutual elucidation (II Cor 5:21). This expression cannot be referred to any inward work of renovation; for no work or attainment of ours can with any propriety of language be designated a “fulfillment of the righteousness of the law”.
The words, “the righteousness of the law,” are descriptive of Christ’s obedience as the work of one for many (Romans 5:18). This result is delineated as the end contemplated by Christ’s incarnation and atonement, and intimates that as He was made a sin-offering, so are we regarded as full-fillers of the law…”
LikeLike
Moo writes about 8:4 in NICNT, p482—”Some think that Christians, with the Spirit empowering within, fulfill the demand of the law by righteous living. However, while it is true that God’s act in Christ has as one of its intents that we produce fruit, we do not think that this is what Paul is saying here.
First, the passive verb “be fulfilled” points not to something that we are to do but to something that is done in and for us. Second, the always imperfect obedience of the law by Christians does not satisfy what is demanded by the logic of this text. The fulfilling of the “just decree of the law” must answer to that inability of the law with which Paul began this sentence. “What the law could not do” is to free people from “the law of sin and death”–to procure righteousness and life. And it could not do this because the “flesh” prevented people from obeying its precepts.
The removal of this barrier consists not in the actions of believers, for our obedience always falls short of that perfect obedience required by the law. As Calvin puts it, “the faithful, while they sojourn in this world, never make such a proficiency, as that the justification of the law becomes in them full or complete. This must be applied to forgiveness; for when the obedience of Christ is accepted for us, the law is satisfied, so that we are counted just.”
If then the inability of the law is to be overcome without an arbitrary cancellation of the law, it can only happen through a perfect obedience of the law’s demands. (See Romans 2:13 and our comments there.)
In the last part of Romans 8:4, the participial clause modifying “us” is not instrumental—”the just decree of the law is fulfilled in us BY our walking not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit”–but descriptive, characterizing those in whom the just decree of the law as ‘those WHO walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.” Paul does not separate the “fulfillment” of the law from the lifestyle of Christians. But this does not mean that Christian behavior is how the law is fulfilled….”
LikeLike
John Gill: “internal holiness can never be reckoned the whole righteousness of the law: and though it is a fruit of Christ’s death, it is the work of the Spirit, and is neither the whole, nor any part of our justification: but this is to be understood of the righteousness of the law fulfilled by Christ, and imputed to us; Christ has fulfilled the whole righteousness of the law, all the requirements of it; this he has done in the room and stead of his people; and is imputed to them, by virtue of a federal union between him and them, he being the head, and they his members; and the law being fulfilled by him, it is reckoned all one as it was fulfilled in, or if by them; and hence they are personally, perfectly, and legally justified; and this is the end of Christ’s being sent, of sin being laid on him, and condemned in him. The descriptive character of the persons in Roman 8:4 is the same with that in Romans 8:1.”
LikeLike
mcmark: Galatians 4:5-6 –”to redeem those who were under the law, so that we would receive adoption as sons. And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!”
I Cor 12:13 simply does not teach that the Holy Spirit baptizes into Christ. The text agrees with the six other NT references to Spirit baptism. Christ baptizes with the Spirit. Christ puts the Spirit in
the justified elect.
I Cor 12:13 ” For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit. 14 For the body is not one member, but many.” The passage does teach that the Holy Spirit baptizes into Christ. The body the Spirit baptizes believers into is the Church and the Church is the body of Christ.
mcmark: There is no reference to the Holy Spirit in the baptism of Romans 6. To make the Spirit the agent of the baptism in Romans 6 not only reads into the text what is not there, but ignores the context which is about two states, and legal identification with Christ’s death and resurrection. Either we have a share in the righteousness or we don’t.
RS: To deny that the Holy Spirit is not the one baptizing in this passage is to do violence to the text. Verse 3 is the baptism into Christ and verse 4 is water baptism. Notice the “therefore” that starts verse 4.
Romans 6:1 What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase?
2 May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it?
3 Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death?
4 Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.
mcmark: RS is not content with the idea that Christ by the Spirit indwells the justified sinner. He claims again that the Spirit puts Christ in the justified sinner. Since the Spirit gives faith to the elect, many in the “Reformed” tradition assume that this faith has to be that which “unites” the elect to Christ, and thus they presume that it’s the Spirit who unites the elect to Christ.
RS: You are correct that I am not content with the idea that Christ by the Spirit indwells the justified sinner and nothing more. But that is because the Bible teaches something more.
Titus 3: 4 But when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared,
5 He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit,
6 whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior,
7 so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.
mcmark: RS seems to have no notion of “eternal life” as passing from guilt to justification, or from legal death to legal life before God. To him “new life” can only mean “new birth”. Without denying the Father’s present legal application by imputation, RS continues to assume that what Christ did in the past to be less basic than the Holy Spirit’s present work.
RS: Galatians 3:13-14 teaches with great clarity that Christ purchased the Holy Spirit for His people and that this was a promise of God. As I have stated previously, Jesus Christ Himself is the life of the believer and is eternal life Himself. All that the Spirit does in the present is applying the work of Christ in the past. It is not one or the other, it is both.
LikeLike
mcmark: RS asks: “How does that work? How does God give you the righteousness of Christ by God simply giving them to you? On what basis can He do that legally and in a righteous manner? All grace that God gives is in Christ”.
mcmark answers: 1. We do make a distinction between the accomplishment and the application. The righteousness was only obtained by Christ for the elect alone. The application of the atonement is not the same thing as the atonement, but the result of the atonement. The Holy Spirit is not now deciding who or how many people the righteousness counts for. Only the sins of the elect were imputed to Christ. And Christ only died for the elect alone. If you collapse the accomplishment and the application, then the application becomes the real atonement, and what Christ is not of decisive consequence.
RS: No, what Christ has done is magnified by my position. It is not just the sinner believing of himself what Christ has done in the past. but Christ has purchased all that is now being done to the sinner and His procuring purchase was that it guarantees that it is accomplished and applied by the Holy Spirit.
Mcmark: 2. The application is by imputation. Not all the elect are justified at one time. The elect are not justified until they are placed into Christ’s death and resurrection.
RS: But again, if sinners are not one with Christ, how can God legally and righteously declare them just when they are not just in themselves and are not married to Christ? Those who are united to Christ are one with Christ and His righteousness is counted as theirs through imputation.
mcmark: 3. Of course every blessing is given in Christ. But you need to remember the elect are in Christ by election, before they are justifed or born again. This is why Christ died for the elect and not for the non-elect.
RS: If people are in Christ, then they have Christ.
mcmark: 4. Therefore RS has shown no need to make the new birth the priority in order to say that blessings are by grace and in Christ. Election is grace and in Christ. Imputation is grace and in Christ. So why think that this proves that the new birth is the first grace?
RS: I would not say that the new birth is the first act of grace, depending on how one defines that, but it is the first act of saving grace. However, regeneration is an act of the Holy Spirit and faith itself is said to be the work of the power of God. A dead sinner cannot have spiritual faith and so cannot have Christ. The sinner must be raised from the spiritual dead (see Ephesians 2) in order to have a spiritual faith which is the only kind of faith in salvation. God only imputes righteousness through faith and, as stated previously, true faith can only found in the regenerate. A spritually dead person, which all are before regeneration, cannot receive Christ Himself or His imputed righteousness. Of course, just as an added bonus, faith receives Christ Himself and not just something about Him. It is when faith receives Christ who is our righteousness that the soul receives imputed righteousness.
LikeLike
mcmark: Romans 6:14 does not say, For sin shall not be your master, because the Holy Spirit has changed you so that you cannot habitually sin, but only occasionally and always with repentance. Romans 6:14 says, “For sin shall not by your master, because you are not under law but under grace.”
RS: Yes, but the Holy Spirit dwelling in people is the grace of God. Romans 8 also says this:
“13 for if you are living according to the flesh, you must die; but if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live. 14 For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.”
There are only two options. One is either living by the flesh, and that includes religious activity, or by the Spirit one is putting to death the deeds of the body. All those who are being led by the Spirit of God, those and those only are sons of God.
LikeLike
Mcmark, you made several quotes of people in reference to Romans 8:4. Believers are to keep the law of God and that law cannot be kept but by the law of love which is of the heart. The context of Romans 8:4 is not justification, but of keeping the law and the Spirit working in people. A few other verses to make the point are listed below. I didn’t add the ones from the promises of the New Covenant from Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Hebrews where the promise of the New Covenant is that God would pour out His Spirit and cause people to walk in His law. Another way of putting that is that in the New Covenant God will put His Law in their minds and write them on their hearts.
The soul is not justified and cannot add to the completed work that Christ has done, but that does not mean that the soul is not to love God and keep His law. “Fulfilling” the law is to keep the law. This cannot be done apart from the work of the Spirit in the heart and His fruit of love.
Romans 13:8 Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.
Romans 13:10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.
Galatians 5:14 For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, “YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.”
Galatians 6:2 Bear one another’s burdens, and thereby fulfill the law of Christ.
LikeLike
RS, who is saying that growing into the faith is simple? It does require the grace of God and the work of the Spirit. Who knows, maybe Phebe could have grown up into the faith the way Calvin and Luther did if her pastor hadn’t insisted that her “conversion” conform to a dramatic experience.
So, Richard, do you recommend Phebe to all four-year old’s? And do you suspect that a child who hasn’t had an experience like Phebe’s is not a child of God?
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: RS, who is saying that growing into the faith is simple? It does require the grace of God and the work of the Spirit. Who knows, maybe Phebe could have grown up into the faith the way Calvin and Luther did if her pastor hadn’t insisted that her “conversion” conform to a dramatic experience.
RS: Have you really read the whole story of Phebe Bartlet? Not just the part you gave in the start of this thread, but the whole story? What part did Edwards really play in her conversion? Perhaps her parents had been trained in this by Stoddard who had been trained by John Norton. This was the way that they were taught at that time. Edwards does not even enter the story until later. The rest of the story tells how this girl was concerned for the conversion of others and was very sensitive to sin. She also loved to hear sermons. Perhaps she was not the ordinary four-year old, even for her day when people matured much faster than now. .
Perhaps it was the sovereign God who ordained this to happen this way. It has been noted that in times of revival the process of conversion is shortened and intensified. Virtually all those who are saved in the times of true revival have conversion stories much like Phebe. When revivals have waned, people usually go back to less dramatic conversions and those are stretched out over longer periods of time.
D. G. Hart: So, Richard, do you recommend Phebe to all four-year old’s? And do you suspect that a child who hasn’t had an experience like Phebe’s is not a child of God?
RS: I would certainly recommend Phebe to all four-year old children who were advanced beyond what a normal four-year old is in our day. However, not many would have her background and perhaps none would have been in a place where the Spirit of God was moving in a mighty way. I would not suspect that a person wasn’t converted that did not have an experience like Phebe’s, but if they had no disturbance of soul over sin and no sign of conviction or sorrow for sin then one would wonder. But the real issue, once again, is whether a person has Christ in his or her soul.
LikeLike
Richard, is it at all possible to be even the least bit skeptical of the Phebe Bartlet account? If not, what is there keeping anyone from holding up one of those 4-year-old preacher sensations whose gifts seem to owe more to the power to mimic and entertain than to extraordinary gifts of the Spirit?
LikeLike
Richard, I’m glad to hear you are not as enthusiastic about Phebe’s conversion as your many and lengthy defenses of Edwards indicate. I am intrigued by your idea that conversions are less dramatic when revivals are not happening. Doesn’t that suggest something to you about group dynamics and the possibility that the drama of conversion is more a human response than the work of the Spirit?
Either way, I’m glad to hear I won’t be judged by Phebe’s experience. I have hope.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, is it at all possible to be even the least bit skeptical of the Phebe Bartlet account? If not, what is there keeping anyone from holding up one of those 4-year-old preacher sensations whose gifts seem to owe more to the power to mimic and entertain than to extraordinary gifts of the Spirit?
RS: I was not defending the position that one could be skeptical that Phebe was truly converted, but that this was not something unusual, strange, much less child abuse. I was defending the position that it is normal for people to have anguish of soul or a felt conviction of sin before conversion. If the whole account of Phebe is taken into account, getting back to your present question, it sure looks like the little girl was a new creature in Christ. Just from the record that we are given, however, I am not sure that there is evidence that she was doing nothing but being a mimic. Even Edwards thought it was unusual for these things to happen to someone that age, so it would not be strange for someone to be skeptical. But again, it was not unusual for people to have strong convictions of sin during times of revival. We are in great time of God’s withdrawing from churches and our nation, so those things may appear weird. But if God is pleased to return, the deep convictions will return also.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: Richard, I’m glad to hear you are not as enthusiastic about Phebe’s conversion as your many and lengthy defenses of Edwards indicate.
RS: My real defense was not Phebe so much as it was the necessity of true conviction of sin and the fact that people have real anguish over their sin.
D. G. Hart: I am intrigued by your idea that conversions are less dramatic when revivals are not happening. Doesn’t that suggest something to you about group dynamics and the possibility that the drama of conversion is more a human response than the work of the Spirit?
RS: It was not really my idea but repeating what people have noted in the past. I would attribute the deeper response of people to sin to a greater revelation of God Himself and His presence. We see the disciples and various people in the NT having deep feelings when they recognized that they were in the presence of God in human flesh. The disciples were afraid in the boat when the wind was howling and the waves threatened to swamp the boat they were in. Then Jesus stood up and rebuked the waves and the wind. Then, “They became very much afraid and said to one another, “Who then is this, that even the wind and the sea obey Him?”” They were more afraid of Him than they were of the wind and the waves. When human beings realize they are in the presence of a thrice holy God, and He does manifest this presence as He pleases, they do have external and internal reactions.
D.G. Hart: Either way, I’m glad to hear I won’t be judged by Phebe’s experience. I have hope.
RS: Is that hope a flat-line hope or is there a movement in your soul that corresponds to hope?
LikeLike
Richard, I’m not saying she was nothing but a mimic either. But if, as you say, even JE thought it was unusual and we grant that everything was kosher, it still raises the the other question of propriety in reporting. What is the constructive purpose of displaying extraordinary experience in the age of the ordinary? Doesn’t propriety demand extraordinary experience be more concealed than revealed? The answer to that may help to mark out the differences between cessationist and continuationist piety.
LikeLike
Richard, on my hope, as much as this blog may be all about me, I’m not sure the movement of my soul is any of your business. I don’t say that to be rude but to suggest that my soul is something best left to the oversight of my pastor and elders. Come to Hillsdale and see if you can make the grade.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, I’m not saying she was nothing but a mimic either. But if, as you say, even JE thought it was unusual and we grant that everything was kosher, it still raises the the other question of propriety in reporting.
RS: I guess I don’t see it raising that question at all.
Zrim: What is the constructive purpose of displaying extraordinary experience in the age of the ordinary?
RS: Since God saves to the praise of the glory of His grace then any and all conversion testimonies of the free and sovereign grace of God should be published when possible.
Zrim: Doesn’t propriety demand extraordinary experience be more concealed than revealed?
RS: It was not particularly an extraordinary experience, but just unusual for the child’s age. But it shows that God can truly work in the souls of the young and so we have testimonies of the very young, the young, the not so young, those who are in the middle, then those who are old and also the very old. God is gracious to whom He will be gracious and I don’t see it as our job to conceal what He has done. In the actual narrative of Edwards he goes on for a few pages giving evidences of how this was a true conversion.
Zrim: The answer to that may help to mark out the differences between cessationist and continuationist piety.
RS: Well, may the Holy Spirit never cease working true conviction in the souls of those He is moving in to bring them to an end to all hope in themselves and may He never cease working the very joy of the Lord in His people. In the words of Calvin, piety is where the fear and the love of God meet.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: Richard, on my hope, as much as this blog may be all about me, I’m not sure the movement of my soul is any of your business.
RS: Perhaps not, but I guess you are more adept at picking at things about Edwards than picking up on bits of humor.
D. G. Hart: I don’t say that to be rude but to suggest that my soul is something best left to the oversight of my pastor and elders. Come to Hillsdale and see if you can make the grade.
RS: Well, I guess I will pass on your kind offer, but I still believe that Edwards and the way of a living God who is still acting in the world and in hearts is more biblical than the modern way of confessionalism which sure seems to hold to forms of rationalism and sacramentalism. By the way, that was not intended to be a shot as such, but simply to point out some real and meaningful differences.
LikeLike
Michael Horton:
“Ignorance of this distinction between Law and Gospel,” Beza wrote, “is one of the principal sources of the abuses which corrupted and still corrupt Christianity.”. .
. . . Without constant aw-gospel emphasis in preaching, one can never truly worship or serve God in liberty, for his gaze will always be fastened on himself–either in despair or self-righteousness–rather than on Christ.. The conscience will never rest, Calvin says, so long as Gospel is mixed with Law. “Consequently, this Gospel does not impose any commands, but rather reveals God’s goodness, his mercy and his benefits.” This distinction, Calvin says with Luther and the other Reformers, marks the difference between Christianity and paganism: “All who deny this turn the whole of the Gospel upside down; they utterly bury Christ, and destroy all true worship of God.”
. . . Much of evangelical preaching today softens the Law and confuses the Gospel with exhortations, often leaving people with the impression that God does not expect the perfect righteousness prescribed in the Law, but a generally good heart and attitude and avoidance of major sins. A gentle moralism prevails in much of evangelical preaching today and one rarely hears the Law preached as God’s condemnation and wrath, but as helpful suggestions for a more fulfilled life. In the place of God’s Law, helpful tips for practical living are often offered.
. . . When the Law is softened into gentle promises and the Gospel is hardened into conditions and exhortations, the believer often finds himself in a deplorable state. For those who know their own hearts, preaching that tries to tone down the Law by assuring them that God looks on the heart comes as bad news, not good news: “The heart is deceitful above all things…” (Jer. 17:9)…It is not that exhortations do not have their place, but they must never be confused with the Gospel and that Gospel of divine forgiveness is as important for sinful believers to hear as it is for unbelievers.”
LikeLike
mcmark,
Do have the source of the Horton quotes handy? Thanks!
LikeLike
mcmark: . . . When the Law is softened into gentle promises and the Gospel is hardened into conditions and exhortations, the believer often finds himself in a deplorable state. For those who know their own hearts, preaching that tries to tone down the Law by assuring them that God looks on the heart comes as bad news, not good news: “The heart is deceitful above all things…” (Jer. 17:9)…It is not that exhortations do not have their place, but they must never be confused with the Gospel and that Gospel of divine forgiveness is as important for sinful believers to hear as it is for unbelievers.”
The Holy Spirit through the mouth of David:
Psalm 26:2 Examine me, O LORD, and try me; Test my mind and my heart.
Psa 139: 23 Search me, O God, and know my heart; Try me and know my anxious thoughts; 24 And see if there be any hurtful way in me, And lead me in the everlasting way.
Proverbs 17:3 The refining pot is for silver and the furnace for gold, But the LORD tests hearts.
Matthew 5:8 “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.
Hebrews 3:10 “THEREFORE I WAS ANGRY WITH THIS GENERATION, AND SAID, ‘THEY ALWAYS GO ASTRAY IN THEIR HEART, AND THEY DID NOT KNOW MY WAYS’;
RS: I is vital to seek a knowledge of our own hearts and the Lord alone can reveal what is in the heart. It is vital to seek a knowledge of our own hearts because our hearts are so deceitful we cannot know them apart from the Lord’s hand. If we don’t deal strive to know our own hearts through prayer and seeking the Lord to show us, we can just go along with the external things of religion and be deceived. If we don’t strive to know out hearts by seeking for the Lord to show us these things, we will not seek Him for a new heart. Psalm 51:10 “Create in me a clean heart, O God, And renew a steadfast spirit within me.” Ezekiel 36: 26 “Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 “I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances.”
LikeLike
Richard, ecclesiatical faith’s version of the testimonial is a covenant child’s public profession of faith, which is structured in a catechatical manner (e.g. Do you believe thus-and-so and promise henceforth such-and-such; I do, God helping me). Those happen during extraordinary seasons when a child has been previously examined and is ready to do so in public worship. In the ordinary season, our version of the testimonial is regular creedal recitation.
So, again, creedal religion is all for publishing faith wrought by the Spirit. But what we mean by this is very different, not least is how it involves an ecclesiastical body of ordinary believers affirming a nurtured faith in children, as opposed to a single religious celebrity giving speculative evidences of a true conversion.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, ecclesiatical faith’s version of the testimonial is a covenant child’s public profession of faith, which is structured in a catechatical manner (e.g. Do you believe thus-and-so and promise henceforth such-and-such; I do, God helping me). Those happen during extraordinary seasons when a child has been previously examined and is ready to do so in public worship. In the ordinary season, our version of the testimonial is regular creedal recitation.
RS: But simply knowing what the creed says, agreeing with what the creed says, and even living by what the creed says does not in and of itself reveal a believing heart.
Zrim: So, again, creedal religion is all for publishing faith wrought by the Spirit. But what we mean by this is very different, not least is how it involves an ecclesiastical body of ordinary believers affirming a nurtured faith in children, as opposed to a single religious celebrity giving speculative evidences of a true conversion.
RS: Does the Bible give us (specifically the NT, when the Spirit was poured out) evdiences of nurtured faith in children? What we have in the NT seems to be quite a bit different.
LikeLike
Good stuff, well worth reading all the posts. Being one who spent 19 years wondering about my subjective experience (and lack thereof at times) and lack of ability to obey all the commandments with joy deep down in my heart, and then coming under deep despair over it all; I will continue to opt out for Horton’s PUTTING AMAZING BACK INTO GRACE. It was like a breath of fresh air into this poor sinners soul- even while I struggled with sin and still do in my life (I find it interesting that there has been no discussion of Romans chapter 7 throughout all these posts).
Being one who had a fairly dramatic “conversion” experience at the age of 18 I can say my “affections” were deeply affected by this conversion that gave me a passion and love for the Word of God which resulted in seeking to understand the scriptures better and surrounding myself in a community of believers at the churches I attended. However, as I struggled with my sin the passions, emotions and affections waxed and waned. But God has been faithful while I have not been. That is what Putting Amazing Back into Grace is all about. I get tired just reading Richard’s posts (and John T’s too).
There is a lot of caricaturization going on about “confessionalists” too. I find a greater depth of emotion going to a liturgical and confessional church than any revivalist type church that I have attended in my past even though it is not shown by bodily movements or outward displays of emotion. I am reminded again and again each Sunday that I am forgiven and am justified before my Creator because of what Christ had done for me. My feeding on Christ is what keeps me not my constant looking at my subjective affections and how much I am obeying from week to week.
LikeLike
Richard, yes, creedal affirmation is no guarantee of true faith. But, like I’ve already pointed out, this is beside the point. Neither are high octane testimonials. The point is that creedal faith is extrinsic and focuses on that which lies outside the sinner, while experiential faith is the opposite and is driven by what lies within. These are two very different systems which are very much at odds with each other (I think of Nevin’s point about the system of the anxious bench versus the catechism).
And it seems clear, by way of either precept or example, that the Bible is replete with exhortations to confess the faith and thus nurture covenant children in it. Deuteronomy 11:18-25 comes to mind:
“You shall therefore lay up these words of mine in your heart and in your soul, and you shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. You shall teach them to your children, talking of them when you are sitting in your house, and when you are walking by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise. You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates, that your days and the days of your children may be multiplied in the land that the LORD swore to your fathers to give them, as long as the heavens are above the earth. For if you will be careful to do all this commandment that I command you to do, loving the LORD your God, walking in all his ways, and holding fast to him, then the LORD will drive out all these nations before you, and you will dispossess nations greater and mightier than you. Every place on which the sole of your foot treads shall be yours. Your territory shall be from the wilderness to the Lebanon and from the River, the river Euphrates, to the western sea. No one shall be able to stand against you. The LORD your God will lay the fear of you and the dread of you on all the land that you shall tread, as he promised you.”
It’s hardly clear that such covenantal exhortations have become null and void in the New Covenantal era, unless one is working with a Baptistic hermeneutic. But old covenantal nurture continues on into the new covenant era every bit as much as old covenantal sign and seal continues (though the means may have changed from blood to water and subjects expanded to include females).
LikeLike
John Yeazel: Good stuff, well worth reading all the posts. Being one who spent 19 years wondering about my subjective experience (and lack thereof at times) and lack of ability to obey all the commandments with joy deep down in my heart, and then coming under deep despair over it all; I will continue to opt out for Horton’s PUTTING AMAZING BACK INTO GRACE. It was like a breath of fresh air into this poor sinners soul- even while I struggled with sin and still do in my life (I find it interesting that there has been no discussion of Romans chapter 7 throughout all these posts).
RS: Indeed, but is grace something out there or is it Christ Himself in the soul? Is grace something apart from God that He gives, or is grace something of God Himself?
John Yeazel: Being one who had a fairly dramatic “conversion” experience at the age of 18 I can say my “affections” were deeply affected by this conversion that gave me a passion and love for the Word of God which resulted in seeking to understand the scriptures better and surrounding myself in a community of believers at the churches I attended. However, as I struggled with my sin the passions, emotions and affections waxed and waned. But God has been faithful while I have not been. That is what Putting Amazing Back into Grace is all about. I get tired just reading Richard’s posts (and John T’s too).
RS: Sorry you are tired of them, but that still sounds like a feeling to me. A grace that is out and apart from us delivers us from sin both inside and outside, how?
John Yeazel: There is a lot of caricaturization going on about “confessionalists” too. I find a greater depth of emotion going to a liturgical and confessional church than any revivalist type church that I have attended in my past even though it is not shown by bodily movements or outward displays of emotion.
RS: It sounds like you are judging things by your feelings though you say you are tired of that. As far as “caricaturization” going on, I have not been talking about bodily movements or outward displays of “emotion.” I am saying that Christ lives in the heart and He will make Himself known there. I have also saying that believers are the temple(s) of the Holy Spirit and all they must have love and joy because those are His fruit.
John Yeazel: I am reminded again and again each Sunday that I am forgiven and am justified before my Creator because of what Christ had done for me. My feeding on Christ is what keeps me not my constant looking at my subjective affections and how much I am obeying from week to week.
RS: But what did Christ do for His people? Is it something out there, or is it involved in an actual propitiation where the wrath of God is really and truly removed from the soul of human beings so that the actual Holy Spirit and the Son may actually and really live in His people? The love of God is not just out there somewhere, but the love of God dwells in His people. The Holy Spirit was purchased for His people by the work of Christ (Gal 3:13-14) and He dwells in them and actually works in them. This too was purchased by the work of Christ. I am not talking about subjective affections as such, but of the very life of Christ by His Spirit in the souls of human beings.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, yes, creedal affirmation is no guarantee of true faith. But, like I’ve already pointed out, this is beside the point. Neither are high octane testimonials. The point is that creedal faith is extrinsic and focuses on that which lies outside the sinner, while experiential faith is the opposite and is driven by what lies within. These are two very different systems which are very much at odds with each other (I think of Nevin’s point about the system of the anxious bench versus the catechism).
RS: Allow me to repeat myself again. If Christ is outside the sinner, then the sinner is lost. If Christ is inside the sinner, then the sinner is saved and Christ Himself who is eternal life dwells in that person. For a sinner to have eternal life the sinner must have Christ Himself. The problem with creedal faith as stated, not that it is all wrong, is that it only wants to focus on the outside. Scripture is very clear that the believer is now the temple of the living God and He reigns and rules in the hearts of believers. God is not just sovereign over things outside the beliver, He is sovereign inside of them in all aspects as well.
Zrim: And it seems clear, by way of either precept or example, that the Bible is replete with exhortations to confess the faith and thus nurture covenant children in it. Deuteronomy 11:18-25 comes to mind:
RS: Yes, but recall that God as now instituted a New Covenant and in many ways it is different. Now He takes out the old heart, puts in a new one, and pours out His Spirit in the person and causes them to walk in His ways. The entrance into the kingdom is only by the Spirit regenerating the soul as Jesus taught one child of the covenant, Nicodemus.
Zrim: It’s hardly clear that such covenantal exhortations have become null and void in the New Covenantal era, unless one is working with a Baptistic hermeneutic. But old covenantal nurture continues on into the new covenant era every bit as much as old covenantal sign and seal continues (though the means may have changed from blood to water and subjects expanded to include females).
RS: But surely the covenantal nurture must take into account some differences. One could be in the Old Covenant and in good standing in the nation of Israel without the new birth. One cannot be in the New Covenant apart from being born by the Spirit. This is not dismissing covenant nurture, but surely when God says something has changed we should be careful to note the change as well.
LikeLike
Mark Maculley, thank you for the excellent Bavinck quote you shared on February 11, 2012 at 7:06 PM. This really is a succinct analysis of the whole issue- how stable and grounded is a confessional faith! Stable, grounded, yet out of this is joy and worship.
Also, as someone else asked, could you share the sources for the great Horton quotes given on February 14 at 7:01 AM?
Dr. Hart, thank you for your blog. I like it and am grateful. Some day I hope I can read your book on Nevius.
chuck fry
LikeLike
Richard, sorry if I missed your humor. It is not something I associate with Edwardseans. No offense, but JE is not full of laughs.
As for the differences between Edwards and modern confessionalism, what about those whopping differences between Edwards and the Reformers. If you read Calvin and Ursinus on the sacraments, you might lose the humor you have.
LikeLike
Richard, the point is one of emphasis. It isn’t that creedal faith denies the inward or the need for the sovereign Spirit to dwell there. But the Spirit dwells within in order to point us without—not to dwell on his inner workings but to dwell on the revealed works of Christ. And I don’t know what your point is about old and new hearts and being born from above—creedal faith affirms all of that. And as far as taking into account some differences, creedal faith understands there is discontinuity between the old and new covenants—we don’t kick off their covenantal nurture by circumcising our boys, we baptize them and our daughters.
LikeLike
RS: But what did Christ do for His people? Is it something out there, or is it involved in an actual propitiation where the wrath of God is really and truly removed from the soul of human beings so that the actual Holy Spirit and the Son may actually and really live in His people?
mcmark: I reject false either- ors between justification and regeneration. I reject the priority of regeneration (or Christ indwelling by the Spirit) over justification. I reject the idea that regeneration is the condition of justification.
But I insist on true either-ors. There is a true either-or between propitiation out there back then one time one place and what RS calls “actual propitiation” in the soul. Propitiation is NOT in the “soul”, NOT in the person who is elect, loved by God. Propitiation is not here, not now. Propitiation is over there, back then. I will be dogmatic about this.
In the absence of any Bible texts from RS, I have no idea how he thinks propitiation is in us, or that it taking place now. Not in the Roman Mass. Not in us. Once, and then Christ sat down at the right hand in heaven.
I can only speculate that RS has confused the propitiation with the application of the propitiation. Romans 6 teaches that God in time places the elect into the death of Christ, and there is a resulting transition from wraath to favor. Free from righteousness, then free from sin, not under the law. But this is legal application of the atonement, not the atonement itself. This is God’s imputation, not regeneration or the indwelling.
LikeLike
The ultimate way we can tell people that the gospel is “outside of you” is to tell them that the gospel they MUST believe excludes even this believing as the condition of salvation. The only condition of salvation for the elect is Christ’s death for the elect.
No debated language about the objectivity of “covenants” or “sacraments” should be allowed to obscure this gospel truth. Unless you preach that Christ died only for the elect, no matter how confessional or sacramental or “covenantal” you are, you will end up encouraging people to make faith into that little something that makes the difference between life and death!
I am not looking for another discussion about Calvin and Luther on the extent of the atonement. I am not even looking for something “classical” enough for influential people to sign in alliance.
I am asking us if we believe that the glory of God in the gospel means that all for whom Christ died will certainly be saved. Or is that doctrine too “rationalistic” for us? 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 for himself and given them to Christ? (Romans 11:4-6) Remember, at this time, I am not disputing various positions on baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Practice what you have been about those things, but I am asking now about God’s love being found in the propitiation accomplished by Christ. Then, there.
The glory of God does not depend on human decisions, and the gospel must not become a hostage to collaborations with evangelicals who in the name of universal atonement condition salvation on what God does in the sinner.
LikeLike
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 the same thing for the non-elect, amounts to nothing. Does the Neo-Calvinist love the gospel of election, or does he hate the doctrine and suppress it? Yes, Christ loved the church, but the church in the non-election way of talking is not individuals written in the lamb’s book, but a class of people who put their trust in.
The Neo-Calvinist does not talk about Christ not dying for the non-elect, but about Christ not dying for those who don’t put their trust in Him. The Neo-Calvinist wants you to give yourself to Christ without knowing anything about election. Then he will teach you that all who give themselves to Christ were given to Christ.
The Neo-Calvinist will even defend this non-election gospel as being the only perspective possible to us. We have to know we believe, before we can know if we are elect. I agree that knowing our election before we believe 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,
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, the point is one of emphasis. It isn’t that creedal faith denies the inward or the need for the sovereign Spirit to dwell there. But the Spirit dwells within in order to point us without—not to dwell on his inner workings but to dwell on the revealed works of Christ. And I don’t know what your point is about old and new hearts and being born from above—creedal faith affirms all of that.
RS: The point that I am driving at is that one can believe what the creed says, but those things must really and actually happen. It is not good enough to believe that Christ purchased the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit must actually dwell in the soul. It is not good enough to believe that there is such a thing as eternal life, the soul must actually have eternal life in the soul. Again, Christ is eternal life.
Zrim: And as far as taking into account some differences, creedal faith understands there is discontinuity between the old and new covenants—we don’t kick off their covenantal nurture by circumcising our boys, we baptize them and our daughters.
RS: Okay, but the Church practiced infant baptism from very early times until at least the Reformation believing that it was the baptism that washed away sins and regenerated the infants. That is what creedal baptism was built on and in much of the world today it is still built on that. The circumcision was a sign that they were actual Jews (though not saved as such), so does baptism mean that now?
LikeLike
mark mcculley: RS: But what did Christ do for His people? Is it something out there, or is it involved in an actual propitiation where the wrath of God is really and truly removed from the soul of human beings so that the actual Holy Spirit and the Son may actually and really live in His people?
mcmark: I reject false either- ors between justification and regeneration. I reject the priority of regeneration (or Christ indwelling by the Spirit) over justification. I reject the idea that regeneration is the condition of justification.
RS: It is not a false either-or. There is no justification apart from regeneration. Jesus told Nicodemus that he could not see or enter the kingdom apart from being born from above. Apart from regeneration there is no justification because it takes the legal and real union of the soul with Christ for the soul to be justified.
mcmark: But I insist on true either-ors. There is a true either-or between propitiation out there back then one time one place and what RS calls “actual propitiation” in the soul. Propitiation is NOT in the “soul”, NOT in the person who is elect, loved by God. Propitiation is not here, not now. Propitiation is over there, back then. I will be dogmatic about this.
RS: Fine, but the wrath of God actually abides on sinners and it must actually be removed. God hardens hearts as judgment on sin and His wrath must be taken away for the hardness of the heart to be taken away.
mcmark: In the absence of any Bible texts from RS, I have no idea how he thinks propitiation is in us, or that it taking place now. Not in the Roman Mass. Not in us. Once, and then Christ sat down at the right hand in heaven.
RS: I John 4:7-16. The wrath must actually be taken away so that the love of God may actually dwell in the soul. John 3:36 “He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.”
mcmark: I can only speculate that RS has confused the propitiation with the application of the propitiation. Romans 6 teaches that God in time places the elect into the death of Christ, and there is a resulting transition from wraath to favor. Free from righteousness, then free from sin, not under the law. But this is legal application of the atonement, not the atonement itself. This is God’s imputation, not regeneration or the indwelling.
RS: I am not confusing the two, but insisting on the fact that if Christ actually accomplished this it must be applied. Indeed Christ actually suffered the wrath of God while on the cross and the wrath of God was fully satisfied for all whom He died for. However, believing that as a historical event is nothing more than the devil does. The devil knows that Christ died a propitiatory death.
Titus 3:4 But when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared,
5 He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit,
6 whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior,
7 so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.
RS: Notice that in the text above sinners are saved by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out upon us through Jesus Christ. Why did He do that? So that being justified by His grace… Regeneration and renewing are certainly connected with justification.
LikeLike
Mcmark: The glory of God does not depend on human decisions, and the gospel must not become a hostage to collaborations with evangelicals who in the name of universal atonement condition salvation on what God does in the sinner.
RS: Of course the glory of God does not depend on human decisions, but human decisions depend on the sovereignty of God. However, what happens in the sinner is part of what the sovereign God does. It is God alone who can soften and change hearts because sinners cannot do that themselves.
LikeLike
mark mcculley: 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.
RS: True enough, but the wrath of God must be removed from the soul so that there can be faith. Faith is a result of the wrath of God being removed and God granting true life to the sinner.
mcmark: 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,
RS: The elect believe only because they are elect. But what of those who think that they believe when they don’t? What of those very moral and very religious people who think they believe and yet they don’t?
LikeLike
the Horton link
http://www.whitehorseinn.org/free-articles/the-law-the-gospel-by-michael-horton.html
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: Richard, sorry if I missed your humor. It is not something I associate with Edwardseans. No offense, but JE is not full of laughs.
RS: Many very dry people miss my dry humor. True, JE was not full of laughs, but he was full of joy. He spoke of a joy that was so great that it could not be expressed in words or laughter.
D.G. Hart: As for the differences between Edwards and modern confessionalism, what about those whopping differences between Edwards and the Reformers. If you read Calvin and Ursinus on the sacraments, you might lose the humor you have.
RS: I have read Calvin, but not a lot of Ursinus. I simply don’t think that Calvin had escaped the influence of Rome enough at that point. As you know, infants were baptized into the church as well as being a citizen for the state at the same time. It was far harder for them to escape from the clutches of Rome and the state at this point. I do find it hard to swallow, however, that they were so keen on the sacraments and put so much emphasis on the sacraments when the Bible puts so little emphasis on them. The Lord’s Supper is hardly even mentioned outside of I Corinthians, which makes me think that the apostles themselves did not focus on it as much as the early Reformers who were escaping Roman Catholicism and those who follow the early Reformers to the jot and tittle.
LikeLike
Richard, if your point is that faith is comprised of knowledge, assent and trust then creedal religion affirms this (again). It still isn’t clear to me how experiential faith has a leg up on creedal faith on this point. It’s like you keep saying “Jesus is Lord.” Yeah, and?
And if you’re asking whether creedal faith says baptism saves, the answer is an unequivocal no. Paedobaptism, like its antecedent paedocircumcision, is a sign and seal of covenant membership. It initiates the Christian life with an eye toward nurturing said member to the Table. Orthodox paedobaptists are credo-communionists, which is to say that true faith must be evidenced before communing. I know experiential faith worries and frets with drops of blood, but creedal faith has in place a perfectly sufficient sacramental mechanism to gauge true faith.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, if your point is that faith is comprised of knowledge, assent and trust then creedal religion affirms this (again). It still isn’t clear to me how experiential faith has a leg up on creedal faith on this point. It’s like you keep saying “Jesus is Lord.” Yeah, and?
RS: I think I would quote (generally speakingf) from an 18th century guy who spoke of faith as the optic of the soul. Faith beholds the glory of God while those with non-faith don’t see that. Faith also hears the voice of Christ and is able to “smell” the aroma from life to life. Faith tastes the Lord and sees that He is good. Faith receives Christ into the soul. Faith has Christ as its life. If you think of faith as corresponding to the senses of the body, then experiential faith is different than believing things as true.
Another way to think of experiential faith is to think of the definition of experience. It is to learn by practice. A faith that is not practiced is not a faith that grows. For example, medical doctors have a practice. An experiential faith is a faith that grows because it feeds on Christ and is practiced in daily life. It is a faith that takes into account the whole soul. Creedal faith still seems to be affirming true statements or propositions.
LikeLike
Richard, if experimental faith is about practice, what about the practices of infant baptism and the Lord’s Supper, not to mention Sunday evening services, session meetings, General Assemblies, etc.? It was experiential faith that undermined practice and located true religion in the affections. Sorry, you can’t have it both ways.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: Richard, if experimental faith is about practice, what about the practices of infant baptism and the Lord’s Supper, not to mention Sunday evening services, session meetings, General Assemblies, etc.? It was experiential faith that undermined practice and located true religion in the affections. Sorry, you can’t have it both ways.
RS: Your statement is based on equivocation. The experimental faith is about practice, yes, but that is not the same thing as practices or even rituals. The argument is not that true religion is located in the affections if by that you mean centralized in the affections, but the argument is that there can be no true religion apart from the affections. There is no true Christianity apart from true love, and yet where is there true love without a degree of joy or affection?
Psalm 63:1 A Psalm of David, when he was in the wilderness of Judah. O God, You are my God; I shall seek You earnestly; My soul thirsts for You, my flesh yearns for You, In a dry and weary land where there is no water.
2 Thus I have seen You in the sanctuary, To see Your power and Your glory.
3 Because Your lovingkindness is better than life, My lips will praise You.
4 So I will bless You as long as I live; I will lift up my hands in Your name.
5 My soul is satisfied as with marrow and fatness, And my mouth offers praises with joyful lips.
Psalm 67:1 For the choir director; with stringed instruments. A Psalm. A Song. God be gracious to us and bless us, And cause His face to shine upon us– Selah.
2 That Your way may be known on the earth, Your salvation among all nations.
3 Let the peoples praise You, O God; Let all the peoples praise You.
4 Let the nations be glad and sing for joy; For You will judge the peoples with uprightness And guide the nations on the earth. Selah.
LikeLike
Richard, ecclesiastical faith also has ears to hear and eyes to see and a mouth to taste, but it also understands metaphor in ways that seem to escape experiential faith. And if the argument is that there can be no true religion apart from the affections then the rebuttal here is that there can be no true religion apart from those things only true religionists may do, namely worship God in spirit and in truth. In other words, while it’s fuzzy what distinguishes conversionists of true religion from conversionists of false religion—Edwardsians and Mormons speak virtually the same—there is no trouble distinguishing Temple worship from Reformed.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, ecclesiastical faith also has ears to hear and eyes to see and a mouth to taste, but it also understands metaphor in ways that seem to escape experiential faith.
RS: But religious affections are more than metaphor and metaphors do point to real truth.
Zrim: And if the argument is that there can be no true religion apart from the affections then the rebuttal here is that there can be no true religion apart from those things only true religionists may do, namely worship God in spirit and in truth.
RS: Yes, but how are people going to worship God in spirit apart from spiritual affections? As long as love is needed in worship, then there religious affections will be necessary. As long as true worship is commanded, then worship in love and joy will be commanded.
Zrim: In other words, while it’s fuzzy what distinguishes conversionists of true religion from conversionists of false religion—Edwardsians and Mormons speak virtually the same—there is no trouble distinguishing Temple worship from Reformed.
RS: There is no fuzziness at all in this matter. Mormons have nothing in common with Edwards, and I mean nothing. True affections must come from the Spirit as opposed to a feeling worked up in the flesh. True affections follow the Truth Himself. There must be true affections that follow true thinking and both must follow Truth Himself who lives in His people manfiesting Himself through them.
LikeLike
Sorry, Richard, but that sounds like Mormons can’t talk about a burning in the bosom because they’re them but Edwardseans can talk about religious affections because they’re them, which seems pretty narcissistic. But Reformed orthodoxy says a Mormon can’t come to the Table because he doesn’t confess what Reformed orthodoxy confesses, which just seems fair.
LikeLike
Zrim: Sorry, Richard, but that sounds like Mormons can’t talk about a burning in the bosom because they’re them but Edwardseans can talk about religious affections because they’re them, which seems pretty narcissistic.
RS: I think you need to read what I wrote a bit closer. There is simply no way to draw that conclusion from what was written.
Zrim: But Reformed orthodoxy says a Mormon can’t come to the Table because he doesn’t confess what Reformed orthodoxy confesses, which just seems fair.
RS: True, that is fair. But remember, a saving confession must correspond with believing in the heart (Rom 10:9-10). Believing in the heart requires a new new heart. What does the old heart do? It loves the world, self, pride, and sin. A person that is committed to Reformed orthodoxy can also love the world, self, pride, and sin. What is needed, whether a person is openly in the world or committed to Reformed orthodoxy or anywhere in between, is a new heart. As I recall, what does the Bible say a person is supposed to do before s/he takes the Lord’s Supper? Examine himself.
LikeLike
Richard, pardon the length but you asked for it—from Edwards:
From about that time, I began to have a new kind of apprehensions and ideas of Christ. and the work of redemption, and the glorious way of salvation by him. An inward, sweet sense of these things, at times, came into my heart; and my soul was led away in pleasant views and contemplations of them. And my mind was greatly engaged to spend my time in reading and meditating on Christ, on the beauty and excellency of his person, and the lovely way of salvation by free grace in him. I found no books so delightful to me, as those that treated of these subjects. Those words Cant. 2:1, used to be abundantly with me, I am the Rose of Sharon, and the Lilly of the valleys. The words seemed to me, sweetly to represent the loveliness and beauty of Jesus Christ. The whole book of Canticles used to be pleasant to me, and I used to be much in reading it, about that time; and found, from time to time, an inward sweetness, that would carry me away, in my contemplations. This I know not how to express otherwise, than by a calm, sweet abstraction of soul from all the concerns of this world; and sometimes a kind of vision, or fixed ideas and imaginations, of being alone in the mountains, or some solitary wilderness, far from all mankind, sweetly conversing with Christ, and wrapt and swallowed up in God. The sense I had of divine things, would often of a sudden kindle up, as it were, a sweet burning in my heart; an ardor of soul, that I know not how to express.
Not long after I first began to experience these things, I gave an account to my father of some things that had passed in my mind. I was pretty much affected by the discourse we had together; and when the discourse was ended, I walked abroad alone, in a solitary place in my father’s pasture, for contemplation. And as I was walking there, and looking up on the sky and clouds, there came into my mind so sweet a sense of the glorious majesty and grace of God, that I know not how to express. I seemed to see them both in a sweet conjunction; majesty and meekness joined together; it was a sweet, and gentle, and holy majesty; and also a majestic meekness; an awful sweetness; a high, and great, and holy gentleness.
After this my sense of divine things gradually increased, and became more and more lively, and had more of that inward sweetness. The appearance of every thing was altered; there seemed to be, as it were, a calm sweet cast, or appearance of divine glory, in almost every thing. God’s excellency, his wisdom, his purity and love, seemed to appear in every thing; in the sun, moon, and stars; in the clouds, and blue sky; in the grass, flowers, trees; in the water, and all nature; which used greatly to fix my mind. I often used to sit and view the moon for continuance; and in the day, spent much time in viewing the clouds and sky, to behold the sweet glory of God in these things; in the mean time, singing forth, with a low voice my contemplations of the Creator and Redeemer. And scarce any thing, among all the works of nature, was so sweet to me as thunder and lightning; formerly, nothing had been so terrible to me. Before, I used to be uncommonly terrified with thunder, and to be struck with terror when I saw a thunder storm rising; but now, on the contrary, it rejoiced me. I felt God, so to speak, at the first appearance of a thunder storm; and used to take the opportunity, at such times, to fix myself in order to view the clouds, and see the lightnings play, and hear the majestic and awful voice of God’s thunder, which oftentimes was exceedingly entertaining, leading me to sweet contemplations of my great and glorious God. While thus engaged, it always seemed natural to me to sing, or chant for my mediations; or, to speak my thoughts in soliloquies with a singing voice.
I felt then great satisfaction, as to my good state; but that did not content me. I had vehement longings of soul after God and Christ, and after more holiness, wherewith my heart seemed to be full, and ready to break; which often brought to my mind the words of the Psalmist, Psal. 119:28. My soul breaketh for the longing it hath. I often felt a mourning and lamenting in my heart, that I had not turned to God sooner, that I might have had more time to grow in grace. My mind was greatly fixed on divine things; almost perpetually in the contemplation of them. I spent most of my time in thinking of divine things, year after year; often walking alone in the woods, and solitary places, for meditation, soliloquy, and prayer, and converse with God; and it was always my manner, at such times, to sing forth my contemplations. I was almost constantly in ejaculatory prayer, wherever I was. Prayer seemed to be natural to me, as the breath by which the inward burnings of my heart had vent. The delights which I now felt in the things of religion, were of an exceeding different kind from those before mentioned, that I had when a boy; and what I then had no more notion of, than one born blind has of pleasant and beautiful colors. They were of a more inward, pure, soul animating and refreshing nature. Those former delights never reached the heart; and did not arise from any sight of the divine excellency of the things of God; or any taste of the soul satisfying and life; giving good there is in them.
So when I go back and read carefully, what you said was that “Mormons have nothing in common with Edwards, and I mean nothing.” But it’s hard to read about ejaculatory prayers and see how they are different from burning bosoms. I know, there are orthodox affections and there are heterodox burnings. But from where I sit, that just seems awfully arbitrary and self-important.
And for the umpteenth time, I don’t know why you keep pointing out that a saving confession must correspond with believing in the heart. Who has said anything remotely implying this isn’t the case? But the point has been how this is affirmed. You seem to be saying if someone can attest to “being alone in the mountains, or some solitary wilderness, far from all mankind, sweetly conversing with Christ, and wrapt and swallowed up in God” that his confession and heart match up. Maybe. But I am saying if one is examined by elders and found to have a credible profession of faith, it’s all good.
LikeLike
Zrim quoting Edwards: I had vehement longings of soul after God and Christ, and after more holiness, wherewith my heart seemed to be full, and ready to break; which often brought to my mind the words of the Psalmist, Psal. 119:28. My soul breaketh for the longing it hath.
RS: Psalm 119:20 “My soul is crushed with longing After Your ordinances at all times.”
Psalm 119:131 I opened my mouth wide and panted, For I longed for Your commandments.
Psalm 42:1 For the choir director. A Maskil of the sons of Korah. As the deer pants for the water brooks, So my soul pants for You, O God.
Psalm 63:1 A Psalm of David, when he was in the wilderness of Judah. O God, You are my God; I shall seek You earnestly; My soul thirsts for You, my flesh yearns for You, In a dry and weary land where there is no water.
Jrim quoting Edwards: I often felt a mourning and lamenting in my heart, that I had not turned to God sooner, that I might have had more time to grow in grace. My mind was greatly fixed on divine things; almost perpetually in the contemplation of them. I spent most of my time in thinking of divine things, year after year; often walking alone in the woods, and solitary places, for meditation, soliloquy, and prayer, and converse with God; and it was always my manner, at such times, to sing forth my contemplations. I was almost constantly in ejaculatory prayer, wherever I was. Prayer seemed to be natural to me, as the breath by which the inward burnings of my heart had vent. The delights which I now felt in the things of religion, were of an exceeding different kind from those before mentioned, that I had when a boy; and what I then had no more notion of, than one born blind has of pleasant and beautiful colors. They were of a more inward, pure, soul animating and refreshing nature. Those former delights never reached the heart; and did not arise from any sight of the divine excellency of the things of God; or any taste of the soul satisfying and life; giving good there is in them.
RS: This sounds just like a man whose mind, heart, and affections were fixed on God and God granted Edwards a taste of His glory.
Jrim: So when I go back and read carefully, what you said was that “Mormons have nothing in common with Edwards, and I mean nothing.” But it’s hard to read about ejaculatory prayers and see how they are different from burning bosoms. I know, there are orthodox affections and there are heterodox burnings. But from where I sit, that just seems awfully arbitrary and self-important.
RS: Well, try sitting in a different location. The Bible itself speaks of things like this over and over and over again.
1 Peter 1:8 and though you have not seen Him, you love Him, and though you do not see Him now, but believe in Him, you greatly rejoice with joy inexpressible and full of glory,
Jrim: And for the umpteenth time, I don’t know why you keep pointing out that a saving confession must correspond with believing in the heart. Who has said anything remotely implying this isn’t the case? But the point has been how this is affirmed. You seem to be saying if someone can attest to “being alone in the mountains, or some solitary wilderness, far from all mankind, sweetly conversing with Christ, and wrapt and swallowed up in God” that his confession and heart match up. Maybe. But I am saying if one is examined by elders and found to have a credible profession of faith, it’s all good.
RS: As long as the elders are infallible then all is good. It seems as if the apostles themselves were fooled at times and thought people were converted when they were not. Why I keep pointing out that a saving confession must correspond with believing in the heart is because it is more than an intellectual confession. The heart must be changed. The heart is the center of the soul and it does point to the fact that it is more than information that a person confesses and professes.
John 11:40 Jesus said to her, “Did I not say to you that if you believe, you will see the glory of God?” If you will trace this for a few chapters, you will see the point. Those who saw the resurrection of Lazarus did not question the resurrection of Lazarus. They would have professed the truth that Lazarus was raised from the dead. However, some took this information to the Pharisees who wanted to kill Jesus and Lazarus. Only those who believed saw the glory of God. A true faith beholds the glory of God in the things of God and this true faith is not a mere intellectual affirmation of the truth. No, the Gospel is all about the glory of God in the face of Christ and it is God who shines in the hearts of sinners to give “the Light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ” (II Cor 4:6). Edwards saw this glory and he was taken with the beauty and glory of God in the Gospel. Mormons are taken up with being god of some sort themselves and that is what is beautiful to them. Mormonism has nothing in common with Edwards,
LikeLike
Richard, you quote the Bible to bolster ejaculatory prayer. But even St. Paul–who actually did converse with Christ–never attested to being alone in the mountains, or some solitary wilderness, far from all mankind, sweetly conversing with Christ, and wrapt and swallowed up in God. Do I really have to point out how the road to Damascus was very different from Edwards’ solitary wilderness? Even on his deathbed the Apostle didn’t seek a second blessing but requested books. Sorry, but Paul trumps Jonathon. So the more you talk the more I still don’t get why a Mormon’s burning bosom is nothing–and I mean nothing–like Edwards’ groanings since his groanings are nothing–and I mean nothing–like Paul’s testimony.
And if the apostles were fooled about someone’s confession, I fail to see why we in the post-apostolic era think we must do better. Haven’t you ever heard of the dangers in turning over inward stones or separating wheat from chaff?
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, you quote the Bible to bolster ejaculatory prayer. But even St. Paul–who actually did converse with Christ–never attested to being alone in the mountains, or some solitary wilderness, far from all mankind, sweetly conversing with Christ, and wrapt and swallowed up in God. Do I really have to point out how the road to Damascus was very different from Edwards’ solitary wilderness? Even on his deathbed the Apostle didn’t seek a second blessing but requested books.
RS: Gal 1:15 But when God, who had set me apart even from my mother’s womb and called me through His grace, was pleased 16 to reveal His Son in me so that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with flesh and blood, 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went away to Arabia, and returned once more to Damascus. 18 Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas, and stayed with him fifteen days.
Galatians 2:1 Then after an interval of fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along also.
RS: Well, with all the doxology that Paul uses in his writings, I would imagine that those large chunks of time were spent in doxology. Notice verses 15-16 above where God was pleased to reveal Christ in Paul. It does not say to Paul, but in Paul. Then on to 2:20.
Phil 3: 7 But whatever things were gain to me, those things I have counted as loss for the sake of Christ. 8 More than that, I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish so that I may gain Christ, 9 and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith, 10 that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death; 11 in order that I may attain to the resurrection from the dead. 12 Not that I have already obtained it or have already become perfect, but I press on so that I may lay hold of that for which also I was laid hold of by Christ Jesus
Zrim: Sorry, but Paul trumps Jonathon. So the more you talk the more I still don’t get why a Mormon’s burning bosom is nothing–and I mean nothing–like Edwards’ groanings since his groanings are nothing–and I mean nothing–like Paul’s testimony.
RS: Ah, but Paul’s doxology in mid-sentence in places, his earnest desire to know God more, and his talk of Christ in him is like Edwards. The following texts (Phil 2:21 and Rom 11:33-36) sound just like Edwards being swallowed up in God. “For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain.” ” 33 Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways! 34 For WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD, OR WHO BECAME HIS COUNSELOR?
35 Or WHO HAS FIRST GIVEN TO HIM THAT IT MIGHT BE PAID BACK TO HIM AGAIN?
36 For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen.
Zrim: And if the apostles were fooled about someone’s confession, I fail to see why we in the post-apostolic era think we must do better. Haven’t you ever heard of the dangers in turning over inward stones or separating wheat from chaff?
RS: You said that “it was good” simply to be examined by elders for a credible profession. I am saying that while elders may help, the testimony of God is greater. In fact, it is only those who are taught of God that will come to Christ (John 6:45). That is the inner teaching that must happen and that is what draws men to Christ (John 6:44).
Quite frankly, and this is not said with the intent to slam away, I am not sure how far from Rome these things are. One, there is a great trust in history that surely Calvin and others are right (not to mention the interpretation of them). This is not a knock on Calvin, but surely we are to read him as a help to understand Scripture rather than to use as an ultimate authority. Two, there is a great trust in confessions and their authority, but the Confessions say that Scripture is the authority. Three, there is a great trust in the sacraments. This simply sounds like the road to Rome.
LikeLike
Richard, I don’t take any of your words here to be slams. Indeed, they are helpful to show that the Radical Reformation is both alive and well and is heavily influencing those who would claim the Protestant Reformation. The Radicals’ heirs told the Protestants’ heirs they didn’t go far enough in their reforms of Rome, and the Radicals’ descendents’ now tell the Protestants’ descendents they are on the road to Rome—what has been said will be said again and there is nothing new under the sun.
LikeLike
The soteriology of the anabaptists has always been very close to Roman Catholic. All of them have assumed without question “free-will” as power to the contrary. But in terms of interior emotion vs community and creed, the anabaptists have not all been on the same page.
While the “spiritualists” could publicly coexist with the old forms and repeat the old oaths and vows and keep their religion private, the separatists came out and formed new communities (with institutions, cultures, creeds) distinct from the old Constantinian inheritance. And of course, in some cases, this became a kind of new “Constantinianism”
I understand that Zrim uses the tag “Radical Reformation” as a swear word against all the things he now dislikes, and that’s fine, but I would remind him that Mennonites have been way less individualistic and way more organized than southern baptists. But who has time to stop to notice differences when you are swearing? If you reject the “soul-liberty” of the “me and jesus baptists”, you can simply lump into the equation all who continue to reject any baptism performed by the Roman Catholics.
But would that make Thornwell part of the “Radical Reformation”? Why accuse those who want to reform Rome with going back to a Rome they never left?
If the inherent essence of the Radical Reformation is a rejection of the church as a mediating institution, then Mormons cannot be thought of as any part of the Radical Reformation. Despite the “burning bosoms”, Mormons have a religion of the church and for the church. Mormons are not into the “being alone with God” thing. Mormons believe in representation, even of the living being baptised for the dead.
All I am saying is….
please don’t paint with such a broad brush.
Roman Catholics have church government, but that doesn’t make church government a bad thing.
The part of the Radical Reformation which became a people has accountability structures, and that doesn’t make institutionalization and creeds a bad thing.
And there is a difference between calling anabaptists legalists because they have a false “free-will gospel” and accusing them of being legalists because they have rules and institutions.
Some of us simply don’t care what you think is happening in your heart, RS Every time you say the word “soul”, we remember Genesis 2:7–“the Lord God formed the man from the dust of the earth and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living soul.” I dare say it was Rome that taught you that “soul” was something you had inside you.
LikeLike
Richard, why do you get to suggest that my points indicate a road to Rome but I can’t paint with a broad brush? Now I know how the Mormons feel (but not in their bosoms).
LikeLike
RS: Indeed, but is grace something out there or is it Christ Himself in the soul? Is grace something apart from God that He gives, or is grace something of God Himself?
I will follow the pattern you have established here:
John Y: Generally, grace is unmerited favor; more specifically, in reference to the ordo salutis (which is a term which was first used by Lutheran theologians according to Wikepedia; that was a new one on me because I thought the Calvinist theologians were the first to talk of an ordo salutis), there is much controversy here in the history of the church. Augustine understood divine grace “as an inner gift bestowed through Christ and by the Holy Spirit. This grace flows from the fountain of our heavenly Father’s benevolent disposition toward us in the action of the Holy Spirit to confer on us the manifold benefits of Christ’s life and work for us. These are the gifts of grace and include the forgiveness of sins, the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, knowledge of God, communion with God, conversion, conformity to God……God’s efficacious sovereign grace through operating grace (or efficacious grace) the sinful human heart, mind and will are regenerated and made alive, which manifests itself in conversion.
I could go on to explain how Pelagius, John Cassian, St. Benedict, Thomas Aquinas, Erasmus, Phillip Melanchthon, Luther and Calvin understood grace. It certainly has been a controversial subject and continuing argument throughout the history of the church.
“Erasmus attempted to claim Augustine for what he saw as a moderate position. Here divine grace works inwardly to regenerate, strengthen, and free the human will in a lifelong process of our conversion from sin to God. This is called cooperative grace- although any movement of the human soul toward God is possible only because of God’s grace (including the initial movements); the ultimate efficacy of this grace depends on the responsiveness of the independant human will as to whether it actually leads to salvation or not.”
Luither sharply disagreed with the Erasmian concept of grace. According to Luther, “in our fallen state, our free will avails for nothing but to sin.” “Because the fallen human will is so profoundly oriented to self, to be converted by a contribution of our wills would make it a self-willing and therefore self-defeating work. The only remedy for this terrible bondage is a divine grace that actually opposes the will in a way that does not eliminate it, but rather accomplishes for it what it cannot do for itself. This can be a work only of operating grace in the Augustinian sense, and regeneration and conversion-both initially and ultimately- must be sola gratia (by the efficacy of divine grace alone). Thus, for Luther, the good news is that we are not transformed and converted by any act of our wills, but by what God has said and done for us and to us personally in Jesus Christ as proclaimed to us in the Gospel…..For Luther the whole idea of cooperation is anathema, and all human moral effort must naturally come as a response to what God has already done for us-liberating our wills so that our love for him and our service for one another may be truly free. In short, Erasmus declared, “Let God be good!” and Luther responded, “Let God be God! and these two contrasting positions continue to give the ongoing debate its theological structure to the present day.”
To analyze this grace even further, McMark, in his posts, claims that this grace begins in election and first gets applied to the elect when God baptizes the elect into Christ by imputing the sins of the elect to Christ and the righteousness of Christ to the elect. Luther called this an “alien righteousness.” Horton has a whole chapter on this imputation in his COVENANT AND SALVATION book which leads to the justification of the ungodly. This is a forensic union which is accomplished by a declaration of God to the elect while he is ungodly. This declaration does not make the person holy, for sin still indwells this ungodly but elect sinner.
RS wants to make the victorious christian life as the evidence for this imputation and assumes that union with Christ immediately transforms the ungodly into one who is capable of perfect obedience. At least that is the way I am reading RS.
This imputation does lead us to hear the Gospel and then the internal and subjective work of the Holy Spirit begins to sanctify the elect. But it seems to me that RS fails to see that we are simul iestus et peccator even after we are regenerated. The fact that Christians still sin was an issue that the Reformers, and Luther in particular, struggled mightily with. Luther came to the conclusion that it is only by us getting out of our subjective selves and looking outward at the cross could we come to any kind of comfort at all. This is why he had a high view of the sacraments too- because the grace of Christ was in the sacraments- something outside of himself and his still unworthy righteousness not matter how much sanctification had worked inside his soul.
LikeLike
So, to answer your question RS, grace is that which comes from outside of us which allows us to subjectively attach to Christ and benefit from his alien righteousness which has been imputed to us (even when we were and still are ungodly). We never have a righteousness within our subjective selves that can appease God’s wrath. The good news is that Christ obtained this righteousness for us. This is what motivates us to “good works” towards our neighbors and liberates our wills which have been in bondage to our sin. However, these good works do nothing in bringing us favor towards God and are still filled with filthy rags.
LikeLike
I could go on and answer your other questions RS but I have to go to bed so I can get up at about 9:00PM and do some things I still have to do before I have to be at work at midnight.
LikeLike
Zrim, I am a third party here, neither Reformed nor experimental revivalist, and it was I not RS who made the request for more nuance and less “broad brush”.
John, I know you can’t say everything, but what you leave out is that the sins of all the elect were imputed to Christ already, and that this imputation does not happen from day to day now. Of course I understand that Lutherans don’t think Christ died only for the sins of the elect, but I do want to make a distinction between the atonement and justification. Some elect were justified before the atonement, and others elect are now being justified after the atonement. Even though the elect’s sins were imputed to Christ, this righteousness is not imputed to the elect until they are justified in time, and as you report, this results in the subjective work of the Spirit in the elect. It is not the sinner who “make the exchange”. It is not the Holy Spirit who imputes.
I do appreciate, John, your needed emphasis on continuing “indwelling sin”. The only thing I would add is that the justified elect, after their legal union with Christ, are holy. Either we are holy or not. I am not denying of course the continuing work of the Spirit, nor the effectual call. But I do think we need to remember also that we are “sanctified by the blood” (Hebrews 10:10-14). As AW Pink reminds us, we are either sanctified or we are not.
Pink: “In the Larger Catechism of the Westminster Assembly the question is asked, “What is sanctification?” To which the following answer is returned: “Sanctification is a work of God’s grace, whereby, they whom God hath before the foundation of the world chosen to be holy, are in time through the powerful operation of His Spirit, applying the death and resurrection of Christ unto them, renewed in their whole man after the image of God; having the seeds of repentance unto life and all other saving graces, put into their hearts, and those graces so stirred up, increased, and strengthened, as that they more and more die unto sin and rise unto newness of life.”
Now far be it from us to sit in judgment upon such an excellent and helpful production as this Catechism, which God has richly blessed to thousands of His people, or that we should make any harsh criticisms against men whose shoes we are certainly not worthy to unloose. Nevertheless, the best of men are but men at the best, and therefore we must call no man “Father.”
First, the definition of sanctification of the Westminster divines is altogether inadequate, for it entirely omits the most important aspect and fundamental element in the believer’s sanctification: it says nothing about our sanctification by Christ (Heb. 10:10; 13:12), but confines itself to the work of the Spirit, which is founded upon that of the Son.
This is truly a serious loss, and affords another illustration that God has not granted light on all His Word to any one man or body of men. A fuller and better answer to the question of, “What is sanctification?” would be, “Sanctification is, first, that act of God whereby He set the elect apart in Christ before the foundation of the world that they should be holy. Second, it is that perfect holiness which the Church has in Christ and that excellent purity which she has before God by virtue of Christ’s cleansing blood. Third, it is that work of God’s Spirit which, by His quickening operation, sets them apart from those who are dead in sins, conveying to them a holy life or nature, etc.”
Thus we cannot but regard this particular definition of the Larger Catechism as being defective, for it commences at the middle, instead of starting at the beginning. Instead of placing before the believer that complete and perfect sanctification which God has made Christ to be unto him, it occupies him with the incomplete and progressive work of the Spirit.
Instead of moving the Christian to look away from himself with all his sinful failures, unto Christ in whom he is “complete” (Col. 2:10), it encouraged him to look within, where he will often search in vain for the fine gold of the new creation amid all the dross and mire of the old creation. This is to leave him without the joyous assurance that he has been “perfected forever” by the one offering of Christ (Heb. 10:14).
Our second observation upon this definition is, that its wording is faulty and misleading. Let the young believer be credibly assured that he will “more and more die unto sin and rise unto newness of life,” and what will be the inevitable outcome? As he proceeds on his way, the Devil assaulting him more and more fiercely, the inward conflict between the flesh and the Spirit becoming more and more distressing, increasing light from God’s Word more and more exposing his sinful failures, until the cry is forced from him, “I am vile; 0 wretched man that I am,” what conclusion must he draw?
Why this: if the Catechism-definition be correct then I was sadly mistaken, I have never been sanctified at all. So far from the “more and more die unto sin” agreeing with his experience, he discovers that sin is more active within and that he is more alive to sin now, than he was ten years ago!”
LikeLike
RS: There still is the issue with many of the scripture passages you quoted which make obedience an evidence of the grace that has begun its work in the elect. Lutherans read these as Law passages which are meant to drive us to Christ and look outwardly towards his perfect obedience. Christ did tell his disciples that if you love me you will keep my commandments. And there are many passages that exhort the believer to obedience. I don’t see how anyone can get around the fact that our obedience is never satisfactory and always needs the perfect obedience of Christ as a supplement to our weak attempts at obedience. Obedience is definitely commanded but it is an obedience which is only made possible by the grace which comes from outside us.
I will let others try to interpret 1John better than I can.
LikeLike
McMark,
I appreciate your supplementing my somewhat sloppy and uncareful explanation- especially in regards to sanctification and our being regarded by God as holy because of our declared union with Christ- even as we still struggle and (hold your breath) fall into sin. We never have an excuse to continue in our sin without any conviction of this sin. But any cursory reading of Romans chapter 7 has to include the fact that the regenerate still fall into sin. And I have heard all the interpretations of those who try to get around this fact- I don’t buy it and without Romans 7 I don’t know how anyone could have any hope.
LikeLike
Christ’s obedience to and satisfaction of the law is no supplement, but complete and sufficient to merit every blessing for every elect person for whom it was done. Sinners either are imputed with that righteousness or they are not.
Galatians 2:21 I do not nullify the grace of God, for if justification were through the law, then Christ died for NO purpose.
LikeLike
Oops, sorry, Mark (and Richard) for confusing you two. But not so sorry about using a broad brush. I think such painting does have a useful purpose. And in this case, the purpose was to make a point generally about experiential faith and ecclesiastical faith. I understand you want to make specific and nuanced points about all the different traditions, but that’s not the point of painting broadly.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, I don’t take any of your words here to be slams. Indeed, they are helpful to show that the Radical Reformation is both alive and well and is heavily influencing those who would claim the Protestant Reformation. The Radicals’ heirs told the Protestants’ heirs they didn’t go far enough in their reforms of Rome, and the Radicals’ descendents’ now tell the Protestants’ descendents they are on the road to Rome—what has been said will be said again and there is nothing new under the sun.
RS: What I hear you saying, that is, the implication of your words, is that the Reformers reformed just the right amount and we are not to go beyond what they did. I would argue that the Reformers would have us go by Scripture in order that we would be Reformed and always reforming. If we judge all things by history rather than Scripture, we must judge the Reformers by history as well. But then again, what are we to judge the history by that we judge the Reformers by? Are Roman Catholics right after all that virtually all is built on the Church Fathers? I would argue that we need to go one more step back and that is to Scripture which all history including the Reformers are to be judged by. Maybe that sounds radical, but so be it. Isaiah 8:20 “To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because they have no dawn.”
II Tim 3:16 “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.” The Scriptures are what makes the man of God adequate and equipped for every good work.
If a man believes that justification by faith alone is true because he read a creed, does that mean that he is truly justified? Doesn’t Satan himself believe that justification by faith alone is true? Does Satan believe that Calvin and Luther taught justification by faith alone and that it is true?
LikeLike
John Yeazel: RS wants to make the victorious christian life as the evidence for this imputation and assumes that union with Christ immediately transforms the ungodly into one who is capable of perfect obedience. At least that is the way I am reading RS.
RS: I am not sure where you get the idea that I claim the victorius christian life as truth. By that I am assuming you mean something close to perfectionism. Union with Christ means that one is married to Christ and nothing that anyone does apart from Christ is good. However, no one is perfect or close to perfect on this earth. I would also say that all that a believer does is tainted to some degree and so nothing a believer does is perfect. I simply don’t know where this perfection idea came from. I have said nothing close to that (as far as I know). In the words of someone I cannot remember, I am a victim of worthless worm theology.
John Yeazel: This imputation does lead us to hear the Gospel and then the internal and subjective work of the Holy Spirit begins to sanctify the elect. But it seems to me that RS fails to see that we are simul iestus et peccator even after we are regenerated.
RS: No, I don’t fail to see that at all. I see it especially well in those that argue against me. By the way, that was an attempt at dry humor.
John Yeazel: The fact that Christians still sin was an issue that the Reformers, and Luther in particular, struggled mightily with. Luther came to the conclusion that it is only by us getting out of our subjective selves and looking outward at the cross could we come to any kind of comfort at all. This is why he had a high view of the sacraments too- because the grace of Christ was in the sacraments- something outside of himself and his still unworthy righteousness not matter how much sanctification had worked inside his soul.
RS: Hoc est corpus meum became hocus pocus. The grace of Christ is never in the hands of men to give or receive as they please. As stated before, this was one issue that Luther had trouble escaping from Rome on. The grace of Christ is not in the sacraments because the grace of Christ never leaves Christ Himself. He must give Himself to give grace and He is received in the soul and not the stomach.
LikeLike
John Yeazel: So, to answer your question RS, grace is that which comes from outside of us which allows us to subjectively attach to Christ and benefit from his alien righteousness which has been imputed to us (even when we were and still are ungodly). We never have a righteousness within our subjective selves that can appease God’s wrath. The good news is that Christ obtained this righteousness for us. This is what motivates us to “good works” towards our neighbors and liberates our wills which have been in bondage to our sin. However, these good works do nothing in bringing us favor towards God and are still filled with filthy rags.
RS: Well, we can certainly agree that our so-called good works are but filthy rags and we can do nothing to appease God’s wrath or earn any righteousness or merit on our own.
Titus 2:11 “For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men.” Who brought salvation to all men?
LikeLike
Zrim: Oops, sorry, Mark (and Richard) for confusing you two. But not so sorry about using a broad brush. I think such painting does have a useful purpose. And in this case, the purpose was to make a point generally about experiential faith and ecclesiastical faith. I understand you want to make specific and nuanced points about all the different traditions, but that’s not the point of painting broadly.
RS: Without pictures we look just alike. Without pictures both our portraits can be painted with a broad brush and still seem to be accurate.
LikeLike
mcmark: Our second observation upon this definition is, that its wording is faulty and misleading. Let the young believer be credibly assured that he will “more and more die unto sin and rise unto newness of life,” and what will be the inevitable outcome? As he proceeds on his way, the Devil assaulting him more and more fiercely, the inward conflict between the flesh and the Spirit becoming more and more distressing, increasing light from God’s Word more and more exposing his sinful failures, until the cry is forced from him, “I am vile; 0 wretched man that I am,” what conclusion must he draw?
RS: I think you should careful about the conclusions you are drawing. I don’t think that the Westminster divines would go where you have so boldly gone (Star Trek, not a slam). Spiritual growth does not mean that one grows closer to some sort of actual sinlessiness as such, but what it means is that one discovers more and more hidden sin as a result of seeing more and more of God in His light. The more one dies to sin it seems that the more sin one discovers. The greatest saint (protestantly speaking) in the world sees thousands of times more sin in himself (if not millions or billions or…) than the worldling sees in himself. That does not mean that the greatest saint (again, protestantly speaking) has not died to sin and is not constantly dying to sin. The holier a person becomes the more sin the person sees.
LikeLike
mcmark: Instead of moving the Christian to look away from himself with all his sinful failures, unto Christ in whom he is “complete” (Col. 2:10), it encouraged him to look within, where he will often search in vain for the fine gold of the new creation amid all the dross and mire of the old creation. This is to leave him without the joyous assurance that he has been “perfected forever” by the one offering of Christ (Heb. 10:14).
RS: Not so. The Christian is told to examine himself to see if Christ is in him (II Cor 13:5) and not look to himself for the works of self. The encouragement to see if one has Christ in him is not contrary to look to Christ for all things. Christ is our righteousness, our wisdom, sanctification, and redemption. Christ is the very life of the believer (Col 3:3-4; Gal 2:20). Looking inside of self does not mean we are looking for self, but instead we are looking for Christ and His glory as the Scripture sets out. God does not shine the light of the knowledge of His glory outside the sinner in order to discover His glory in the face of Christ, but in the believer (II Cor 4:6). We are told over and over that God abides in us and His love abides in us (I John 4:7-16). Again, the believer is to look in himself, but he is not to look at himself in that sense. He is to look for Christ.
LikeLike
RS: Hoc est corpus meum became hocus pocus. The grace of Christ is never in the hands of men to give or receive as they please. As stated before, this was one issue that Luther had trouble escaping from Rome on. The grace of Christ is not in the sacraments because the grace of Christ never leaves Christ Himself. He must give Himself to give grace and He is received in the soul and not the stomach.
John Y.: That is not a very careful response RS. Luther did make a definite break from Rome in his understanding of the sacraments. One really has to delve into how the reformers understood the meaning of a “means of grace” and there was much disension and disagreement over this issue. The arguments were complex ones and blog posts are not the best place to argue the sacraments.
LikeLike
John Y.: That is not a very careful response RS. Luther did make a definite break from Rome in his understanding of the sacraments. One really has to delve into how the reformers understood the meaning of a “means of grace” and there was much disension and disagreement over this issue. The arguments were complex ones and blog posts are not the best place to argue the sacraments.
RS: It was very late in life after reading what Calvin had written on the Lord’s Supper that he thought he might have been able to work with Calvin. Of course Calvin believed in the real presence but a real spiritual presence. But until then he was vehemently pretty much in line with Rome on the sacraments. Indeed there is a huge difference between what people mean by “means of grace”, but that is not the same thing as saying that grace is there for the taking.
LikeLike
RS: Not so. The Christian is told to examine himself to see if Christ is in him (II Cor 13:5) and not look to himself for the works of self. The encouragement to see if one has Christ in him is not contrary to look to Christ for all things. Christ is our righteousness, our wisdom, sanctification, and redemption. Christ is the very life of the believer (Col 3:3-4; Gal 2:20). Looking inside of self does not mean we are looking for self, but instead we are looking for Christ and His glory as the Scripture sets out. God does not shine the light of the knowledge of His glory outside the sinner in order to discover His glory in the face of Christ, but in the believer (II Cor 4:6). We are told over and over that God abides in us and His love abides in us (I John 4:7-16). Again, the believer is to look in himself, but he is not to look at himself in that sense. He is to look for Christ.
John Y: Go read again the context of 2Cor. 13:5. I’d like you to give us an example too, RS, of how you would go about looking inside yourself for Christ. Can you tell the difference of what is of self and what is of Christ? Can you make out the differences between the complexities of the human psyche, will and emotions. When I look inside myself I find of mess of conflicting thoughts, emotions, desires and passions. I am baffled as to what good it would do me to look inside myself to see if Christ is there.
LikeLike
RS: It was very late in life after reading what Calvin had written on the Lord’s Supper that he thought he might have been able to work with Calvin. Of course Calvin believed in the real presence but a real spiritual presence. But until then he was vehemently pretty much in line with Rome on the sacraments. Indeed there is a huge difference between what people mean by “means of grace”, but that is not the same thing as saying that grace is there for the taking.
John Y.: Huh? Luther did not believe in transubstantiation (sp?) like Rome and he completely revised what Aquinas had thought and taught about the sacraments. RS, you come across like you know everything and mostly have a contrary answer for what anyone who has been arguing with you is saying. How long have you been reading posts at old life and tell us a bit about yourself. What church do you attend? Are you a layman or a pastor? Did you have any seminary training? If not, what is your vocation and where have you studied at? I have never seen your name before at oldlife- how did you find the website?
LikeLike
I thought I’d jump back in for a moment…
RS wrote: RS: Not so. The Christian is told to examine himself to see if Christ is in him (II Cor 13:5) and not look to himself for the works of self. The encouragement to see if one has Christ in him is not contrary to look to Christ for all things….
The 2 Cor. 13:5 verse – “Try your own selves, whether ye are in the faith; prove your own selves. Or know ye not as to your own selves, that Jesus Christ is in you? unless indeed ye be reprobate.”
It seems to me that the examination is to see if one is “in the faith,” i.e. believing the gospel, and not an examination of searching to see if Jesus Christ is somewhere subjectively inside. The context is the rampant sinning which is a major topic of Paul’s letter. The Corinthians are showing forth sinful works that are the opposite of evidences of a true and lively faith. The examination is to see if their acts do or don’t coincide with true faith. If not, repent. If they are “in the faith,” then good works, not sinful works, would follow.
The statement regarding Christ in them is not to search for him within, but that he is in them, unless they are not truly believing (i.e. reprobate). It seems to be a statement by Paul to sober the believers, that they see how offensive their pride and carnality is to their Lord and Savior who is in them.
At least, that’s my armchair-exegetical take!
LikeLike
John Y: Go read again the context of 2 Cor. 13:5.
RS: II Cor 13:3 “since you are looking for proof of the Christ who speaks in me.”
John Y: I’d like you to give us an example too, RS, of how you would go about looking inside yourself for Christ. Can you tell the difference of what is of self and what is of Christ? Can you make out the differences between the complexities of the human psyche, will and emotions. When I look inside myself I find of mess of conflicting thoughts, emotions, desires and passions. I am baffled as to what good it would do me to look inside myself to see if Christ is there.
RS: The Scriptures are quite clear on this issue. Simply slide over from II Cor 13:5 and move on to Galatians 2:20. The slide over one book and read Ephesians 3:16-21. Then move on to Colossians 1:27 where this great mystery of the Gospel itself is Christ in you, the hope of glory. You can also read John 17 where the Lord Himself prayed that He would be in His people as well as the love of God in them. Move on to I John 4:7-16 where it is so clear that it cannot be missed, and then be sure to read I John 5:11-13, 20. Jesus Christ dwells in His people and it is indisputable. The read evidence that one is converted (if one believes the book of I John) is that of the indwelling life of God in the soul.
The book of I John is how to tell if a person is in communion with God and with eternal life Himself (I John 1:2-3). As Paul said, 2 Corinthians 13:5 Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves! Or do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you– unless indeed you fail the test?
LikeLike
John Y.: Huh? Luther did not believe in transubstantiation (sp?) like Rome and he completely revised what Aquinas had thought and taught about the sacraments.
RS: Transubstantiation is not a complete revising of what Aquinas thought, at least from my view.
John Y.: RS, you come across like you know everything and mostly have a contrary answer for what anyone who has been arguing with you is saying.
RS: Sorry that I come across that way. I don’t know everything, but I am not going to waste time adding a lot of words to fluff up things in an effort to appear humble. I would prefer to just say it and get on with it.
John Y: How long have you been reading posts at old life and tell us a bit about yourself. What church do you attend? Are you a layman or a pastor? Did you have any seminary training? If not, what is your vocation and where have you studied at? I have never seen your name before at oldlife- how did you find the website?
RS: I have read off and on for a while. I could no longer take the things said about Edwards and the biblical Christianity that he represented and thought I would jump in. Yes, I was trained at a conservative Reformed seminary. The issue is not me. The more I say about me the more some would start going at that rather than the real issues.
LikeLike
Jack Miller: The 2 Cor. 13:5 verse – “Try your own selves, whether ye are in the faith; prove your own selves. Or know ye not as to your own selves, that Jesus Christ is in you? unless indeed ye be reprobate.”
It seems to me that the examination is to see if one is “in the faith,” i.e. believing the gospel, and not an examination of searching to see if Jesus Christ is somewhere subjectively inside. The context is the rampant sinning which is a major topic of Paul’s letter. The Corinthians are showing forth sinful works that are the opposite of evidences of a true and lively faith. The examination is to see if their acts do or don’t coincide with true faith. If not, repent. If they are “in the faith,” then good works, not sinful works, would follow.
The statement regarding Christ in them is not to search for him within, but that he is in them, unless they are not truly believing (i.e. reprobate). It seems to be a statement by Paul to sober the believers, that they see how offensive their pride and carnality is to their Lord and Savior who is in them.
At least, that’s my armchair-exegetical take!
RS: 2 Corinthians 12:9 And He has said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for power is perfected in weakness.” Most gladly, therefore, I will rather boast about my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may dwell in me. 13:3 “since you are seeking for proof of the Christ who speaks in me, and who is not weak toward you, but mighty in you. 4 For indeed He was crucified because of weakness, yet He lives because of the power of God. For we also are weak in Him, yet we will live with Him because of the power of God directed toward you. 5 Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves! Or do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you– unless indeed you fail the test?
RS: Just to make sure you know, I write in a direct way but do not know everything. Paul was defending his apostleship, not to mention dealing with other things as well. The people were looking for proof from him that Christ spoke in and through him. He wanted them to examine themselves. What were they to look for? Yes, to see if they were in the faith, but in this exam they were to recognize that Christ was in them unless they failed the test. Part of the test to see if they were in the faith was if Christ was in them.
I John 5:11 And the testimony is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son.
12 He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life.
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
OLd RS: Transubstantiation is not a complete revising of what Aquinas thought, at least from my view.
RS: Should read like this: Consubstantiation as opposed to Transubstantiation is not a complete revising.
LikeLike
OLd RS: Transubstantiation is not a complete revising of what Aquinas thought, at least from my view.
RS: Should read like this: Consubstantiation as opposed to Transubstantiation is not a complete revising.
John Y: Most who frequent this blog know of the disagreements in regards to Christology between the Lutherans and the Reformed. Lutherans believe that Christ is present in the bread and wine whereas the Reformed believe that the Holy Spirit brings the believer into the heavenlies where Christ has ascended to. Any outsider (or Arminian) would say Hocus Pocus (and whatever else you said in that Latin phrase) to either position. There really is no way to prove either position bibilically. Lutherans, Reformed and Catholics all use philosophical speculation to defend their positions regarding the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. Lutherans, Catholics and Reformed all believe that one is actually eating the body and blood of the risen and ascended Christ. Of course, it was the reenactment of the Mass which the Protestants rejected as blaphemous and therefore separated from Rome. Ironically, after Luther has been excommunicated.
Another issue the Catholic, Reformed and Lutheran theologians debated heavily was whether there was an actual ontological change which took place in the believer when partaking of the Supper (or any of the other sacraments). From what I understand, the Reformed and the Lutherans sharply parted ways with the Catholics who did believe in the ontological infusion of grace into the believer when actively participating in all 7 of their sacraments. Luther and the Reformers thought there was only biblical warrant for 2 sacraments and were vehemently against the idea of an ontological change. It is also my understanding that later Lutheran theologians, in the Saxon visitation articles, affirmed baptismal regeneration (which does imply an ontological change in the person baptized but which is not specifically stated) which Luther never taught.
Moving on to another issue- upon reflecting upon the basic argument you have been trying to make RS, that there needs to be evidence manifested that the life of Christ has actually made its residence inside the believer and we need to examine ourselves to see if Christ is in us, I want to make a few more remarks.
First of all, I just finished reading all the articles in 20th anniversary issue of Modern Reformation magazine entitled Choosing Grace and the thrust of all the articles run contrary to the points you have been trying to get across. The Reformers were all about finding and looking to Christ extra nos and they believed that the Scriptures clearly taught this. It was Edwards who heavily developed the system of looking for subjective evidence of the work of the Holy Spirit inside someones heart, affections and even mental life.
Scott Clark had this to say about Edwards approach: “Edwards’s subjectivism was in contrast to the earlier Reformed approach, which regarded the preaching of the law in its pedagogical use as praeparatio evangelii, but the terrors induced and the results reflect more romance than Reformation. Because of his neo-Platonism, Edwards established an ideal, a paradigm of conversion and religious experience, to be wrought not only progressively by the ordinary means of grace, but immediately by the Spirit. Thus, the marks of the work of the Spirit are not only faithful attendance to the means of grace and the fruit of the Spirit and dying to self and living to Christ, but specific and special marks so that the “extraordinary influences” of the Spirit become ordinary. He conceded implicitly that the revivals in Northhampton did not fit the earlier pattern of Refomed piety and practice, arguing that ‘what we have been used to or what the church of God has been used to, is not a rule by which we are to judge whether a work be the work of God, because there may be new and extraordinary works of God.’ ”
Clark continues: “For Edwards, true religion was not simply an orthodox profession of faith-Edwards was quite committed to divine sovereignty and thought of himself as an heir of Reformed orthodoxy- accompanied by an ordinary Christian life lived in communion of the saints. But he demanded more, an extraordinary experience of grace. Edwards described at length the sense of guilt and fear of damnation that the truly converted experience. Such intense experiences, he argued, could not be anything but genuine.”
Mark Noll reports this about Edwards: “Jonathan Edwards and the American Experience shows the mixed reception that Edwards received at Princeton. As they saw it, Edwards had too easily tolerated enthusiasm in the colonial Awakening, he had promoted eccentric views of a common humanity in his work on Original Sin, he had fostered unsound habits of metaphysical speculation, and his Dissertation of the Nature of True Virtue had been misguided in itself and a bad influence on later New England theology, so that by the late 19th century, B.B. Warfield made no use of Edwards ideas as such. Edwards was an honored figure in Calvinist history, but no longer a resource.”
The really deceptive thing about all of your arguments RS is that you really think you are helping people by trying to make them aware of whether Christ really lives in them by resorting to Edwards subjective methodology. What you really seem to be doing, to me, is playing the devils advocate and making people doubt their faith in what Christ did for them by exhorting them to look inside themselves to see if Christ really lives there, ie., have you experienced the intense terrors of sin or the ectacsy of the extraordinary working of the Holy Spirit as evidenced by extraoridary feats of holiness.
LikeLike
John, have you read the Westminster Standards LC Q80 and WCF 18.2 on assurance? Folks may not agree with it, but what RS is advocating for is basically the approach used in Westminster. Especially if read the expanded teaching on assurance from the period what you get is almost word for word what RS is posting.
LikeLike
Adam,
I would disagree with that assessment. RS was going beyond what the Westminster standards were calling for, which to me, as a Lutheran, are too subjective anyways and convey a heavy Puritan influence. RS was defending the writing of Edwards about the 4 yr old little girl experiencing the terror of sin in her little body and saying there was nothing odd about all of it. The point is, Edwards and RS are giving intense subjective experience much more weight and emphasis in regards to assurance of one being actually regenerated and converted than is warranted. God’s grace of forensically declaring the elect righteous in Christ is what unites us to Christ and turns one from God’s wrath to God’s favor- even while we are still ungodly in our subjective selves. It is the objective aspects of the Gospel which should have more weight and emphasis which leads to the subjective working by the Holy Spirit and which is experienced very differently from believer to believer and does not necessarily have to be as intense a experience as RS has been articulating. He did tone it down a bit after gettting hounded by others here but the fact remains that his emphasis is on the subjective experience, rather than the objective Gospel as our comfort and assurance.
LikeLike
And please don’t tell me I am committing the emphasis fallacy.
LikeLike
John Y: Any outsider (or Arminian) would say Hocus Pocus (and whatever else you said in that Latin phrase) to either position.
RS: The point, which perhaps was a bit hidden, was that if you pronounce “hoc est corpus meaum” quickly, it sounds like “hocus pocus.” I have read that this was what the common person heard the priest saying if he did not enunciate clearly.
John Y: Moving on to another issue- upon reflecting upon the basic argument you have been trying to make RS, that there needs to be evidence manifested that the life of Christ has actually made its residence inside the believer and we need to examine ourselves to see if Christ is in us, I want to make a few more remarks.
First of all, I just finished reading all the articles in 20th anniversary issue of Modern Reformation magazine entitled Choosing Grace and the thrust of all the articles run contrary to the points you have been trying to get across. The Reformers were all about finding and looking to Christ extra nos and they believed that the Scriptures clearly taught this. It was Edwards who heavily developed the system of looking for subjective evidence of the work of the Holy Spirit inside someones heart, affections and even mental life.
RS: Calvin and Luther spoke of union with Christ. It was not an unknown teaching to them. It is a great error to think that Edwards was simply looking for subjective evidence of the work of the Holy Spirit. If you read the whole story of Phebe Bartlet carefully, you will see that there is a lot of objective evidence given. The state of the affections and of the mental life are actually cases of objective evidence that the person can see and others can see over a period of time.
John Y: Scott Clark had this to say about Edwards approach: “Edwards’s subjectivism was in contrast to the earlier Reformed approach, which regarded the preaching of the law in its pedagogical use as praeparatio evangelii, but the terrors induced and the results reflect more romance than Reformation. Because of his neo-Platonism, Edwards established an ideal, a paradigm of conversion and religious experience, to be wrought not only progressively by the ordinary means of grace, but immediately by the Spirit.
RS: Neo-Platonism? That is not a claim that many would make. Others thought he was a disciple of John Locke. I guess that is a rather subjective claim itself. Anyway, all of these things are evidently in the eye of the beholder. I don’t see Edwards in conflict with the earlier Reformed theologians at all, especially if you view him in light of the Puritans. I think we all need to read John 3:3-8 very closely. The Spirit blows as He wills. He is not limited to the sacraments, and indeed the study of the Bible and prayer are also means of grace. Some think of fellowship as a means of grace as well.
John Y: Thus, the marks of the work of the Spirit are not only faithful attendance to the means of grace and the fruit of the Spirit and dying to self and living to Christ, but specific and special marks so that the “extraordinary influences” of the Spirit become ordinary. He conceded implicitly that the revivals in Northhampton did not fit the earlier pattern of Refomed piety and practice, arguing that ‘what we have been used to or what the church of God has been used to, is not a rule by which we are to judge whether a work be the work of God, because there may be new and extraordinary works of God.’ ”
RS: Throughout the history of the Reformed Church, and I am speaking of early America, Scotland, Ireland, and England, revivals were a main part of how they viewed church life. When the Spirit comes among His people, sure enough the intensity of conviction increases and the joy of the Lord increases. I am not sure why anyone would even argue against that. Reading the letters of Paul and finding his use of doxology would make one think that he was certainly used to thinking that things were different than Scott would write about. By the way, the Westminster standards clearly tell us that they are not the ultimate authority for all disputes and so on. Westminster states that Scripture is the authority and that is is the Spirit who speaks in them.
John Y: Clark continues: “For Edwards, true religion was not simply an orthodox profession of faith-Edwards was quite committed to divine sovereignty and thought of himself as an heir of Reformed orthodoxy- accompanied by an ordinary Christian life lived in communion of the saints. But he demanded more, an extraordinary experience of grace. Edwards described at length the sense of guilt and fear of damnation that the truly converted experience. Such intense experiences, he argued, could not be anything but genuine.”
RS: And the problem is? Remember, he was defending the revival or awakening and not necessarily what the everyday Christian experience would be like.
John Y: Mark Noll reports this about Edwards: “Jonathan Edwards and the American Experience shows the mixed reception that Edwards received at Princeton. As they saw it, Edwards had too easily tolerated enthusiasm in the colonial Awakening, he had promoted eccentric views of a common humanity in his work on Original Sin, he had fostered unsound habits of metaphysical speculation, and his Dissertation of the Nature of True Virtue had been misguided in itself and a bad influence on later New England theology, so that by the late 19th century, B.B. Warfield made no use of Edwards ideas as such. Edwards was an honored figure in Calvinist history, but no longer a resource.”
RS: Interesting, I have read Warfield giving high remarks about Edwards.
John Y: The really deceptive thing about all of your arguments RS is that you really think you are helping people by trying to make them aware of whether Christ really lives in them by resorting to Edwards subjective methodology.
RS: You might consider that I have quoted Scripture after Scripture on this. But again, you may think of Edwards’ methodology as subjective, but think of it as quite objective. The joy of the Lord is an objective evidence.
John Y: What you really seem to be doing, to me, is playing the devils advocate and making people doubt their faith in what Christ did for them by exhorting them to look inside themselves to see if Christ really lives there, ie., have you experienced the intense terrors of sin or the ectacsy of the extraordinary working of the Holy Spirit as evidenced by extraoridary feats of holiness.
RS: Where have I said that all people must have experienced intense terrors of sin or some ecstasy of the Holy Spirit? I have said and am saying that not all have to have the intense aspects of these thing, but during revival many people had them and they were not wrong. Indeed people must have some conviction of sin because that is the work of the Spirit and what are people to be saved from if not sin? Why would a person flee to Christ who died for sin if not out of becoming aware and even fearful of sin and the wrath of God for sin?
LikeLike
John –
“RS was going beyond what the Westminster standards were calling for, which to me, as a Lutheran, are too subjective anyways…”
What do you mean by “too subjective?”
LikeLike
John Yeazel: Adam, I would disagree with that assessment. RS was going beyond what the Westminster standards were calling for, which to me, as a Lutheran, are too subjective anyways and convey a heavy Puritan influence.
RS: Must to be clear, I have given what Westminster says on Assurance of Grace and several statements on various aspects of Christianity. If you take the time to read through those, you will see union with Christ and the affections being thought of as quite necessary. For what it is worth, I think Luther’s Bondage of the Will should be required reading for all ministers. As a Lutheran, do you believe what it teaches?
Chapter XVIII
Of Assurance of Grace and Salvation
I. Although hypocrites and other unregenerate men may vainly deceive themselves with false hopes and carnal presumptions of being in the favor of God, and estate of salvation[1] (which hope of theirs shall perish):[2] yet such as truly believe in the Lord Jesus, and love Him in sincerity, endeavouring to walk in all good conscience before Him, may, in this life, be certainly assured that they are in the state of grace,[3] and may rejoice in the hope of the glory of God, which hope shall never make them ashamed.[4]
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]
III. This infallible assurance does not so belong to the essence of faith, but that a true believer may wait long, and conflict with many difficulties, before he be partaker of it:[10] yet, being enabled by the Spirit to know the things which are freely given him of God, he may, without extraordinary revelation in the right use of ordinary means, attain thereunto.[11] And therefore it is the duty of every one to give all diligence to make his calling and election sure,[12] that thereby his heart may be enlarged in peace and joy in the Holy Ghost, in love and thankfulness to God, and in strength and cheerfulness in the duties of obedience,[13] the proper fruits of this assurance; so far is it from inclining men to looseness.[14]
WLC: Q. 66. What is that union which the elect have with Christ?
A. The union which the elect have with Christ is the work of God’s grace,[270] whereby they are spiritually and mystically, yet really and inseparably, joined to Christ as their head and husband;[271] which is done in their effectual calling.[272]
Q. 69. What is the communion in grace which the members of the invisible church have with Christ?
A. The communion in grace which the members of the invisible church have with Christ, is their partaking of the virtue of his mediation, in their justification,[283] adoption,[284] sanctification, and whatever else, in this life, manifests their union with him.[285]
Q. 80. Can true believers be infallibly assured that they are in the estate of grace, and that they shall persevere therein unto salvation?
A. Such as truly believe in Christ, and endeavour to walk in all good conscience before him,[349] may, without extraordinary revelation, by faith grounded upon the truth of God’s promises, and by the Spirit enabling them to discern in themselves those graces to which the promises of life are made,[350] and bearing witness with their spirits that they are the children of God,[351] be infallibly assured that they are in the estate of grace, and shall persevere therein unto salvation.[352]
Q. 83. What is the communion in glory with Christ which the members of the invisible church enjoy in this life?
A. The members of the invisible church have communicated to them in this life the firstfruits of glory with Christ, as they are members of him their head, and so in him are interested in that glory which he is fully possessed of;[360] and, as an earnest thereof, enjoy the sense of God’s love,[361] peace of conscience, joy in the Holy Ghost, and hope of glory;[362] as, on the contrary, sense of God’s revenging wrath, horror of conscience, and a fearful expectation of judgment, are to the wicked the beginning of their torments which they shall endure after death.[363]
Q. 147. What are the duties required in the tenth commandment?
A. The duties required in the tenth commandment are, such a full contentment with our own condition,[911] and such a charitable frame of the whole soul toward our neighbour, as that all our inward motions and affections touching him, tend unto, and further all that good which is his.[912]
Q. 155. How is the Word made effectual to salvation?
A. The Spirit of God maketh the reading, but especially the preaching of the Word, an effectual means of enlightening,[993] convincing, and humbling sinners;[994] of driving them out of themselves, and drawing them unto Christ;[995] of conforming them to his image,[996] and subduing them to his will;[997] of strengthening them against temptations and corruptions;[998] of building them up in grace,[999] and establishing their hearts in holiness and comfort through faith unto salvation.[1000]
Q. 161. How do the sacraments become effectual means of salvation?
A. The sacraments become effectual means of salvation, not by any power in themselves, or any virtue derived from the piety or intention of him by whom they are administered, but only by the working of the Holy Ghost, and the blessing of Christ, by whom they are instituted[1047].
Q. 174. What is required of them that receive the sacrament of the Lord’s supper in the time of the administration of it?
A. It is required of them that receive the sacrament of the Lord’s supper, that, during the time of the administration of it, with all holy reverence and attention they wait upon God in that ordinance,[1112] diligently observe the sacramental elements and actions,[1113] heedfully discern the Lord’s body,[1114] and affectionately meditate on his death and sufferings,[1115] and thereby stir up themselves to a vigorous exercise of their graces;[1116] in judging themselves,[1117] and sorrowing for sin;[1118] in earnest hungering and thirsting after Christ,[1119] feeding on him by faith,[1120] receiving of his fullness,[1121] trusting in his merits,[1122] rejoicing in his love,[1123] giving thanks for his grace;[1124] in renewing of their covenant with God,[1125] and love to all the saints.[1126]
Q. 182. How doth the Spirit help us to pray?
A. We not knowing what to pray for as we ought, the Spirit helpeth our infirmities, by enabling us to understand both for whom, and what, and how prayer is to be made; and by working and quickening in our hearts (although not in all persons, nor at all times, in the same measure) those apprehensions, affections, and graces which are requisite for the right performance of that duty.[1167]
LikeLike
John Yeazel: RS was defending the writing of Edwards about the 4 yr old little girl experiencing the terror of sin in her little body and saying there was nothing odd about all of it.
RS: You are very correct at this point, except for the point that her terror was primarily in the soul. If you read much in the history of revivals, you will see that same thing happening over and over again. People of all ages have terror over their unconverted state.
John Yeazel: The point is, Edwards and RS are giving intense subjective experience much more weight and emphasis in regards to assurance of one being actually regenerated and converted than is warranted.
RS: At this point you are straying from the facts. Speaking for myself, and I suppose I could be accused of being raised at the breasts of Edwards, the point of coming under conviction of sin is so that a person may seek the Lord for regeneration. Regeneration, however, is not just something that happens out there somewhere, it is the act of God taking one that is dead in sins and trespasses and making that sinner alive in Christ. It is the act of God taking one that by nature is a child of wrath and giving that one a new nature and making them a child of the living God. When a change that drastic happens, there must be evidence of that change. A change of mind, affections, and will must follow. While you consider this subjective evidence, it is objective as well. These things must be there and they must be there for others to see as well.
John Yeazel: God’s grace of forensically declaring the elect righteous in Christ is what unites us to Christ and turns one from God’s wrath to God’s favor- even while we are still ungodly in our subjective selves.
RS: If the elect are in Christ, then they are already united to Christ. God declares sinners righteous in His sight only because the sinners are married to Christ. Indeed, they are still ungodly in that sense in themselves.
John Yeazel: It is the objective aspects of the Gospel which should have more weight and emphasis which leads to the subjective working by the Holy Spirit and which is experienced very differently from believer to believer and does not necessarily have to be as intense a experience as RS has been articulating.
RS: I have not articulated a necessary intense experience, though I have said that it is not something that should be dismissed and it is not strange. If the objective aspects of the Gospel are stressed, and by that I assume you are talking about justification, then that will only lead to intellectual affirmations of the truth. It is not agreeing that justification by grace alone through faith alone is true that a person is saved, but it is when they actually happen in the soul. What is the evidence that a person intellectually believes justification? A simple “yes” to a few questions. What is the evidence that a person is really and truly united to Christ and is truly justified? That person is different in his or her thinking, affections, and choices. In other words, that person is a new creature in Christ and Christ is in that person.
John Yeazel: He did tone it down a bit after gettting hounded by others here but the fact remains that his emphasis is on the subjective experience, rather than the objective Gospel as our comfort and assurance.
RS: I don’t think I toned it down, but simply that some assumed that I was saying something that I was not in fact saying. I don’t think that I am emphasizing the subjective experience over the Gospel as such, but am trying to say that there will be some objective experience. I would also say that what you are calling “objective experience” is in fact part of the objective Gospel. Jesus came to save people from the pleasure of sin and give them a joy in Himself. The evidence of that is when a soul has fading pleasure from sin and an increasing joy in the things of God. In other words, that is part of the Gospel and it is objective evidence of the living Christ in His people.
LikeLike
John Yeazel: The really deceptive thing about all of your arguments RS is that you really think you are helping people by trying to make them aware of whether Christ really lives in them by resorting to Edwards subjective methodology. What you really seem to be doing, to me, is playing the devils advocate and making people doubt their faith in what Christ did for them by exhorting them to look inside themselves to see if Christ really lives there, ie., have you experienced the intense terrors of sin or the ectacsy of the extraordinary working of the Holy Spirit as evidenced by extraoridary feats of holiness.
RS: Your comments have stuck with me to some degree and makes me realize that you are reading into what I am saying and attaching things I don’t intend to the words. While I replied once, the degree of exaggeration requires a second reply. I would disagree that this is Edwards’ subjective methodology, but rather it is what he found in Scripture. It was not Calvin’s subjective doctrine of election, but instead what Calvin saw in Scripture.
Now, I am not playing devil’s advocate in the slightest, but rather am an advocate for Christ. Your words are far from the truth in almost any and all senses: “making people doubt their faith in what Christ did for them by exhorting them to look inside themselves to see if Christ really lives there, ie., have you experienced the intense terrors of sin or the ectacsy of the extraordinary working of the Holy Spirit as evidenced by extraoridary feats of holiness.”
1. I am not making people doubt their faith, but indeed faith beholds Christ rather than faith beholding faith.
2. People cannot know what Christ did for them unless He has cleansed their hearts, has been united to them, and so they are declared just and have the love of God dwelling in them. It is Scriptures that speak to this over and over about Christ in the soul. What Christ has really done will be applied, so it cannot be known what He did until it is applied.
3. I have not claimed that all people must experience intense terrors of sin, but only that some may and that is not outside the bounds of Scripture or evident reason. In fact, Luther had intense terrors of sin for a long, long time. So did John Bunyan and Thomas Hooker and…
4. I have not claimed some ecstasy of the extraordinary work of the Holy Spirit. Instead, I have claimed that all true believers must have some degree of love and will have some degree of joy.
5. I have not claimed extraordinary feats of holiness, whatever those may be. Instead, I have said and I believe that no believer can be perfect and in fact all that a believer does is tainted by sin.
6. I am not sure where you got some of the things that you have ascribed to me, but they are highly inaccurate.
LikeLike
emem, I think John is referring to chap. 18 on assurance, which if you read in the light of the 1630s debates over antinomianism in New England, looks like an attempt to achieve a moderate position and stave off antinomianism by recognizing the validity of looking for fruit (good works) in the life of the believer as a means of assurance. That doesn’t mean the Westminster Divines were paying attention to the Boston in North America. But it makes me wonder if experimental Calvinism on both sides of the Atlantic was stirring up troubled waters over where believers should look for assurance.
LikeLike
Hebrews 6:1 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,
Hebrews 9:14
How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
Using our works to get assurance does not work because works done without assurance are not pleasing to God. In John 3:17-20, the Pharisees like Nicodemus got assurance from their works. But the light of the gospel exposes our “good works” as “dead works”. And our “dead works” are sins.
Certainly we are commanded to be moral. But morality can be done in the flesh. To doubt that you are saved because of what you did or didn’t do is to take the focus off of what Christ did.
While we need to be warned of a “dead faith”, assurance is from believing on what Christ did for the elect with His death on the cross and NOT from believing in our own “mortification”. Even though I agree that Christians have doubts and degrees of assurance, I no longer think that we get assurance ALSO by works.
Of course there are many Arminians who oppose assurance by works but these Arminians will not submit to the righteousness of God. The problem then is not their approach to assurance but ehir false “jesus died for everybody” gospel. They only want to talk about grace, but they don’t talk about for whom Christ died or about the fact that God does not give grace to everybody. These Arminian antinomians only want to talk about “no performance”, because they don’t believe the truth about Christ’s performance for the elect.
I would suggest that these Arminian antinomians inherently still think they have “established their own righteousness”. The difference between these Arminian decisionist and the Calvinist “neonomians” is that the Arminians think they already did what they needed to do to make Christ’s death work for them. The neonomians, on the other hand, thank their god for continuing to prove to them by their own good works that Christ’s work was for them.
Neither group considers the possibility that their works are “dead works”. The standard here is the doctrine of the gospel.
LikeLike
mcmark: Using our works to get assurance does not work because works done without assurance are not pleasing to God. In John 3:17-20, the Pharisees like Nicodemus got assurance from their works. But the light of the gospel exposes our “good works” as “dead works”. And our “dead works” are sins.
Certainly we are commanded to be moral. But morality can be done in the flesh. To doubt that you are saved because of what you did or didn’t do is to take the focus off of what Christ did.
While we need to be warned of a “dead faith”, assurance is from believing on what Christ did for the elect with His death on the cross and NOT from believing in our own “mortification”. Even though I agree that Christians have doubts and degrees of assurance, I no longer think that we get assurance ALSO by works.
RS:
Ephesians 2:10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.
2 Corinthians 9:8 And God is able to make all grace abound to you, so that always having all sufficiency in everything, you may have an abundance for every good deed;
1 Timothy 2:10 but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness.
Titus 2:14 who gave Himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed, and to purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds.
Hebrews 10:24 and let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds,
LikeLike
Richard Smith,
I have come to the conclusion that RS is probably your internet name and that you are most likely a pastor. Instead of me responding directly to your last posts I have decided it might be better if I talk from my own personal experience in order for you to understand better why I react to your subjective method (although you keep wanting to call subjective experiences- like joy- objective) of guaging whether someone is actually converted or not and how to go about helping someone who is having doubts about their regeneration and actual “union” with Christ.
First of all, the union issue has been debated heavily at oldlife and there are very subtle differences in how union with Christ is understood. Those who see union with Christ following regeneration and faith usually take a subjective bent in how this union should manifest itself while those who see union as more legal and forensic tend to emphasize the objective aspects of the Gospel while not allowing the subjective to predominate in the discussion. Also, from what I understand, most of the Finnish interpretation of Luther and his concept of union with Christ are taken from his earlier writings (pre 1525) before his mature theological insights had been developed and established. So, there is a lot of cherry picking going on from Luther’s writings without regard to his theological development. Just like there seems to me to be a lot of cherry picking going on with the scriptures RS emphasizes when arguing his points. I probably am just as guilty when arguing for the objective gospel with the subjective working of the Spirit being the natural outgrowth and fruit of what God did for us when he elected us and applied what Christ did for us when baptized into Christ (whether by imputation, water baptism or both). BTW, after reflecting about McMarks beliefs about union with Christ being tied to God’s legal and forensic declaration of us as righteous in Christ taking place before regeneration, repentance and faith by the Spirit (logically, perhaps not temporally) would give more creedance to baptismal regeneration. I’m sure McMark would disagree with me but at least one could be more understanding in regards to why someone would come to those conclusions- especially when reading Math. 28:19, Mark 16:16, 1 Peter 3:18-22; Titus 4:3-7 and Romans chapter 6 (in particular verses 3-4) in light of that understanding. I could go on and explain how infant baptism fits into this understanding too but will refrain at this time. This is why Lutherans emphasize looking back at one’s baptism (especially in times of struggle with sin and near despair) to augment ones faith when everything around one seems to be crying out that they are not really a regenerate Christian. Luther called this struggle and time of trial the Anfechtungen and he could only find comfort in the Christ of the sacraments during these times. Personally, I think that is why Romans 7 follows Romans 6. “O wretched man that I am, who will deliver me from this body of death- thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!” Even after our death to sin in Romans 6, Paul makes it clear that the Christian will still struggle with his sin and that it gets overwhelming at times. Looking subjectively into our own selves is not very helpful during this struggling state of being. That is why Lutherans exhort believers to look back on their baptism and find Christ’s payment and forgiveness of our sins in the Supper. Confession and absolution from a called and ordained Pastor is also a very powerful comfort and assurance to the struggling Christian. Of course, those with revivalist leanings find these sources of comfort and assurance not so attractive. They want the joy of the Lord deep down in their hearts 24/7 and they will kick, scream and yell to get it back when it is gone. Okay, I’m using hyperbole again. I’m sure RS would say you will only get the joy back after you repent. However, I think that is a cruel thing to say to someone who is struggling with issues in his life that are hard to get a good handle on. Sometimes it takes a while to get to a place of repentance. Just read the book of Job for an example of that.
Well, I have gone on way longer than I have intended so I will spare those who are reading the posts from my personal experiences. Although, I will probably bring them up again at some point if the dialog continues.
LikeLike
“Well, I have gone on way longer than I have intended so I will spare those who are reading the posts from my personal experiences.”
I am hearing Zrim,MM and other Oldlife frequenters giving a sigh of relief.
BTW, thanks Darryl for the generous explanation to Eminem, the rapper, of what I meant in regards to the Westminster Confession of faith being a bit overly subjective in places.
Another BTW, yes RS, I have read Luther’s Bondage of the Will a couple times but I have Packers translation of it and it does not a chapter 17 in it. I think it is an abridged version of the book. In the concluding pages of Packers translation he does go into assurance but also references Romans chapter 7 as part of that section on assurance too. So, I am afraid you are cherry picking again. Suffice it to say at this time that the Law and Gospel approach and method is a lot different than the subjective method and approach of Edwards. Perhaps that can be discussed more fully in future posts too if they continue. That issue has been touched upon but not really discussed that thoroughly.
LikeLike
“I am hearing Zrim,MM and other Oldlife frequenters giving a sigh of relief”
I can’t speak for others, JY, but I find your biography pretty interesting. I keep on doing “Hunter S. Thompson” image searches expecting to see you riding shotgun. Back in the day, that is.
LikeLike
I like it when those who teach universal atonement and those who teach effective atonement for the elect begin to see that we are not talking about two versions of the same gospel, with one group being on the better side of the road.
There is no contradiction between the idea of God saving as many as believe, and the many Scripture texts which teach that God has chosen some specific certain sinners to salvation by faith. I Cor 1:16 “The word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.”
Whatever we teach or don’t teach about water and “sacraments”, we must not teach that God saves the elect apart from the true gospel. I Cor 1:16 teaches that the message of the cross (the death, what was it for, what difference did it make?) is the power of God. Where there is a false gospel, there is no power of God to save.
The necessity of believing the gospel by no means contradicts the truth that “God chose you to be saved through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth.” (II Thess 2:13)
Those who want to bring their experience here and now in alongside what Jesus did then and there will always end up saying that the death of Jesus is not enough in itself to make the difference between saved and lost. The Scripture teaches that there is a repentance which does not please God, and a repentance which does.
Romans 1:16 –“the gospel is the power of salvation to as many as believe”. Any “experience” or any “sacrament” that thinks of itself as the condition instead of the result of the cross is an evil thing. Any “worship” by either individual or church which considers itself to be “distributing” either the imputation or the benefits of Christ’s cross work is an abomination.
LikeLike
MM,
I have more of a man crush on Nick Nolte than Hunter S. Thompson. Although I have listened to a lot of interviews with and by Hunter and find them very amusing.
LikeLike
I also think the owner of the Indianapolis Colts is an interesting character- especially after listening to his interview with Hannah Storm on ESPN that has been airing recently.
LikeLike
Sorry, my friend D.G. Hart, you don’t get it and neither did I, until tonight. My wife, who HATES my blog, who worries about my mental frailty, and so on, got animated and began to discuss her response to Edwards. I interrupted, not really in these words, “sorry Lassie, I think thee understandeth not” when the following stunning revelation hit me — Edwards genius was that virtually anyone could take what he wrote and apply it to themselves. Just because I am writing a blog on Edwards gives me no right to interfere with another’s interaction with the idea. To wit: Edwards solution for worldliness was not Christ, but to think on death. Huh? What is Edwards thinking? (he says it in his writings — google it, or see my blog. Anyway, so, my wife points to how death points to Christ, and then I butt in. Whoops.
My Blog on Edwards, where I link to this page, http://edwardsreligiousgenius.blogspot.com/
LikeLike
DG, once again I must gently disagree with you about this young child — I do know she was in anguish, and it would have been better for her to get the bedrock teaching in trust that Paul Tripp describes. However, in those days, children lived in the spectre of death (see https://www.google.com/search?q=spectre+of+death&rlz=1C1OPRA_enUS509US509&espv=210&es_sm=93&tbm=isch&imgil=gfjFsho-7K-z2M%253A%253Bhttps%253A%252F%252Fencrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com%252Fimages%253Fq%253Dtbn%253AANd9GcS2tBQZPjm4XUgITV0gXzTCrFFdF07CDCZn3_eM30CSfjTekQkE%253B400%253B451%253BmP1CO6nvJe5XxM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.cartoonstock.com%25252Fdirectory%25252Fs%25252Fspectre_of_death.asp&source=iu&usg=__Dm-zCemyYttxMRjQFeFnA8w3bf8%3D&sa=X&ei=KkoTU6KwLsSM1AGp-YCYBQ&ved=0CDsQ9QEwAg&biw=1242&bih=607#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=gfjFsho-7K-z2M%253A%3BmP1CO6nvJe5XxM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.cartoonstock.com%252Fnewscartoons%252Fcartoonists%252Frmc%252Flowres%252Fdeath-spectre_of_death-reaper-lost_property-scythes-grim_reaper-rmcn135l.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.cartoonstock.com%252Fdirectory%252Fs%252Fspectre_of_death.asp%3B400%3B451)
and as disquieting as the recounting of her tale is, I fear it was just reality in those days. I remember visiting a campground in winter down south when no one was around, and it felt as if the trees were talking to me. Lest you think I am entirely crazy, these images are used in the Lord of the Rings movies as well.
LikeLike