The Redeemer Report features an article by Tim Keller defending revival and conversion as biblical. Keller’s outspokenness on revivalism should not be a surprise since he was a student of Richard Lovelace (Dynamics of Spiritual Life), and since he has defended revivals on other occasions. Followers of Keller’s career and writings may be forgiven if they wonder how revival goes down with the upwardly mobile and aesthetically informed Manhattanites who gravitate to Redeemer Church. (You can take the boy out of Gordon-Conwell, but can you take Gordon-Conwell out of the boy?)
Keller’s latest column offers a succinct biblical theology of revival. What caught my eye, though, was less the theology or revival than the unspoken interlocutors behind Keller’s argument. Why all of the biblical data he assembles needs to be called a revival or a conversion is a question Keller does not answer. Revival itself is a confusing metaphor for spiritual life. It suggests someone who was alive, died, and is now brought back to life. How helpful can it be to use this image with reference to a person who is not regenerate? And just as pertinent, can it ever be used for a saint? Do saints die spiritually and then need resuscitation? If so, doesn’t revival imply that saints won’t persevere? This might explain the appeal of revival to the likes of Finney.
But back to Keller’s unidentified readers. He writes with a measure of hostility rarely seen:
As I sat looking at my computer screen at the title I’d written for this article, I was somewhat bemused by the fact that a defense of conversion and revival was even necessary. But so it is. There are quarters of the church now questioning whether or not conversion, the new birth, giving oneself to Christ, etc., are topics that should even be raised. Conversion, and its corporate expression, revival, are thought to be manifestations of Western individualistic thinking.
Keller adds, again with a surprising edge:
The point of this article is not so that you (or I) can win arguments with those of a different persuasion. Christians throwing theological brickbats at one another is only amusing the Evil One. Rather, we should move forward positively to seek revival in our own lives and churches and to joyfully share the Gospel with those who do not yet know Christ. Changed lives and changed community will both glorify God and fill us with the joy unspeakable.
Let me be clear, I am critical of revivals and revivalists not for the sake of throwing brickbats (whatever they are). I am interested in the ways in which revivals have undermined reformation. I would contend (and have) that the better word to use for improvement in the church is not revival but reform. The rise of Protestantism was not a revival. It was a reformation. Meanwhile, the interior turn that experimental Calvinism nurtured and that gave rise to revivalism, acted as a solvent on those marks of reformation by which we identified a true church — proclamation of the gospel (creeds), rightly administered sacraments (liturgy), and discipline (polity). If revivalists were not inherently anti-formalists, they might be more willing to consider the importance of these formal aspects of church life. But ever since George Whitefield, revivalists have been more concerned with “the heart” than they have with the churchly qualities that manifest the heart and unite believers to the body of Christ.
Of course, other good reasons exist for raising questions about revivals and conversion. From Charles Finney’s New Measures to Jonathan Edwards’ — another pro-revival New York pastor — gullibility over the conversion of four-year olds, revivalism has a checkered past. If Keller is such an effective apologist for revival, he needs to be as empathetic with revivalism’s critics as he is with Christianity’s unbelieving opponents who live in large metropolitan centers.
Old Life 
Hey, what’s that supposed to mean about Gordon-Conwell?
LikeLike
the interior turn that experimental Calvinism nurtured and that gave rise to revivalism, acted as a solvent on those marks of reformation by which we identified a true church — proclamation of the gospel (creeds), rightly administered sacraments (liturgy), and discipline (polity).
Now that is a very nicely-phrased analysis. Well-said, DGH!
-=CAD=-
LikeLike
John, think about it — A. J. Gordon AND Russell Conwell, with a cup of Lovelace thrown in? That’s not a recipe for Old School Presbyterianism.
LikeLike
DGH, fair enough, but Finney regularly receives a pretty good bashing at GC. The shadow of David Wells looms large in those parts. I mean, T. David Gordon was a GC guy too. Heck, several GC profs are regular Modern Reformation contributors.
Your larger point here is right on the money, but give ol’ Gordon-Conwell a break!
LikeLike
Calling it all either a conversion or revival reminds me of how Martyn Lloyd Jones would stop his expositions and take three or four chapters to describe a variety of experiences of many
different kinds of folks with many different kinds of theology and then label all these narratives as “the baptism with the Spirit” .
Jones thought that many believers did not feel the joy of a “full and complete” assurance, and so he kept asking his hearers to want MORE. In other worlds, if you didn’t understand these experiences of Arminians and Wesleyans as Jones did, your doctrine would lead to your complacency. ML-J read the events of Acts where the Holy Spirit is given on different occasions (Acts 8:14-17, 10:44-46, and 19:6) as imperatives that called for repeating certain extraordinary emotions..
People can deny that this “desire for revival” is in competition with the normal exposition of the
Gospel, but I think it’s a real distraction.
LikeLike
DGH, would love to hear more thoughts about conversion.
LikeLike
I don’t think I’d ever singly encountered the notion that if a phenomenom has a title (Revival) which doesn’t in any way harmonise with our Bible understanding of the way God works to bring spiritual new life that this should be considered an important sign that what’s being talked about may not be so biblical after all.
Very useful thought.
Thanks for that.
LikeLike
D.G. Hart: Why all of the biblical data he assembles needs to be called a revival or a conversion is a question Keller does not answer. Revival itself is a confusing metaphor for spiritual life. It suggests someone who was alive, died, and is now brought back to life. How helpful can it be to use this image with reference to a person who is not regenerate? And just as pertinent, can it ever be used for a saint? Do saints die spiritually and then need resuscitation? If so, doesn’t revival imply that saints won’t persevere? This might explain the appeal of revival to the likes of Finney.
RS: Perhaps if the Scripture was searched and the history of real revivals were looked at objectively these questions would not need to be asked. The word English word “revive” is the English word used to translate the Old Testament with the meaning to bring life or to live. Regarding how “revival” is used in the history of revival it refers to the church primarily. It has the idea of the presence of God coming again to His people in power. It is bringing life and power back to the people. So it is the reviving of the life of the church because God is the life of the church.
Corresponding to revival is the idea of awakening. Those outside the church need to be awakened to their very real danger and to their sin. So it used to be used of churches being revived and then the awakening that went on around the church. Some used the term “revival” in a way that spoke to both concepts in an effort to use shorthand, but it is not quite right. “Revival” is a great word and very descriptive as it was used in history by those who sought for God Himself to come down.
Isaiah 57:15 For thus says the high and exalted One Who lives forever, whose name is Holy, “I dwell on a high and holy place, And also with the contrite and lowly of spirit In order to revive the spirit of the lowly And to revive the heart of the contrite.
Psalm 143:11 For the sake of Your name, O LORD, revive me. In Your righteousness bring my soul out of trouble.
Psalm 119:156 Great are Your mercies, O LORD; Revive me according to Your ordinances.
D.G. Hart: Let me be clear, I am critical of revivals and revivalists not for the sake of throwing brickbats (whatever they are). I am interested in the ways in which revivals have undermined reformation.
RS: It might be helpful to distinguish between the kind of revival that Edwards (truly Reformed) sought from God and the kind that Finney (Pelagian) sought to work up by himself rather than lump them together.
D.G. Hart: I would contend (and have) that the better word to use for improvement in the church is not revival but reform. The rise of Protestantism was not a revival. It was a reformation.
RS: Then that would not be accurate. There can be no true reform without God coming down among His people. There was a Roman Catholic reformation of sorts, but no revival. What was it? Moralism and nothing more. The Gospel of Jesus Christ was recovered and preached during the Reformation and people were made alive. They were revived in the sense that they were made alive. In Adam all died, but in Christ all are made alive. In that sense dead sinners are revived.
D.G. Hart: Meanwhile, the interior turn that experimental Calvinism nurtured and that gave rise to revivalism, acted as a solvent on those marks of reformation by which we identified a true church — proclamation of the gospel (creeds), rightly administered sacraments (liturgy), and discipline (polity).
RS: It was Arminianism that gave rise to revivalism. The Gospel is the Gospel of the glory of God and the gospel of the glory of Christ. A creed cannot contain the glory of God. While creeds are necessary and good, in the sense that they contain doctrine, God cannot be contained by a creed.
D.G. Hart: If revivalists were not inherently anti-formalists, they might be more willing to consider the importance of these formal aspects of church life. But ever since George Whitefield, revivalists have been more concerned with “the heart” than they have with the churchly qualities that manifest the heart and unite believers to the body of Christ.
RS: Well, it is not as if the Bible is silent on the vital imporance of the heart. The Bible is quite clear in its opposition to forms rather than true life. Worship is not to be according to forms as such, but instead the only acceptable worship is to be in spirit and in truth.
D.G. Hart: Of course, other good reasons exist for raising questions about revivals and conversion. From Charles Finney’s New Measures to Jonathan Edwards’ — another pro-revival New York pastor — gullibility over the conversion of four-year olds, revivalism has a checkered past.
RS: But again, what Edwards sought from God Finney sought to do by himself. There is no real comparison between the two. Edwards was not gullible over the conversion of Phebe Bartlet, he simply recorded what God was doing in her. Indeed revivalism (read Finney and those of a like mind) has a checkered past, as does rationalism and sacramentalism, but Edwards was not involved in revivalism.
LikeLike
Richard, I’m glad to see in your response to John that you at least acknowledge your background because your answers can sound like the computer, Hal, in 2001 A Space Odyssey. You say that if I read Scripture “objectively” I’ll see how appropriate “revival” is. Hello? Objectively? Are you reading Edwards or Scripture objectively? Case in point, you interpret the Reformation as a revival. But the reformers did not use the word revival (btw, you also say that Calvin was too Roman Catholic, so how good a revival was the Reformation?). Revival was a word introduced after the Bible, the early church, and the Reformation. That doesn’t settle whether it was good or bad. But it is hardly objective to be able to claim “revival” for all the good things in church history you approve. Your view of revival is almost as unfalsifiable as the proponents of W— V—.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: Richard, I’m glad to see in your response to John that you at least acknowledge your background because your answers can sound like the computer, Hal, in 2001 A Space Odyssey.
RS: Interesting, and I thought I was roundly being accused of stressing emotionalism and being too subjective.
D. G. Hart: You say that if I read Scripture “objectively” I’ll see how appropriate “revival” is. Hello? Objectively? Are you reading Edwards or Scripture objectively? Case in point, you interpret the Reformation as a revival.
RS: Indeed, when the Spirit comes down and many people are converted in a short period of time, that would be classified as a revival and as not following the slow work of the normal church.
D. G. Hart: But the reformers did not use the word revival (btw, you also say that Calvin was too Roman Catholic, so how good a revival was the Reformation?).
RS: Which is not really a criticism at all (revival). Yes, I firmly believe that Calvin and Luther were right in saying that the Church should always be reforming. They were not perfect and no one else is perfect either. I simply don’t think they reformed enough in the area of the sacraments.
D. G. Hart: Revival was a word introduced after the Bible, the early church, and the Reformation. That doesn’t settle whether it was good or bad. But it is hardly objective to be able to claim “revival” for all the good things in church history you approve. Your view of revival is almost as unfalsifiable as the proponents of W— V—.
RS: I am not sure how it is not objective to recognize a revival as when the Spirit of God comes down, the churches come alive with God, and many people are converted in a short period of time. But more to the point of the letter above, I would hope that you would at least come to see that Finney the Pelagian was a lot different than Edwards the Calvinist.
Calvin on Colossians 1:27 “What he said of the Gentiles generally he applies to the Colossians in particular, that they may more effectually recognize in themselves the grace of God, and may embrace it with greater reverence. He says, therefore, ‘which is in Christ’, meaning by this, that all the secret is contained in Christ, and that all the riches of heavenly wisdom are obtained by them when they have Christ, as he states more plainly a little afterwards. He adds, ‘in you’, because they now possess Christ, from whom they were before completely estranged. Lastly, he calls Christ the hope of glory, that they may know that nothing is lacking in their complete blessedness when they have obtained Christ. This, however, is the wonderful work of God, that in earthen and frail vessels the hope of heavenly glory resides.”
1. Calvin speaks of having complete blessedness (surely some joy there) having obtained Crhist.
2. Calvin speaks of people effectually recognizing in themselves the grace of God.
3. Calvin speaks of people embracing that grace of God in themselves
4. The hope of heavenly glory resides in earthen and frail vessels.
I would say that some here if they did not like Calvin so much would not like what I have copied here of his writings. If Edwards wrote the same thing above, it would be bashed.
LikeLike
Richard, it looks to me like you want it both ways. Edwards was simply following Calvin but Calvin was too Roman Catholic. You don’t seem to wrestle with the tension between Calvin’s sacramental theology and experimental Calvinism. The one stresses objective means of grace, the other stresses inward experience. Attention to the sacraments was almost absent in Edwards (at least the Yale works indicate). That silence speaks volumes and to me Phebe’s experience happens when you are not trusting in the God-ordained means of word and sacrament.
LikeLike
Richard, Calvinism is different from Pelagianism. But the question is how different Finney was from Edwards. Can we really have had Finney without Edwards, or do we imagine Finney just fell out of the clear blue without Edwards warming up the American masses? Do human beings really work this way? This isn’t to lay all the blame for Finney onto Edwards. Rather, it’s to wonder about being more critical about certain things instead of being starry eyed simply because they are attached to particular personalities and legends. Whatever else it’s good for, isn’t Calvinism good for stripping us of romanticism and being a lot more sober in our assessments of the movements among men?
LikeLike
I would ask to draw attention to this excerpt:
” …those of a different persuasion. Christians throwing theological brickbats at one another is only amusing the Evil One.”
I would like to call: foul. This is a classic way to silence all disagreement or discussion within a group and ostracize those who would dare to not fall into line. In this case, if one disagrees, one becomes associated with the devil. This way of framing topics often points to a leadership style of soft despotism (demanding mindless submission to leadership). Almost every time I read or listen to Keller’s work in the membership section, I pick up on this manipulative style of teaching. I was particularly annoyed by this habit in his teachings on vocation. I wish people would wake-up the subtleties he employs both in his teaching and his persona.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: Richard, it looks to me like you want it both ways. Edwards was simply following Calvin but Calvin was too Roman Catholic.
RS: That was not my point, neither do I claim either of those two points.
D. G. Hart: You don’t seem to wrestle with the tension between Calvin’s sacramental theology and experimental Calvinism. The one stresses objective means of grace, the other stresses inward experience. Attention to the sacraments was almost absent in Edwards (at least the Yale works indicate). That silence speaks volumes and to me Phebe’s experience happens when you are not trusting in the God-ordained means of word and sacrament.
RS: As the quotes in my previous post indicates, perhaps Calvin was more experimental than you are wanting to admit. Perhaps Edwards was more concerned with the biblical balance concerning the sacraments. Some historian mentioned one time that it was helpful to see where an idea originated. The Scriptures originated the idea of the sacraments and there is very little space given to them. So where did all the attention to the sacraments originate? I would argue that the phrase “Word and Spirit” is more biblical than “Word and sacrament”. In his epistles Paul speaks a lot about the Word and about the Spirit, but every so little about the sacraments. As to Phebe, perhaps she really looked to Christ which the Word is to point to and to the Spirit who creates new life. Why should one trust in the sacrament?
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, Calvinism is different from Pelagianism. But the question is how different Finney was from Edwards. Can we really have had Finney without Edwards, or do we imagine Finney just fell out of the clear blue without Edwards warming up the American masses? Do human beings really work this way? This isn’t to lay all the blame for Finney onto Edwards. Rather, it’s to wonder about being more critical about certain things instead of being starry eyed simply because they are attached to particular personalities and legends.
RS: Other historians have credited Edwards with setting back the advance of Arminianism for 100 years. Going back 1300 years or so from Edwards and Finney, there was another two theologians; Augustine and Pelagius. It was Augustines emphasis on grace that drew Pelagius out in the open. Perhaps it was Edwards’ biblical Calvinism that drew Finney out rather than something that they had in common. Or perhaps the devil raised Finney up rather than Finney coming out in response to Edwards.
Zrim: Whatever else it’s good for, isn’t Calvinism good for stripping us of romanticism and being a lot more sober in our assessments of the movements among men?
RS: That is true, but Edwards was certainly sober in his assessments as well.
LikeLike
Richard, you need to try to be objective. There is a lot more teaching in the NT about baptism and the Supper than about joy. The NT actually offers passages that address these subjects. Plus, our Lord himself instituted the Supper and was baptized. I don’t know that Christ had a deep emotional life.
The affections are along for the ride in the NT. The sacraments are part and parcel of Christ’s own life and Paul’s teaching.
BTW, have you ever noticed that Heb. 11 never once mentions joy in its litany of the great saints? Come on, Richard, be objective.
LikeLike
Richard, a Augustinian-Calvinist assessment says that the devil didn’t raise up Finney or Pelagius, God did. So I wonder if yours is more cheerleading for Calvinism than internalizing. But if Edwards set back Arminianism then why is it the default setting of American Protestantism, as opposed to Calvinism? I don’t know about Edwards “drawing out” Finney, but it seems to look more and more the case that Driscoll owes to Edwards–a disconnect between Calvinist theory and revivalist practice.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: Richard, you need to try to be objective. There is a lot more teaching in the NT about baptism and the Supper than about joy. The NT actually offers passages that address these subjects. Plus, our Lord himself instituted the Supper and was baptized. I don’t know that Christ had a deep emotional life.
RS: Somehow, I don’t think you are quite accurate on that, though you may mean something different than I think you do.
Matthew 26:75 And Peter remembered the word which Jesus had said, “Before a rooster crows, you will deny Me three times.” And he went out and wept bitterly.
Luke 10:21 At that very time He rejoiced greatly in the Holy Spirit, and said, “I praise You, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants. Yes, Father, for this way was well-pleasing in Your sight.
Matthew 9:36 Seeing the people, He felt compassion for them, because they were distressed and dispirited like sheep without a shepherd.
Matthew 14:14 When He went ashore, He saw a large crowd, and felt compassion for them and healed their sick.
Matthew 15:32 And Jesus called His disciples to Him, and said, “I feel compassion for the people, because they have remained with Me now three days and have nothing to eat; and I do not want to send them away hungry, for they might faint on the way.”
Hebrews 12:2 fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith, who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.
He also lived in perfect love at all times and was given the Spirit without measure. The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy… You could also check out a book originally published in 1876 by William G. Blaikie and Robert Law, Glimpses of the Inner Life of Our Lord and The Emotions of Jesus. The chapters included chapteers on His sympathy, His sorrows, His peace, and His joy.
D.G. Hart: The affections are along for the ride in the NT. The sacraments are part and parcel of Christ’s own life and Paul’s teaching.
RS: But Paul hardly ever mentioned them and was the Lord’s Supper part and parcel of the life of Christ? Joy and rejoicing and their derivatives are mentioned around 450 times in the NT. Other than I Cor, water baptism and the Lord’s Supper are hardly even recognized by Paul. In fact, Paul said he was not sent to baptize and he thanked God that he did not baptize beyond Crispus and Gaius (I Co 1:14).
D.G. Hart: BTW, have you ever noticed that Heb. 11 never once mentions joy in its litany of the great saints? Come on, Richard, be objective.
RS: Perhaps not, but there are more affections than joy, though it is hard to imagine Moses considering the riches of Christ with a dead heart. I also noticed that baptism and the Lord’s Supper are not mentioned in Hebrews 11 either. I think I am being rather objective. Just the facts.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, a Augustinian-Calvinist assessment says that the devil didn’t raise up Finney or Pelagius, God did. So I wonder if yours is more cheerleading for Calvinism than internalizing. But if Edwards set back Arminianism then why is it the default setting of American Protestantism, as opposed to Calvinism?
RS: Well, it (default setting) could be because men are born Pelagian and what goes under “Arminianism” today is just a form of Pelagianism. It could also be because biblical Calvinism is rare.
Zrim: I don’t know about Edwards “drawing out” Finney, but it seems to look more and more the case that Driscoll owes to Edwards–a disconnect between Calvinist theory and revivalist practice.
RS: That appears to be a disconnect with the writings of Edwards. Driscoll is not Edwardsean and not even close. I suppose you could argue that Edwards does not follow Calvin regarding the sacraments, but that is a different argument than he does not follow Scripture. Scripture does not focus on the sacraments and gives them very little time at all. Instead, it is focused on Word and Spirit.
LikeLike
Richard, you should come out with a Jonathan Edwards edition of the NT, like Jefferson’s Bible. It would be great to see how much you’d have to cut out of Paul’s teaching about being baptized into Christ, or Christ’s own teaching about being manna from heaven.
You know, it could just be that you read the Bible from the Religious Affections creed, I from the Westminster Standards.
But again the point stands, the Reformers were trying to be biblical in their understanding of the church — as the mother of believers — and about the sacraments. They did get rid of a lot of Roman teaching, and they did not exalt the emotions.
I’m afraid Edwards is a novelty from the perspective of the sixteenth century, not from that of experimental Calvinism (read: pietism).
LikeLike
Richard, yes, Arminianism is semi-Pelagian and it’s all more human than biblical. But your point seemed to be that biblical Calvinism is indebted to Edwards for keeping it all at bay for 100 years. That seems pretty speculative at best and irrelevant at worst, since the more human systems have won the day. Still, my point has to do with practice and that Calvinist practice is ecclesiastical and sacramental. But since you contend that the Bible sees the sacraments as negligible, it makes sense that you push back, and in so doing you’re helping to make the point that Edwards isn’t much good for a churchly piety.
And this is why, with Calvinists in the hands of an influential Edwards, we get Driscoll. The point isn’t that Driscoll is Edwardsean. It’s that those who claim a conservative Calvinism seem to have as little time for the church as you allege the Bible has for the sacraments, both of which are very odd. Stuart Robinson contended that the church is an essential element of the gospel. I suppose that’s more quasi-Romanism to your Word and Spirit ears. But the next time any neo-Calvinists talk about the importance of the church, high-church Calvinists have to wonder if the conception of the church is more individualistic and mechanical than corporate and organic.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: Richard, you should come out with a Jonathan Edwards edition of the NT, like Jefferson’s Bible. It would be great to see how much you’d have to cut out of Paul’s teaching about being baptized into Christ, or Christ’s own teaching about being manna from heaven.
RS: That is a good idea. I would not have to cut out anything, just explain that the Spirit baptizes into Christ and that Jesus said He was manna from heaven, but He also said His blood was true drink. He then said this: “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life” (John 6:63). Peter then said this: “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life” (v. 68).
D.G Hart: You know, it could just be that you read the Bible from the Religious Affections creed, I from the Westminster Standards.
RS: For whatever it is worth, I posted several statements from the Westminster Standards. I am right in line with them on the affections part.
D.G. Hart: But again the point stands, the Reformers were trying to be biblical in their understanding of the church — as the mother of believers — and about the sacraments. They did get rid of a lot of Roman teaching, and they did not exalt the emotions.
RS: But their writings are full of affections. Just look at even the first few pages of the Institutes. Joy, fear, and all of those icky thinks according to you. If the Reformers were indeed biblical about the sacraments, they would have spoken very little about them as Paul did.
D.G. Hart: I’m afraid Edwards is a novelty from the perspective of the sixteenth century, not from that of experimental Calvinism (read: pietism).
RS: I would think that a lot of people would be very surprised to read that statment. But then again, as Westminster notes in chapter 1, “X. The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.”
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, yes, Arminianism is semi-Pelagian and it’s all more human than biblical. But your point seemed to be that biblical Calvinism is indebted to Edwards for keeping it all at bay for 100 years. That seems pretty speculative at best and irrelevant at worst, since the more human systems have won the day. Still, my point has to do with practice and that Calvinist practice is ecclesiastical and sacramental. But since you contend that the Bible sees the sacraments as negligible, it makes sense that you push back, and in so doing you’re helping to make the point that Edwards isn’t much good for a churchly piety.
RS: No, I am simply saying that Edwards was more biblical than the Reformers because he did not stress the sacraments more than the Bible does.
Zrim: And this is why, with Calvinists in the hands of an influential Edwards, we get Driscoll.
RS: No, Driscoll does not follow Edwards or the Bible. Edwards cannot be blamed for those who misinterpret him and the Bible.
Zrim: The point isn’t that Driscoll is Edwardsean. It’s that those who claim a conservative Calvinism seem to have as little time for the church as you allege the Bible has for the sacraments, both of which are very odd.
RS: Yes, but then again some seem to think of the Church as being almost Roman rather than biblical.
Zrim: Stuart Robinson contended that the church is an essential element of the gospel. I suppose that’s more quasi-Romanism to your Word and Spirit ears.
RS: In depends on how one views the Church.
Zrim: But the next time any neo-Calvinists talk about the importance of the church, high-church Calvinists have to wonder if the conception of the church is more individualistic and mechanical than corporate and organic.
RS: I thought that the Church was the body of Christ rather than setting up all of the other things.
LikeLike
“There is a lot more teaching in the NT about baptism and the Supper than about joy.”
Darryl. This is a curious statement. Besides the institution of the Supper in three gospels, the Lord’s Supper is only mentioned as couple of times in Acts and once in I Corinthians. Water baptism a bit more but not much. The word “joy” is found 62 times in the NT.
LikeLike
Correction – Supper twice in I Cor
LikeLike
Todd, does the Bible actually give any instruction about joy, or does it mention joy in passing? Do Christ and the apostles give instruction about the Supper, or it is mentioned in passing? It seems to me that’a an important difference.
LikeLike
Sorry, Richard, but part of the reason why feelings might be “icky” is because apologists like you are so adamant about it. I believe you have turned joy into a sacred cow.
As for the standards, they teach that to avoid the wrath and curse of God I need to have faith and repentance. I don’t see any requirement that I trust or repent with a certain adverb.
I don’t see how that position is anything but true. Faith and repentance are necessary. Joy is optional. But for you it is not, which is why affections become a law.
LikeLike
Darryl,
I’m not sure how you would give instruction about joy, though we are commanded a number of times to rejoice
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: Sorry, Richard, but part of the reason why feelings might be “icky” is because apologists like you are so adamant about it. I believe you have turned joy into a sacred cow.
RS: I certainly have a beef with your statement. I am defending the Bible and Edwards over affections in general, of which joy is one of them, but only one.
D. G. Hart: As for the standards, they teach that to avoid the wrath and curse of God I need to have faith and repentance. I don’t see any requirement that I trust or repent with a certain adverb.
RS: But once you begin to see that faith and repentance are gifts of the eternally blessed God and He indwells all saved people with His Spirit of love and joy, faith and repentance would be seen differently. So while they are not described with adverbs, when they are defined along with those things that go with them, then the adverb is not needed.
Chapter XV WCF
Of Repentance unto Life
II. By it, a sinner, out of the sight and sense not only of the danger, but also of the filthiness and odiousness of his sins, as contrary to the holy nature, and righteous law of God; and upon the apprehension of His mercy in Christ to such as are penitent, so grieves for, and hates his sins, as to turn from them all unto God,[3] purposing and endeavouring to walk with Him in all the ways of His commandments.[4]
RS: Grieving for and hating sin are affections of the soul and the WCF sure seems to define repentance in a way that at least includes them.
D.G. Hart: I don’t see how that position is anything but true. Faith and repentance are necessary. Joy is optional. But for you it is not, which is why affections become a law.
RS: When we are commanded to rejoice and rejoice at least includes afffections, then affections to some degree are a law.
Matthew 25:21 “His master said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful slave. You were faithful with a few things, I will put you in charge of many things; enter into the joy of your master.’
John 15:11 “These things I have spoken to you so that My joy may be in you, and that your joy may be made full.” (“My joy” is the joy of Jesus)
John 16:24 “Until now you have asked for nothing in My name; ask and you will receive, so that your joy may be made full.
John 17:13 “But now I come to You; and these things I speak in the world so that they may have My joy made full in themselves.” (Here is Jesus with joy again)
Romans 14:17 for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.
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 1:25 Convinced of this, I know that I will remain and continue with you all for your progress and joy in the faith,
LikeLike
I had not read these posts before I posted over at the Tripp discussion.
Lily, would you categorize me as a soft despot because I pulled the devil ploy on Richard over at the Tripp post? Ironically, I got a double post from Richard on that one. Hal must have gone into default mode. I think my flesh is flarring up a bit. I’ll try to stay in civil mode.
LikeLike
No, Driscoll does not follow Edwards or the Bible. Edwards cannot be blamed for those who misinterpret him and the Bible.
Richard, like I have said already, none of this is blame Edwards for those who misinterpret things. It is wonder how one can get something like the 2GA without the 1GA (1 comes before 2, right?) But when Edwards is so influential and when Edwards downplays the role of the church and the sacraments, how can you not admit that Edwards has something to do with Finney and Driscoll? Or are you saying he’s so inspired that he is actually beyond reproach or criticism?
Yes, but then again some seem to think of the Church as being almost Roman rather than biblical.
Richard, it is interesting how Catholics see no principled difference between confessional Protestants and low-church evangelicals and Edwardseans see confessional Prots as frustrated Catholics. But believe it or not, some us actually do see important differences that distinguish confessional Prots from both. A high view of the church is not the same as an infallible or inspired one, but that is a common confusion from low churchers. You want to be biblical about these matters, but I wonder how much of the Bible you’re familiar with since it is replete with references to the church as God’s ordained instrument to propagate and nurture the gospel.
LikeLike
John,
I was criticizing what I believe to be a misuse of pastoral authority that manipulates others (whether overt or covert) and often seeks to subjugate Christian liberty to their own subjective opinion/will. I think we are both familiar with these kinds of pastors?
There always seems to be a temptation for pastors to want to use avenues other than trusting God to accomplish his will through his means of Word and Sacrament. Thus we have the church growth movement, the missiology mayhem, the experiential emphasis that wants to trump objective truth, discipline a la Driscoll, Mr. P.C./reasonable Keller vs. his irrational/demon amusing critics, Piper’s bizarre emphasis on hedonism over the theology of the cross, and so forth.
I’m guessing we are probably on the same page here? Read/listen to some of Keller’s stuff behind the membership wall at his church website – especially vocation – he gives me the heebie jeebies when there are only two vocations – financial employment and church volunteerism (which isn’t volunteer per their rules) with the church leadership’s input on your calling given priority. Completely un-Lutheran and then tries to add authority to their nonsense by appealing to Martin Luther’s name.
There are pastors who are as allergic to Christian liberty as there are towards a gospel of grace. But, heck, what can I say? I’m one of those Lutherans who believes there is such a thing as Christian liberty in Christ and love confessional Lutheran pastors because they believe, teach, and confess it too.
LikeLike
Outside of the Great Commission and the book of Acts, where does the NT command water baptism?
Of course we have some precedents in narratives where folks who have already been circumcised are baptized with water. In the gospel of John, we find one clear command to wash feet ( which I doubt is to be literally obeyed). But where besides Matthew 28 is there a clear command to be baptized with water? (Even assuming that when it’s done, it’s God not us doing it.)
The baptism indicatives don’t have the word “water” with them, and some read these texts as never meaning water, while others read the same texts as always meaning water.
LikeLike
Mark,
This book is considered one of the best on this subject and if I remember correctly, it’s recommended by the White Horse Inn gang.
Scriptural Baptism: A Dialog Between John Bapstead and Martin Childfont by Uuras Saarnivaara
LikeLike
Mark,
Here’s a link if you are interested:
https://wipfandstock.com/store/Scriptural_Baptism_A_Dialog_Between_John_Bapstead_and_Martin_Childfont
LikeLike
Todd, and I don’t believe the Bible threatens us if we are not rejoicing.
LikeLike
Richard, this is fun, but pointless. You cannot entertain any criticism of the Edwardsean view of affections. I get it. I see emotions and affections mentioned in the Bible. But in my life time, the faithful ministers under whom I have sat have never made an issue of affections the way Edwards and you do. The way you talk about these feelings, I should have long regarded these pastors as inferior and in error. Edwards may have a following, but no one excepting you and Piper are so aggressive about affections. That either makes you part of Gideon’s band, or odd.
LikeLike
Lily,
I was being tongue-in-cheek with my comment about the devil.
LikeLike
Lily, the link you sent had something to do with infant baptism. My question was about an imperative (besides the command of the Great Commission) to be baptized with water. Credobaptists need to answer my question just as well as those who would deny water to those who have already been circumcised.
I am questioning two different matters, neither of which concerns infants as the subjects of baptism.
One, is being baptized into Christ’s death (Romans 6) regeneration by the Holy Spirit or is being placed into Christ’s death a legal identification done by the Trinity (or is it both)?
Two, is the “baptism” of Romans 6 with water?
Lily, I get that you agree implicitly with whatever answer your clergy give you on these questions. I just want to know what their answers are.
LikeLike
Zrim: Quoting RS: No, Driscoll does not follow Edwards or the Bible. Edwards cannot be blamed for those who misinterpret him and the Bible.
Zrim: Richard, like I have said already, none of this is blame Edwards for those who misinterpret things. It is wonder how one can get something like the 2GA without the 1GA (1 comes before 2, right?) But when Edwards is so influential and when Edwards downplays the role of the church and the sacraments, how can you not admit that Edwards has something to do with Finney and Driscoll? Or are you saying he’s so inspired that he is actually beyond reproach or criticism?
RS: The real question is really whether Edwards downplayed the role of the church and sacraments from those who emphasized them too much and returned to a more biblical standard or not. I think his posistion is more biblical. He is insipired, but not so inspired as to be beyond criticism. .
Zrim, quoting RS: Yes, but then again some seem to think of the Church as being almost Roman rather than biblical.
Zrim: Richard, it is interesting how Catholics see no principled difference between confessional Protestants and low-church evangelicals and Edwardseans see confessional Prots as frustrated Catholics. But believe it or not, some us actually do see important differences that distinguish confessional Prots from both. A high view of the church is not the same as an infallible or inspired one, but that is a common confusion from low churchers. You want to be biblical about these matters, but I wonder how much of the Bible you’re familiar with since it is replete with references to the church as God’s ordained instrument to propagate and nurture the gospel.
RS: Of course it has a fair amount about the Church, but it is about the Church as the body of Christ rather than some form of rigid hierarchy with dispenses grace (sacraments) as it pleases. I said that in a strong way, but it is to make a point for you to reflect on. Christ Himself is sovereign over His grace and His body. He Himself is Prophet, Priest, and King. It seems as if rigid confessional Prots want to take over some of that.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: Richard, this is fun, but pointless.
RS: Sorry to read that you are a fan of nihilism.
D. G. Hart: You cannot entertain any criticism of the Edwardsean view of affections. I get it. I see emotions and affections mentioned in the Bible.
RS: It is not that I cannot entertain any criticism of his view of affections, but so far I have not read any real criticism (biblical) of his views. It has been a generalized approach and said that those who are confessionalists think he is extreme. That is an extreme criticism.
D. G. Hart: But in my life time, the faithful ministers under whom I have sat have never made an issue of affections the way Edwards and you do.
RS: I suppose we could discuss just how faithful they were in looking to the hearts of people, then. It is important to love Christ rather than the world. Even the great intellectual Thomas Chalmers preached about “The Expulisive Power of a New Affection.”
D. G. Hart: The way you talk about these feelings, I should have long regarded these pastors as inferior and in error. Edwards may have a following, but no one excepting you and Piper are so aggressive about affections. That either makes you part of Gideon’s band, or odd.
RS: I like the story of Gideon. Do you confessionalists hear a trumpet blowing?
LikeLike
Re: One, is being baptized into Christ’s death (Romans 6) regeneration by the Holy Spirit or is being placed into Christ’s death a legal identification done by the Trinity (or is it both)? Two, is the “baptism” of Romans 6 with water?
I get that you want a quickie combox answers to questions that deserve thoughtful answers. I don’t like the terms. If you are interested, the answers to the questions you are looking for are in the book, Mark. Read the link again. I didn’t offer you fluff. You seem to think if it mentions infants it’s irrelevant to your questions. Chicken to read a thorough scriptural look at both sides with a theologian who exhaustively studied it and presents both sides?
LikeLike
mcmark: One, is being baptized into Christ’s death (Romans 6) regeneration by the Holy Spirit or is being placed into Christ’s death a legal identification done by the Trinity (or is it both)?
RS: Both. Verse 3 is of the Spirit, verse 4 of water.
mcmark: Two, is the “baptism” of Romans 6 with water?
RS: Verse 4 is of water.
LikeLike
Richard, you may hear trumpets, but you are odd to think that pastors can look into hearts. Only God does that. The same goes for sacraments and the church. Christ gave those means to the church. But you, in your stress upon the heart, have taken away Christ’s authority and have substituted a different means of grace, one that regards the experience of Phebe Bartlet as normal.
LikeLike
Well, Lily, I have a lot of baptism books on my shelves which I have read. Many of them are written by clergy. Reading them has been less about courage and more about time and patience.
Some of these books even know that there’s more than two sides to the debate. Some of them of course are only about the mode, and assume the word “word” whenever the Bible says “baptism”. And of course, there are paedobaptists who think the argument from households is not good, and others who think that argument is the most important.
Some of these books on my shelves even consider my question. How many imperatives are there for water?
At least one part of being faithful about law and gospel is to not make up laws.
LikeLike
Sorry, assume the word “water”….
LikeLike
Richard and Mark,
It looks like you are both missing what is happening in Romans 6. Is baptism a monergistic gift of grace alone, or a pelagian work of man, or a semi-pelagian work of man and God? If it is grace alone at work to be baptized into Christ via the union of the Word and Water in baptism, then it is not a work of man. That is the crux of the matter. Is it the God’s ordained means of grace alone or man’s work of obedience or a synergistic work of man and God? The Reformed and the Lutherans say it is a means of grace alone.
Baptism is God’s ordained means of grace alone. The choice is whether we put our reason over scripture or under scripture. Who is Master? You or the Word? One cannot read all of the passages regarding baptism and not see it is grace alone via the means of the union of the water and the Word unless one is placing reason above scripture.
Similar problems arise over the lowly preaching of the cross of Christ and him crucified for us. God has given the gospel to his church as his means of grace alone to save man. Similarly, baptism and the Lord’s supper are both God’s ordained means of grace. Salvation is monergistic from beginning to end, not pelagian nor semi-pelagian.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: Richard, you may hear trumpets, but you are odd to think that pastors can look into hearts. Only God does that.
RS: I do hear trumpets, but that is because I play one and my son does too. By why is it so odd to think that pastors who are spiritual can view things spiritually? Sure enough only God can look in the heart, but that does not mean that those who are spiritual have no spiritual insight at all about the hearts of others. If pastors cannot view things spiritually, then we are left with being sure that people know things intellectually, are outwardly moral, and do the external things at church. That sounds pretty much like what the Pharisees were limited to.
D. G. Hart: The same goes for sacraments and the church. Christ gave those means to the church. But you, in your stress upon the heart, have taken away Christ’s authority and have substituted a different means of grace, one that regards the experience of Phebe Bartlet as normal.
RS: How have I taken away His authority? I claim that the kingdom of the beloved Son is the reign and rule of Christ. He is able to cast out sin and put true love in the heart. He does this by Word and Spirit. I have added nothing to Scripture in saying that this is normative for Christians, though certainly at differing levels as He is pleased to do so. I also argue that confessionalists have added stress to the sacraments that Christ never put on them. Christ instituted the Lord’s Supper in the Gospels and then spoke of them through Paul in I Corinthans 11. Paul spoke much of grace and spiritual things in the rest of the NT, but he never spoke of the Supper again. I certainly argue that somewhere in the history of the Church someone with a higher view of the Church than Scripture sets out started teaching things about the sacraments that go beyond Scripture. In doing so the sovereignty of God in giving grace as He is pleased to do so was undermined.
As to Phebe Bartlet, when the sacraments are held up higher than the Bible does things like Phebe’s story which is in accordance with the Bible are scoffed at. I would not argue that during times when God has withdrawn from His people that the work of the Lord in her soul is normal for all, but simply that it was normal during revival and that it is biblical. Her angst over her sin and her soul can be seen by others in Scripture. As stated previously concerning Acts 2:37, the Greek word for “pierced” when they were pierced to the heart is the root word used for the spear that pierced the side of Jesus when He was on the cross. ” 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 felt like something like a spear had pierced their hearts and they were in angst over their salvation. That sounds a lot like Phebe.
God uses this as a way to draw men to Himself. One aspect of the work of the Spirit is to convict men of sin, and we know that the Spirit blows as He is pleased to do so. Esau sought repentance with tears, but it was not granted. David demonstrated a deep conviction of sin in the Psalms. Peter went out and wept bitterly over his sin.
I Cor 14: 24 “But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or an ungifted man enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all; 25 the secrets of his heart are disclosed; and so he will fall on his face and worship God, declaring that God is certainly among you.”
Here Paul describes a conviction so great that the person falls on his face when the secrets of his heart are disclosed? How is that done? It is when others in the meeting speak and his heart is revealed to him.
1 Thessalonians 1:5 “for our gospel did not come to you in word only, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction; just as you know what kind of men we proved to be among you for your sake. 6 You also became imitators of us and of the Lord, having received the word in much tribulation with the joy of the Holy Spirit.”
” The Gospel came to these people with power and the Holy Spirit and with full conviction. This is more than a bare word, it is the work of God in the heart. It was then that these men received the word with the joy of the Holy Spirit. No word at all about a sacrament, but we have Word and Spirit. When it is the Word and the Spirit, we have power in the soul and the joy of the Spirit.
LikeLike
Lily: Richard and Mark,
It looks like you are both missing what is happening in Romans 6. Is baptism a monergistic gift of grace alone, or a pelagian work of man, or a semi-pelagian work of man and God? If it is grace alone at work to be baptized into Christ via the union of the Word and Water in baptism, then it is not a work of man. That is the crux of the matter. Is it the God’s ordained means of grace alone or man’s work of obedience or a synergistic work of man and God? The Reformed and the Lutherans say it is a means of grace alone.
RS: Being baptized into Christ is a monergistic work of grace and happens apart from water baptism.
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.
Acts 10:47 “Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?”
Lily: Baptism is God’s ordained means of grace alone. The choice is whether we put our reason over scripture or under scripture. Who is Master? You or the Word? One cannot read all of the passages regarding baptism and not see it is grace alone via the means of the union of the water and the Word unless one is placing reason above scripture.
RS: Yet one cannot read the whole of Scripture and see that God regenerates those whom He pleases as He pleases. John 1:12-13 tells us very clearly that the new birth is not by the will of the flesh and it is not by the will of man, but rather by the will of God. Why would God use external water when it is the soul that needs to be raised from the dead and the Spirit alone does that as He pleases? Whenever a person adds one work of man to grace that person makes grace to be no longer grace (Rom 11:6).
Lily: Similar problems arise over the lowly preaching of the cross of Christ and him crucified for us. God has given the gospel to his church as his means of grace alone to save man. Similarly, baptism and the Lord’s supper are both God’s ordained means of grace. Salvation is monergistic from beginning to end, not pelagian nor semi-pelagian.
RS: Okay, let us accept your postition that baptism and the Lord’s Supper are means of grace. But that does not mean that they are part of the Gospel of grace alone. Paul never preached the Gospel, at least that we have records of, and said that the grace of the Gospel was by baptism and the Supper. Neither did he preach and tie the Lord’s Supper to sanctification. Grace can never be given at the mere pleasure of man, but it must always and only come at the mere pleasure of God. If grace comes through baptism and the Lord’s Supper in the way you are saying, then between the minister and you grace is somewhat at your mere pleasure. That makes grace no longer to be grace.
LikeLike
Of course it has a fair amount about the Church, but it is about the Church as the body of Christ rather than some form of rigid hierarchy with dispenses grace (sacraments) as it pleases. I said that in a strong way, but it is to make a point for you to reflect on. Christ Himself is sovereign over His grace and His body. He Himself is Prophet, Priest, and King. It seems as if rigid confessional Prots want to take over some of that.
Richard, confessional Reformed Prots agree with you that Christ is the sovereign head of the church and is himself our prophet, priest, and king, or as Belgic 31 puts it “the only universal bishop.” So I’m not sure why you offer that as a point to reflect on. But what you seem unfazed by is how the Bible makes it clear that Jesus has gifted his church, and in particular her officers, to maintain good order and worship, to preach the Word of God and administer his sacraments (Belgic 30; 1 Tim. 3). A Reformed view of authority isn’t as authoritarian as you seem to want to suggest. It simply follows the pattern of Scripture which makes it clear that there is such a thing as authority and that it is there for our spiritual benefit. How do you get from any of this that confessional Prots want to usurp Christ’s authority?
LikeLike
Lily, I don’t mind if you want to ask your own questions. I MIGHT even try to answer them for you. But don’t mistake your questions for an answer to mine about where the water is in the Bible imperatives. You haven’t even attempted to answer this real question. If you want to have the debate with me that you already had with somebody else, then you got the wrong person.
I doubt very much that RS and I agree about what Romans 6. I have rejected the idea that “being placed into the death” is talking about the Holy Spirit’s work of regeneration. I agree with Smeaton and Haldane that it means God’s act of legally identifying the elect with Christ’s death. Lily, if you are looking for only two sides, I would think that you would agree with RS that the baptism of Romans 6 is regeneration by the Holy Spirit (except that you would assume “union of water and word” as the Spirit’s instrument). I am not that kind of “unionist”.
You can say “this is the crux” all you want, but it doesn’t make it so. And even if one “crux” is the either-or between God’s work and human work, that was not my question. Even if “where is the water” is not a “crux”, it seems to me like a question important enough for your
clergy to answer.
Lily: Richard and Mark,It looks like you are both missing what is happening in Romans 6. Is baptism a monergistic gift of grace alone, or a pelagian work of man, or a semi-pelagian work of man and God? If it is grace alone at work to be baptized into Christ via the union of the Word and Water in baptism, then it is not a work of man. That is the crux of the matter. Is it the God’s ordained means of grace alone or man’s work of obedience or a synergistic work of man and God?
Smeaton (The Apostles Doctrine of the Atonement) — “We need to ask,
then, what Paul means by these expressions that he uses, on which he makes his point so strongly: “dying with Christ”, “dying to sin”, “buried with Christ”, “crucified with Christ”. One particular verse of Scripture will give us a key to the meaning of the above phrases: For Christ’s love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died. 2 Corinthians 5:14
In this passage, Paul uses two expressions interchangeably; that is, “He died for all”, and “all died in Him.” He is describing the same thing from two different points of view. The first of these
expressions describes the vicarious death of Christ as an objective fact. The second phrase speaks of the same great transaction, in terms that indicate that we too have done it. So then, we may either say, “Christ died for us”, or “we died in Him.” Both are true. We can equally affirm that He was crucified for us, or we were co-crucified with Him.
We are not referring here to two acts-one on Christ’s side and another on ours. Rather,we have but one public representative, corporate act performed by the Son of God, in which we share as truly as if we had accomplished the atonement ourselves.
It is a mistake to not carry Romans 5 into Romans 6. If we carry the thought of the representative character of the two Adams from the one chapter into the other, then the difficulty vanishes.
All men sinned in the first man’s act of sin; for that public act was representative, and all Adam’s offspring were included in it. From God’s perspective, there have been but two men in the world, with the two families of which they are the heads; there have been just two public representatives.
The idea of Christ being our Surety and the representation of His atonement as the act of “one for many”, run through this entire section of Romans. But the passage we are studying (Romans 6:1-8)
contains one difference as compared with other passages, and that is that here we are described as doing what our representative did.
Let us notice the expressions used in Romans 6:1-8: It is said that “we died to sin (verse 2). As this phrase is misunderstood quite frequently, we must discover what it really means. It frequently
occurs in the writings of Paul in different forms, and it always alludes NOT TO AN INWARD DELIVERANCE FROM SIN, but to the Christian’s OBJECTIVE RELATION. It means that we are legally dead to sin in Jesus Christ.
This is made very clear by two other expressions occurring in the section. The first of these passages applies the same language to the Lord Himself; for He is said to have died to sin once (verse 10). Now the only sense in which the Sinless One can be regarded as dying to
sin, is that of dying to its guilt, or to the condemning power which goes along with sin, and which must run its course wherever sin has been committed. He died to the guilt or criminality of sin when it was laid on Him. He certainly did not die to sin’s indwelling power.
The second of these phrases shows that this dying was the meritorious cause of our justification. “He that is dead has been justified from sin” (verse 7). The justification of the Christian is thus based on his co-dying with Christ; that is, we are said to have died when Christ died, and to have done what Christ did. The entire section of which this is a part is to be regarded not as an exhortation, but as the simple statement of fact; this passage does not set forth anything done by us, but something done on our account, or for our sake, by a Surety, in whose performance we participate.
It might be asked, “can’t we understand that these statements designate two separate actions, one done by Christ, and a similar or parallel one by us?” NO. The acts are not two, but one, described from two different points of view. There is not one crucifixion on the part of Christ, and a second, parallel and similar but different, crucifixion on the part of His people. There is but one corporate
act—the act of “one for many.”
But what is the old man that is said to be co-crucified with the Lord? Does not this refer to our inward corruption? NO. To summarize, Romans 6:1-5 says we have been crucified with Christ, which tells us that our standing has changed from being “in Adam” (with its curse and
condemnation) to being “in Christ” (with all of its blessings and benefits). Therefore, because of our crucifixion with Christ, that is, our official standing now in Christ, our behavior should change…
LikeLike
Richard,
If you continue to parse scripture in this way, you will end up saying man is saved apart from the gospel. Indeed, you are not yet a theologian of the cross.
Are you forgiven by grace alone, through faith alone, for Christ’s sake alone… or not? Plainly it is the former. If you choose to argue with scripture’s plain meaning of God’s means of grace given to us in baptism, then you argue with God not man. Baptism is not just plain water, but it is the water included in God’s command and combined with God’s word. Without God’s Word, water is plain water. Either baptism does what God promises it does or he is a liar.
Matthew 28:19
Therefore, go and make disciples of all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.
Mark 16:16
He who believes and is baptized will be saved.
Romans 6:4
We were therefore buried with Him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.
Colossians 2: 8-14
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power: In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross.
1 Peter 3: 18-22
For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at God’s right hand—with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him.
LikeLike
Mark,
You err to your own poverty and argue with God not man. The scriptures offered to Richard cover some of your errors. One day you will learn and not quote blind men as your defense.
LikeLike
DGH is fine with joyless Christians, as long as they have Word and Sacrament in an Old School Presbyterian church.
LikeLike
Richard, I don’t think pastors have that kind of power, and when they think they do bad things happen. Think Mark Driscoll and clairvoyance. Also, every single act of piety is only a visible representation of something we can’t see. Speaking in tongues, or Phebe’s swaying, is not more a guarantee of a right heart than anything else. The question then is what does the Bible require for acts of piety. Last I checked, going to church qualified and swaying wasn’t required.
My point about denying Christ’s authority is that you seem to think that confessionalism’s high regard for sacraments is unbiblical. You don’t concede that confessionalists are trying to be biblical and follow their Lord.
I see that you are trying to do that. And I disagree with your interpretation of the Bible. My your disagreement with my interpretation of the Bible is based on not being spiritual or pieced to the heart.
BTW, I wasn’t mocking Phebe. I was pointing out how odd it is and remains. What may be worth taking issue with is Edwards’ gullibility. But such innocence usually happens when believers think they have swallowed Holy Ghost, feathers and all (thanks to Martin Luther).
LikeLike
R. D. is fine with joyful Christians who don’t have word and sacrament.
Huh!??!
LikeLike
D. G. Hart:
My point about denying Christ’s authority is that you seem to think that confessionalism’s high regard for sacraments is unbiblical. You don’t concede that confessionalists are trying to be biblical and follow their Lord.
RS: I am not arguing that confessionalists are TRYING to be biblical and follow the Lord. I am arguing that they ARE NOT biblical.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, confessional Reformed Prots agree with you that Christ is the sovereign head of the church and is himself our prophet, priest, and king, or as Belgic 31 puts it “the only universal bishop.” So I’m not sure why you offer that as a point to reflect on. But what you seem unfazed by is how the Bible makes it clear that Jesus has gifted his church, and in particular her officers, to maintain good order and worship, to preach the Word of God and administer his sacraments (Belgic 30; 1 Tim. 3).
RS: It is not a matter of if these things are set out, but to the degree that they are.
Zrim: A Reformed view of authority isn’t as authoritarian as you seem to want to suggest. It simply follows the pattern of Scripture which makes it clear that there is such a thing as authority and that it is there for our spiritual benefit. How do you get from any of this that confessional Prots want to usurp Christ’s authority?
RS: In particular, regarding the very last question, it is to the issue of grace. God alone can show grace and it is always in accordance to His pleasure and sovereign will. Grace is not captured in the sacraments and dispensed at the authority of any man. Then, men are to watch over the souls of others, but they are to watch over in such a way as to remind people of the One who really watches over souls.
LikeLike
Richard, I see that you’re saying my point is not biblical (which would extend to Calvin and the Reformers since you think they are wrong about the sacraments). But your charge of being unbiblical carries the implication that my infidelity may mean I’m not a Christian if I don’t have Phebe’s experience. I can recognize a credible profession from a Pentecostal believer and still disapprove of his experience. I don’t see the capacity in your argument to do the same. Experience rules for experiential Calvinists.
LikeLike
Lily: Richard, If you continue to parse scripture in this way, you will end up saying man is saved apart from the gospel. Indeed, you are not yet a theologian of the cross.
RS: Hmm, and here I thought you were the one saying that men are saved apart from the Gospel of grace alone. In other words, you have really watered it down. Interesting you say that I am not theologian of the cross. If we go back to Luther’s point on that, I would unequivocally differ.
Lily: Are you forgiven by grace alone, through faith alone, for Christ’s sake alone… or not? Plainly it is the former. If you choose to argue with scripture’s plain meaning of God’s means of grace given to us in baptism, then you argue with God not man.
RS: No, I am not arguing with God, just human beings. Indeed there are a very few verses that point to baptism and may seem to say what you say, but there are so many other verses that point to the grace of God alone and apart from the sacraments.
Lily: Baptism is not just plain water, but it is the water included in God’s command and combined with God’s word. Without God’s Word, water is plain water. Either baptism does what God promises it does or he is a liar.
RS: The question, however, is if He promises grace and puts it in the hands of men to apply as they please. If so, the God gives grace that is no longer grace.
Lily: Matthew 28:19
Therefore, go and make disciples of all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.
RS: Yes, disciples are to be baptized. But a person becomes a follower of Christ to be a disciple rather than be made one at baptism. Again, disciples are baptized. They are already disciples.
Lily: Mark 16:16
He who believes and is baptized will be saved.
RS: You might want to quote the whole verse on this one: “He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.” Those who do not believe are condemned. The text does not say that the baptism saves, but simply that those who believe and are baptized will be saved.
Lily: Romans 6:4
We were therefore buried with Him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.
RS: But if the person was already baptized into Christ by the Spirit in Romans 6:3, the “therefore” makes sense in v. 4. Baptism is a picture of what has already happened to the person. But again, this text does not teach that grace is given in baptism.
Lily: Colossians 2: 8-14
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power: In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross.
RS: Again, this text does not say that grace is given in baptism. if you will carefully note you will also see that this circumcision of Christ is done without hands. When was the last time you saw or heard of anyone being baptized without the use of hands? It is not speaking of water baptism taking sins away. It is speaking of Christ taking away sins at the cross.
Lily: 1 Peter 3: 18-22
For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at God’s right hand—with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him.
RS: Does this text tell us that grace is given in the water? No, it tells us that the water symbolizes baptism. It then says that baptism saves us, but how? It saves us as a pledge of a good conscience toward God. Here is a better translation: ” 21 Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you– not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience– through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him.” It is an appeal to God for a good conscience through the resurrection.
But going back in the text. How were the people in the ark saved by the water? They were saved from the water by being in the ark. The only people baptized by the water were all those who drowned.
LikeLike
Richard, again, confessional Reformed Prots agree—vigorously, in fact—that the sacraments do not function ex opere operato. They are signs and seals. We also agree that duly ordained men watch over souls and in such a way as to point to Christ. But this is where I scratch my head—you’re the one hitherto making the case for pointing inward, recently dinging pastors for having not looked into souls, but now you speak in extrinsic language (watching over, reminding). Why do you get to speak extrinsically but when old lifers emphasize extrinsic piety it’s usurping Christ’s authority?
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: Richard, I see that you’re saying my point is not biblical (which would extend to Calvin and the Reformers since you think they are wrong about the sacraments). But your charge of being unbiblical carries the implication that my infidelity may mean I’m not a Christian if I don’t have Phebe’s experience. I can recognize a credible profession from a Pentecostal believer and still disapprove of his experience. I don’t see the capacity in your argument to do the same. Experience rules for experiential Calvinists.
RS: For the sake of clarity (I think once again), I am not arguing that any person or all people must have the same thing happen to them as Phebe’s experience. I am just arguing that what happened to her was not unusual during revival and is not something that should be used to question Edwards and his methodology. Every person in the world is unbiblical at some point and most likely many points, so I hope not all who are unbiblical are lost. I use the word “unbiblical” in this context to refer to practices that have gone beyond what the Bible teaches.
I am not arguing that experience (in your sense) rules, though most likely there is some equivocation going on here in how we use the term. I do believe and will argue that people must go through some conviction of sin, and for some it will be more intense than others. I use the word “experience” as meaning gaining knowledge by practice, which stands at the side of knowledge by theory. I think you use the word “experience” as meaning something like ecstatic experiences. I would argue, for example, that a person can know in theory about the conviction of sin, but that a person must in reality be convicted of sin. The two are not one and the same. I would not argue, however, that each and every person must have a Phebe type of experience.
What I do argue, however, is that a new creature in Christ will have new affections, new hates, and new joys and loves. This does not mean that they are ecstatic affections all the time and maybe not at any point. I am just arguing for a thorough salvation and one which includes a new heart. I would not argue that a confessionalist cannot have joy in the risen Savior and it be a very still and quiet joy. I would argue at the same time, however, that the confessionalist has gone to far in following the teachings of Calvin at the point of the sacraments. But again, even if I am right that does not make Calvin and all confessionalist unbelievers and I certainly don’t believe that.
But Pentacostals?
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, again, confessional Reformed Prots agree—vigorously, in fact—that the sacraments do not function ex opere operato. They are signs and seals.
RS: Yes, I am aware of that. However, “Compared with our actual thoughts about Him, our creedal statements are of little consequence. Our real idea of God may lie buried under the rubbish of conventional religious notions and may require and intelligent and vigorous search before it is finally unearthed and exposed for what it is. Only after an ordeal of painful self-probing are we likely to discover what we actually believe about God.” In other words, the idea of that has led to lots of language that grace is virtually a lock if you take the sacrament. The heart is very deceptive and it will use creeds and the sacraments to deceive itself about grace.
Zrim: We also agree that duly ordained men watch over souls and in such a way as to point to Christ. But this is where I scratch my head—you’re the one hitherto making the case for pointing inward, recently dinging pastors for having not looked into souls, but now you speak in extrinsic language (watching over, reminding). Why do you get to speak extrinsically but when old lifers emphasize extrinsic piety it’s usurping Christ’s authority?
RS: There is a difference between pointing people to the inward man and examining people with spiritual wisdom concerning their inner person without trying to take authority over that inward person. The priest in Roman Catholicism pronouces to those confessing that they are forgiven. That is going beyond Scripture. If ministers pronounce people saved because they are doing the external things, that is going beyond Scripture as well. True believers hear the voice of Christ and they follow Him. Ministers are to help others discern if they are truly following Christ.
LikeLike
Lily: “You err to your own poverty and argue with God not man. The scriptures offered to Richard cover some of your errors. One day you will learn and not quote blind men as your defense.”
mcmark: I thought you were trying to arguing with me, Lily, and I was attempting to argue back, but never for a moment did I have you confused with God. Today I have quoted Smeaton and John Calvin, but course I don’t think they are God. If what God says in Romans 6 could be located in what Lutheran clergy tell us about it, then we would all need to be Lutherans.
Romans 6:3–“do you not know that all of us have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death.” RS tells us this is the regeneration by the Holy Spirit, but I do not see it in the text. For one thing, I do not think the Lord Jesus was regenerated.
Romans 6:4–“We were buried therefore with him by baptism unto death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too would walk in newness of life.” RS tells us this is the water part, but at the risk of being a “biblicist”, I do not see it. I suppose I could find myself some clergy to tell me it’s water….
Is prayer a “sacrament”? Why or why not? Is prayer God’s work, or is it a synergistic work, or is it human obedience to God’s law?
I do know I can find plenty of biblical imperatives to pray.The commands do not depend on my feeling a certain emotion.
LikeLike
Maybe it’s difficult to prove a negative, that baptism is not the water because water symbolizes baptism, but in that interest I want to quote Beisner, a Reformed paedobaptist, who is far as I know
is neither blind nor dead.
” I believe many of the Scripture passages on which the Federal Visionists rely for their theology of baptism use the term to denote not the rite but the spiritual reality signified by it (for instance,
Romans 6:1ff; 1 Peter 3:21). The nineteenth-century Presbyterian James Wilkinson Dale’s five-volume study on baptizo persuades me that in many instances the original readers of the New
Testament would not have taken baptize or baptism to denote the rite at all. See Dale, Christic and Patristic Baptism: An Inquiry into the Meaning of the Word as Determined by the
Usage of the Holy Scriptures and Patristic Writers (1874), Classic Baptism: An Inquiry into the Meaning of the Word as Determined by the Usage of Classical Greek Writers (1867), Johannic Baptism: An Inquiry into the Meaning of the Word as Determined by the Usage of the Holy
Scriptures (1898), and Judaic Baptism: An Inquiry into the Meaning of the Word as
Determined by the Usage of Jewish and Patristic Writers (1869) (all reprinted, Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1995, 1989, 1993, and 1991, respectively).
But Leithart asks: First, if he didn’t mean baptism, why did he say baptism? Second, how do these commentators know that Paul wasn’t referring to baptism? Third, and most fundamentally, what kind of assumptions about the world drive this interpretation? Why would anyone doubt that Paul is talking about water?” ( “Starting Before the Beginning,”, online at credenda)
Beisner: To answer Leithart’s questions: First, Paul did mean baptism–and the term baptism did not mean, primarily, a ritual application of water. Second, commentators argue in two ways that in
Romans 6:1ff baptism does not denote the rite: (a) consistent application of that sense in the immediate context (verses 1-10) would yield the conclusion (contrary to other passages of Scripture) that all, without exception, who undergo the rite are regenerate,converted, justified, sanctified, and finally glorified, and (b) Paul himself had already written in the same epistle that it was not the rite of circumcision but the spiritual reality designated by it that differentiated the true Jew from the false Jew (Romans 2:28-29). It stands to reason (waving the flag in front of lily?mm) that he would affirm the same of baptism. The commentators do not, pace Leithart’s tacit implication, simply truck
in their conclusion without reason. Third, the assumptions that drive this interpretation are founded on sober attention to Biblical teaching about the difference between rites and realities (things signified), per, e.g., Isaiah 1:10-19; 29:13; Ezekiel 33:31; Matthew 15:8-9.
LikeLike
mcmark: Is prayer a “sacrament”? Why or why not? Is prayer God’s work, or is it a synergistic work, or is it human obedience to God’s law? I do know I can find plenty of biblical imperatives to pray.The commands do not depend on my feeling a certain emotion.
RS: But joy is not something that is opposed to true prayer.
Philippians 1:4 always offering prayer with joy in my every prayer for you all,
LikeLike
Mark,
I would not go so far as Lily has in saying you are following “blind guides.” I am still leery of your low view of the sacraments but I am attracted to your interpretation of Romans in regards to what “dead to sin” means in Paul’s writings and how you exegete the imputation passages. The problem, I think, is that confessionalists do not find any support of what you are saying in the major confessional statements that came out as a result of the reformation. However, I may be wrong about that. I have not heard what those who adhere to the Reformed confessions think about your views of “dead to sin” and imputation. They have remained silent on the issues and I am not sure what to make of that.
Of course, another issue you have with Lutherans is their view of the atonement. I read the following the other day in the most recent issue of Modern Reformation magazine, Carl Trueman says this: Reformed= Christ’s death is sufficient for all, but its extent is definite and for the elect only. The effectiveness of Christ’s death is unlimited and absolute; Amyraldianism= Christ’s death is sufficient for all and its extent is unlimited (thus hypothetically universal). But in its efficacy, Christ’s death is limited to the elect alone.
I think the Lutheran view of the atonement, as expressed in the Book of Concord, would be in agreement with the Amyraldian view. You think this view of the atonement presents a “false gospel.” Carl Trueman said this, “although the Reformed Orthodox disagreed with the Amyraldians on this point and even regarded it as a serious error, they still considered them to be brothers and sisters in Christ.”
One last point, you stated in your last post in response to Lily that “because of our crucifixion with Christ, that is, our official standing now in Christ, our behavior should change…”
What exactly do you mean that our behavior should change? And how would you exegete Romans chapter 7? I do see the scriptures being clear that we cannot be comfortable without conviction in our consciences in breaking the clear commands of God’s law but we do still have the power of sin residing in us. Some behaviors that may be contrary to God’s Law get deeply ingrained in people and it is hard to break free from. Others have had traumatic experiences which make it difficult to obey some clear commands in scripture. I could go on about the “strongholds” in people’s minds which Paul talks about which do not just go away after someone is regenerated. I think you get the gist of what I am trying to say.
LikeLike
Richard,
I haven’t followed every single post back and forth between you and others, but your notion of ministers meddling to the degree you seem to be suggesting is likely to earn them a gentle warning and then a sharp rap on the side of their head if they keep it up. I’ve watched a couple pastors try to divine people’s intents and take action on what they sense someone is thinking or what potentially motivated someone to do or say such and such, and it always CREATED a situation(see problem) that heretofore didn’t exist. I understand children and young impressionable adults and the sundry unstable types being vulnerable to this sort of intrusion, but what kind of functioning, sensible adult puts up with that kind of nonsense. It’s kinda like with the whole theonomy/theocratic impulse, I’ll sign on when Jesus returns. ‘Till then, it seems we’d all be better off making due with the ordinary means. I think it’s Luther who said; “God is free to work beyond His ordinary means, I’m just not free to seek Him there.”
LikeLike
sean: Richard, I haven’t followed every single post back and forth between you and others, but your notion of ministers meddling to the degree you seem to be suggesting is likely to earn them a gentle warning and then a sharp rap on the side of their head if they keep it up. I’ve watched a couple pastors try to divine people’s intents and take action on what they sense someone is thinking or what potentially motivated someone to do or say such and such, and it always CREATED a situation(see problem) that heretofore didn’t exist…. Till then, it seems we’d all be better off making due with the ordinary means. I think it’s Luther who said; “God is free to work beyond His ordinary means, I’m just not free to seek Him there.”
RS: Perhaps there is some (once again) misunderstanding here. What I am talking about is the work of counseling souls and not just counseling external activities. I am not talking about trying to discern motives and intents to the degree of taking action on speculations. But as elders who are to watch over men’s souls, I would think that they should go deeper in helping people in their pursuits of holiness. After all, the Bible does speak of being holy in heart. It does speak of Scripture making a division between soul and spirit and even judging the thoughts and intentions of the heart. I am simply saying that elders should be able to go deeper and help people beyond their external actions.
Another way to look at it would be that elders (or others in some cases) should be able to counsel in such a way that the Scripture is used the the Spirit to show people their deepest parts. If even the intents and motives of the heart are sinful, then there should be some dealing with the intents and motives of the heart, or at least guiding people to where those things are seen. I am not advocating the elders become seers as such and try to take action on people as a result of speculation.
LikeLike
Richard, I can grant that there is always the danger of sacerdotalism amongst sacramentalists, but if the heart is as deceptive as you say (agreed) then it would nice for the local Edwardsean to show a lot more cognizance of the dangers in throwing us into its depths. You say the heart in its deceit will use creeds and sacraments to conjure up grace. Fine enough, but you don’t seem equally aware that it can use experience and affect the same way. And, again, the issue becomes the biblical mode of spiritual expression. And it seems to me Jesus said whom do you say that I am (i.e. creedal faith) and not do you have the joy, joy, joy down in the depths of your heart (where?!).
And I don’t know what the problem is in declaring forgiveness to those who confess. Doesn’t the Bible say if we confess our sins, he is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness? If so, don’t we also need his undershepherds to say it with their actual mouths so our actual ears and hearts can receive it? But to the extent that you continue to bring Roman Catholicism into this, I still think you have the “they can’t because they’re them” problem going on when we discuss the burning bosoms of Mormons and the ejaculatory prayer of experimentalists.
LikeLike
Richard,
I rest my case based on the evidence of your comments. You continue to prove you cannot parse scripture not only in dialogue with me, but with others. I haven’t witnessed this kind of twisting of scripture for a long time. Do you do this because you think/want to “win” an argument? Or are you truly this confused about the body of scripture on different doctrines? Kyrie eleison. I do pray you will be rescued from the Edwardsean La-La land soon.
LikeLike
Mark,
I’m not convinced that you recognize when you are arguing with scripture or not. The bulk of your comments are quotes from theologians you agree with. It is ironic that you would continue to charge me with quoting Lutheran clergy when I haven’t. Isn’t this called projection?
Re: RS. I will pass on trying to make sense of his confusion. I do “get” that you are an Anabaptist in many ways.
Re: Is prayer a “sacrament”? Why or why not? Is prayer God’s work, or is it a synergistic work, or is it human obedience to God’s law? I do know I can find plenty of biblical imperatives to pray. The commands do not depend on my feeling a certain emotion.
I do “get” that you are law oriented. Lutherans are grace oriented with the view that God speaks to us through His Word and prayer is our response to him. Our relationship with him is like a Father with his children. And, no, prayer is not considered a sacrament. Prayer is not a means of grace. Faith looks to Word and Sacrament wherein the promises are made and where we are told “yea and amen” in Christ.
Re: Maybe it’s difficult to prove a negative, that baptism is not the water because water symbolizes baptism…
Lutherans are not Reformed – your example isn’t appropriate since it is a debate on Reformed understanding. Lutherans don’t confuse the Word and the element. The certainty of faith rests upon the promises given in baptism. Simply put: God’s work of pure grace is given to the sinner in baptism. It is his Word and the water (element) according to his divine institution and God accomplishes what he says he will according to his Word. No more, no less.
LikeLike
“One last point, you stated in your last post that “because of our crucifixion with Christ, that is, our official standing now in Christ, our behavior should change…”
John, I was quoting Smeaton. I don’t want to review the entire “unionist” debate, but the comments from Bavinck and Berkhof indicate that they agree that forensic priority in Romans 6 is within confessional bounds. To say that God legally places the elect into the death is not a denial of our need for the Holy Spirit to regenerate. Romans 6 is not teaching about regeneration, but we can safely say that there is no justification apart from regeneration and faith in the gospel.
Of course I do deny that the word is a promise about what water will do. Saying “high view” of the church or a “high view” of sacraments is like an Amyraldian or a Torrance guy calling a five pointer a “hyper”. The relativism privileges one’s own position. Better to say, he has a different view and according to what my confession says, he does not believe in “sacraments” at all.
I do think that human obedience should not be confused with what God does, even though that obedience is enabled by God. But talk about obedience gets me to your existential question, what about when our behavior does not change?
Believe me, John, I agree with your concern. Even if we were to change, it would never be enough because it’s already too late for us to be perfect, since we were born imputed with the guilt of Adam. And besides, if I look at me, I don’t see any change worth talking about.
Let me answer this way. There is always room for improvement. Everybody SHOULD behave better, even by their own standards. To rightly divide law and gospel means not lowering the duties demanded by the law. I am not talking about extra burdens imposed by man—wear a bow tie to church, don’t watch basketball on TV.
John: I do see Romans 7 being clear that we cannot be comfortable without conviction in our consciences in breaking the clear commands of God’s law but we do still have the power of sin residing in us. Some behaviors that may be contrary to God’s Law get deeply ingrained in people and it is hard to break free from. Others have had traumatic experiences which make it difficult to obey some clear commands in scripture.
mcmark: we have no valid rationale for our sin. That we are sinners is no excuse. But that is why our only hope is what Christ did for the elect. The difference between sufficient and efficient needs to be deconstructed. As Calvin explained, that difference “will not help”. If His death is not effective to save me, then it simply is not enough for me.
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 as satisfaction of that law. Christ after His resurrection is no longer under law.
The Romans 6 death of the justified elect is that VERY SAME legal death. The resurrection of the justified elect in Romans 6 is the result and evidence of that justification from being under law.
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. And this is what Romans 6:7 teaches: “For one who has died has been justified from sin.”
Romans 6:10, “For the death He died He died to sin.” When the elect consider themselves dead to sin and alive to God, they think of themselves as dead to the guilt of sin. Death to the guilt of sin
means legal life before God.
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
Lily: Richard, I rest my case based on the evidence of your comments.
RS: In that case, you have no case.
Lily: You continue to prove you cannot parse scripture not only in dialogue with me, but with others. I haven’t witnessed this kind of twisting of scripture for a long time.
RS: I am just trying to twist the Scriptures out of what you have twisted them into so they can be back to where they need to be.
Lily: Do you do this because you think/want to “win” an argument? Or are you truly this confused about the body of scripture on different doctrines? Kyrie eleison. I do pray you will be rescued from the Edwardsean La-La land soon.
RS: No need to pray that I will be delivered from Edwardsean La-La land, as I am not there. You might consider praying for a true understanding of the grace of God and what true regeneration is and how God works it. God does not wait until someone applies a little water on your head to regenerate, but He regenerates as He pleases. When God regenerates on the basis of grace alone, that means He regenerates on the basis of Himself alone and not because or any merit or work of the person or any pastor or priest. God saves to the praise of the glory of His grace alone. He will not suffer regeneration to be watered down with the works and efforts of human beings.
LikeLike
Re: Is prayer a “sacrament”? Why or why not? Is prayer God’s work, or is it a synergistic work, or is it human obedience to God’s law? I do know I can find plenty of biblical imperatives to pray. The commands do not depend on my feeling a certain emotion.
lily: I do “get” that you are law oriented. Lutherans are grace oriented with the view that God speaks to us through His Word and prayer is our response to him.
mark: I would think we both are “law-oriented” in the sense that we don’t think everything is grace, and that we know that some things are law and not grace. The task is to not confuse the two. I agree with you that prayer is our response and our obedience. Our prayer is fitting but it is not the gospel.
So while we cannot agree about the content of the law is (you can’t make up your mind if my problem is being anabaptist or being “reformed” instead of lutheran), Lily, we should be able to agree that the gospel is about Christ’s satisfaction of the law. God does not give grace by bypassing the category of the law. God gave grace by sending His son to satisfy the law. And we must not confuse our prayers and other obedience with what God got done in Christ.
You are right that I have been quoting guys with whom I agree. I could do this with Luther when he’s writing about the Roman mass or the bondage of the will. But I guess I will end with this quotation from Luther, since it’s an occasion when I do not agree.
“How can baptism be more grievously and disgraced than when we say that baptism given to an unbelieving man is not good and genuine baptism!…What, baptism rendered ineffective because I do not believe?…What more blasphemous and offensive doctrine could the devil invent and preach. I put forth the following: Here is a Jew that accepts baptism, as happens often enough, but does not believe, would you then say that this was not real baptism, because he does not believe? That would be to think as a fool thinks not only, but to disgrace God moreover…”
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, I can grant that there is always the danger of sacerdotalism amongst sacramentalists, but if the heart is as deceptive as you say (agreed) then it would nice for the local Edwardsean to show a lot more cognizance of the dangers in throwing us into its depths.
RS: We can join hands on this one in full agreement. I recognize the great danger at this point and see it as spread wide and far in our day. Many are deceived by trusting in various experiences and feelings.
Zrim: You say the heart in its deceit will use creeds and sacraments to conjure up grace. Fine enough, but you don’t seem equally aware that it can use experience and affect the same way. And, again, the issue becomes the biblical mode of spiritual expression. And it seems to me Jesus said whom do you say that I am (i.e. creedal faith) and not do you have the joy, joy, joy down in the depths of your heart (where?!).
RS: Yes, both sides have the great danger of the deceptive heart. My point is that it is not just saying it, but a heart that beholds Him, believes Him, and the words are then descriptive of the state of the heart.
Zrim: And I don’t know what the problem is in declaring forgiveness to those who confess. Doesn’t the Bible say if we confess our sins, he is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness? If so, don’t we also need his undershepherds to say it with their actual mouths so our actual ears and hearts can receive it? But to the extent that you continue to bring Roman Catholicism into this, I still think you have the “they can’t because they’re them” problem going on when we discuss the burning bosoms of Mormons and the ejaculatory prayer of experimentalists.
RS: I have in mind some earlier comments (most likely of others) who would make their profession to their elders and rest in what the elders say. That seems parallel to resting in a priest who declares one saved. And once again, you are correct that the other side has the same problem. I would say that the problem is not just “yours” and my position has none, but all positions have some of the same problems.
Zrim: Doesn’t the Bible say if we confess our sins, he is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness?
RS: It does say that, but it does not say that you have to confess it to the elders and receive a statement from them. I would think that this is more of the life of the body. I would also argue that to truly confess sin is more than a mere statement of guilt, but that is perhaps another story.
LikeLike
RS: Perhaps there is some (once again) misunderstanding here. What I am talking about is the work of counseling souls and not just counseling external activities. I am not talking about trying to discern motives and intents to the degree of taking action on speculations. But as elders who are to watch over men’s souls, I would think that they should go deeper in helping people in their pursuits of holiness. After all, the Bible does speak of being holy in heart. It does speak of Scripture making a division between soul and spirit and even judging the thoughts and intentions of the heart. I am simply saying that elders should be able to go deeper and help people beyond their external actions.
sean; I really would like to understand what ‘going deeper in helping people in their pursuits of holiness’ actually means. I have no real interest in my elders playing ‘thought police’ or ‘heart helpers’ I’m good with the word preached and the Holy Spirit enlightening.
RS; Another way to look at it would be that elders (or others in some cases) should be able to counsel in such a way that the Scripture is used the the Spirit to show people their deepest parts. If even the intents and motives of the heart are sinful, then there should be some dealing with the intents and motives of the heart, or at least guiding people to where those things are seen. I am not advocating the elders become seers as such and try to take action on people as a result of speculation.
sean; I have some sympathy with the sentiment and intent, I have serious reservations as to how somebody might help the Holy Spirit do His work. I know for certain that the Holy Spirit has aligned Himself with the preached word and the sacraments administered and depending on the day and who I’m reading you can talk to me about prayer in the same breath, but beyond that is very dubious to me.
LikeLike
Thanks, Richard, for the concessions. But, again, if your point “is that it is not just saying it, but a heart that beholds Him, believes Him, and the words are then descriptive of the state of the heart” then you will find no argument from confessional Prots. Indeed, what you will find is a robust sense of the connection between heart and mouth, faith and practice. Confessional Reformed Prots are just as opposed ritualism as we are experientialism, one over-emphasizing the objective and the other the subjective.
As far as confessing to elders, nobody here is saying there is no forgiveness of sins unless an ordained officer says so. But for those of us with a more mediated faith, we are still created beings who do need to hear from God outside us. To act as if it’s all inward seems greatly esoteric and suggests something more Gnostic than Christan about what it means to be human. Confessional piety does greater service to not only being spiritual but also to being flesh and blood. Our bodies will rise again, right?
LikeLike
Too funny, Mark,
Re: (you can’t make up your mind if my problem is being anabaptist or being “reformed” instead of lutheran)
It’s the hybrid nature of the thing! It’s like trying to nail jello to a tree – lol! And I’m not concerned that you are not Lutheran nor am I trying to convert you to Lutheranism. It’s not particularly savvy to call the sacraments an abomination in a comment box and not expect some feedback. 😉
Re: law and grace. The task is to not confuse the two.
From a Lutheran point of view, you have grossly mixed them up when it comes to baptism and the Lord’s Supper. What you see as acts of obedience we see as gospel gifts. And as far as I can tell, much of what you write seems to be: law/gospel/law not law/gospel. There’s an important difference. I’m not disparaging you. I would encourage you to continue and watch for that sandwich. It takes away with the left hand what it gave with the right hand. I would also encourage you to write with fewer quotes. Your own writing is much more interesting, imnsho.
Re: I would think we both are “law-oriented”
Which emphasis dominates your thinking and responses? Grace or Law? The law/gospel/law sandwich often points to the law.
Re: Luther and baptism
Clueless why you cite this. Is anyone proposing to baptize an unbelieving man?
LikeLike
Richard,
Re: He will not suffer regeneration to be watered down with the works and efforts of human beings.
I am not aware of ever supporting such. If you are referring to baptism, I have been arguing that it is the act of God, his gift of pure grace, and not an act of man. And since he ordained the institution of baptism with the invocation of his name and chose men to be his instruments, well… I think he made it plain that this is his will and not man’s.
LikeLike
“Is anyone proposing to baptize an unbelieving man?” Well, some Reformed think that the efficacy of infant baptism does not depend in any way on a believing infant. But to answer your question, yes, many of the “federal vision” theonomists propose to baptize unbelieving masses. What kind of “church” would we end up with if the church were only for those who confessed certain propositions?
But I would not expect you to know much about theonomists, Lily. Think Constantine.
Defending Constantine: The Twilight of an Empire and the Dawn of Christendom , Peter Leithart, IVP, 2010
Leithart thinks that a higher view of baptism will save the world. .Along with his ritualism comes a very anti 2k agenda that “the Old Testament is normative for politics”. (p131). When somebody like James Carroll (Constantine’s Sword) complains about the anti-semitism of Augustine, Leithart is quick to defend the good old days of the middle ages. The unbelieving Jews were merely not allowed to proselytize, he says. The peasants are merely not allowed to decide if they want their christened.
Leithart very much opposes the “John Locke” idea where protestants “hold opinions that divide them from the general public”. We are reminded that theonomy is not about a combination of church and state but about having one church (with bishops) which can stand up to the state. If we don’t support baptizing the masses into the church, then we will be left with “invisible churches”.
Leithart also cautions us to be patient about asking questions and using our reason.. All we need to know for now is that God is really baptizing folks. It’s “really” happening, no matter what kind of “nominalist” objections are raised by those who think that God waits for human consent..
If you won’t defend Augustine for killing Donatists who attempt to set up alternative churches, then you simply show that you believe in “freewill”. And if you object to that, you show yourself to be modernist plain and simple.
If you are patient enough, you can make a nation Christian in the same way that you make people Christians. You baptize all the people in the nation. And the great commission is for you who baptize, which is to say, first you say to a nation that it is Christian, and after you baptize it then you can talk to it like you do to Christians.
But if you do not agree that people are already baptized Christians, what could you possibly have to say to them about what they should do?
Yes, Lily, there are some folks out there who are into the law-gospel-law thing, but some of them have a gospel which is not gospel but law.
As for your accusation that perhaps I also am guilty of the “sandwich”, well, I am not the one who thinks Christians can stop being Christians if they sin in such a way as to show that they have stopped believing.
Romans 6:14—ye are not under law but under grace
Romans 7:4–you have died to the law though the body of Christ, so that you belong to another….
LikeLike
In the interests of agreeing with Lily where I can, I want to focus some more on that law-gospel-law sandwich. Neither Lily nor I are denying that the New Testament has commands or standards for Christians, even surely we disagree about some of the content of those laws. But I agree that our “sanctification” is no more by our law-keeping than is our justification.
Many “Reformed” folks pay lip-service to “imputation”, but they brag about being “really relational” with Christ the “person” and think that’s more important than any dull “algorithm” about imputation. They are glad that they themselves are “relevant” when it comes to their “sanctification”. To the law-gospel-law folks, their “sanctification” is their “opportunity” to succeed or fail (and thus to be rewarded or punished).
Let me quote one such law-gospel-law person
LGL: “When the preponderance of my thoughts about my daily life with God are only seen from the perspective of Christ’s substitution and my unworthiness to merit his favor, not only do I miss the joy and motivation of knowing my deeds today can actually please God, but I can be left with a distant, abstract, academic view of my relationship with him.”
MCMark responds: Like the Galatian false teachers, the sanctification by law-keeping teacher does not deny justification by imputation. But he does minimize justification as only one “perspective”.
Notice the emphasis on “my thoughts”. . No pausing to make biblical distinctions between sanctification by Christ’s blood and sanctification by Christ’s Spirit. The LGL person doesn’t say that justification isn’t actual but he wants us to be thinking less about that and more about what’s nt “real”.
Again, I am not caricaturing. I quote LG: “I can begin to assume that it is only the perfect Christ that “God sees” (as though it were all some visual reality and not a relational reality). It is as if I am now, at least theoretically, absent from the relationship and if not absent, in some way made so irrelevant that my thoughts and actions can neither please him or grieve him in any real way.”
MCMark responds: He just wants to be relevant, at least in his own “sanctification”. And of course, the thrill of victory is never so sweet unless there was a possibility of the agony of defeat. So the teacher wants to be present in his relationship with God in such a way that his “sanctification” depends on him, even though he will of course give his god the credit for his not being like those who thought they were justified but were not because they were not “sanctified”. (How is this so different from the Lutheran who thinks he has sinned away his regeneration/justification?)
Lily, the way I answer the sandwich is to say that “ grace goes all the way down”, even into my “sanctification”. Free grace. “Without a cause in me” grace.
Let me continue to quote from LGL: “Scripture tells us that his redeemed children not only have a very real opportunity to actually please him, but we also have an abiding opportunity to truly displease him.”
Mark: If I respond by asking which Christian is not sinning in their walk, doesn’t that prove that I am antinomian? Unless this preacher is making some kind of distinction between sins that we choose to sin, and sins that we sin but don’t choose, it seems to me that we all grieve the Holy Spirit by our sin.
The question I think is what happens when we fail. Is the law-gospel-law theory of “sanctification” more likely to make us fail less? If I fail in my “sanctification” and that makes me scared of the second coming of Christ (rewards and punishments you know), will that make me work more so that I won’t fail so much? I do not agree with John Piper about the “beauty of gospel threats”.
LikeLike
Mark,
This is beyond bizarre. Does Leithart hold much influence in Reformed circles?
Re: As for your accusation that perhaps I also am guilty of the “sandwich”, well, I am not the one who thinks Christians can stop being Christians if they sin in such a way as to show that they have stopped believing.
I appreciate your explanation, but I think we are on different pages here. I may be mistaken but, the sandwich is not related to thinking Christians stop being Christians…. or sanctification. It’s the way we present law/gospel. Think of the reaction to Paul’s gospel in Romans 6 (shall we continue in sin that grace may abound). We all seem to have a natural reaction to thinking the gospel needs to be sandwiched with law in case people think they are free to sin. The gospel of pure grace and Christian liberty seems to scare bejeebies out of some people. Makes me think of control freaks.
The problem is that we mute the gospel when we sandwich it. We all have the temptation to end the gospel with more law, especially when something is important to us. Confessional Lutheran sermons tend to preach the law in all of it’s sternness followed by the gospel in all it’s sweet fullness. It’s the Lutheran rhythm of repentance and faith. It is the gospel that frees us to love God and serve our neighbor with a merry heart.
I may be mistaken, but I keep hearing a heavy emphasis on obedience in your comments – your gospel seems sandwiched. The need to preface your last comment in a way that no one would mistake us for antinomians was interesting. Again, I’m reminded of the sandwich. Why the concern of being seen as antinomians? My guess is that one reason people think Lutherans are antinomians is because we don’t sandwich the gospel. Another one is because we tend to shun the 3rd use of the law. I hope this makes sense?
LikeLike
P.S. The LGL guy sounds like a pietist. Or not?
LikeLike
sean; I have some sympathy with the sentiment and intent, I have serious reservations as to how somebody might help the Holy Spirit do His work. I know for certain that the Holy Spirit has aligned Himself with the preached word and the sacraments administered and depending on the day and who I’m reading you can talk to me about prayer in the same breath, but beyond that is very dubious to me.
RS: Hebrews 5:14 But solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to discern good and evil.
It is helpful if those who are mature and have their senses trained by practice instruct those who are not able to discern good and evil.
LikeLike
Zrim: Thanks, Richard, for the concessions. But, again, if your point “is that it is not just saying it, but a heart that beholds Him, believes Him, and the words are then descriptive of the state of the heart” then you will find no argument from confessional Prots. Indeed, what you will find is a robust sense of the connection between heart and mouth, faith and practice. Confessional Reformed Prots are just as opposed ritualism as we are experientialism, one over-emphasizing the objective and the other the subjective.
RS: But do you think all those who are grow in the faith and knowledge by experience over-emphasize the subjective?
Zrim: As far as confessing to elders, nobody here is saying there is no forgiveness of sins unless an ordained officer says so. But for those of us with a more mediated faith, we are still created beings who do need to hear from God outside us. To act as if it’s all inward seems greatly esoteric and suggests something more Gnostic than Christan about what it means to be human. Confessional piety does greater service to not only being spiritual but also to being flesh and blood. Our bodies will rise again, right?
RS: There is a focus on the inner man because that is where Christ lives and because we are told to love Him from and with the heart. Part of being human is to have a heart from which our intents, motives, and desires come from. We will receive new bodies, but yes we will have bodies that will rise again.
LikeLike
Lily: Richard, Re: “He will not suffer regeneration to be watered down with the works and efforts of human beings.”
I am not aware of ever supporting such. If you are referring to baptism, I have been arguing that it is the act of God, his gift of pure grace, and not an act of man. And since he ordained the institution of baptism with the invocation of his name and chose men to be his instruments, well… I think he made it plain that this is his will and not man’s.
RS: Your doctrine at this point is confusing some important things, even vital things. Since baptism is an act of man, both the one doing it and the one receiving it, that makes it very clear that regeneration is not a sovereign act of God who regenerates whom He pleases and when He pleases. Baptism for regeneration makes grace no longer to be grace. Your doctrine also disregards the true nature of faith which receives grace. Your teaching at least implies that since man decides to be baptized and even when, then God must follow man’s lead in this and regenerate when man is pleased to be regenerated.
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.”
Notice the washing of regeneration of v. 7. It is the washing of regeneration and not the regeneration of washing. It is in accordance with His mercy, not our deeds of righteousness of which Baptism would be one. All of this is so that He would justify sinners by His grace. There is no cause or merit or act of sinners that can bring grace to themselves.
LikeLike
I want to quote approvingly the Lutheran Gerhard Forde, but only after I report that Forde (now deceased) mocked the entire idea of Christ having paid a penalty or satisfied the law by His death. I am glad that not all Lutherans agree with Forde about the cross. Forde thought that the cross was only something sinners did to Christ, and not a matter of God’s justice.
Forde: “The unconditional declaration of justification, the imputation, the flat-out declaration, offends and shocks us because it shatters all our ambitions for “something to do” –that declaration is our death and our life, the new beginning. Death, you see, is put in the position of not being able to do anything according to the ways of this world—the law, religion, the upward climb—with all its
plans and schemes. They suddenly stop, come to an end.”
And this from Luther himself— “as far as the words are concerned, everyone can understand the distinction between the Law and grace, but so far as practice, life, and application are concerned, it is the most difficult thing there is.” (Galatians 1535).
LikeLike
Richard:
Re: Your doctrine at this point is confusing some important things…
I’ll stick with Lutheran theology, thanks.
LikeLike
Lily: Richard: Re: Your doctrine at this point is confusing some important things…
I’ll stick with Lutheran theology, thanks.
RS: But not with Luther’s great teaching against ‘free-will’ and of the sovereignty of the grace of God.
LikeLike
Richard, wow! Still and quiet joy don’t count. Where does the Bible ever come close to saying that joy is going to be moving and loud? Don’t you see that your joy has turned you into a member of the joy police. To reverse Mencken on the Puritans, you are now saying that you fear that someone somewhere may be deficient in happiness.
Sorry, but this strikes me as odd and extreme — not the Mencken point — but the idea that joy must take a certain form to qualify as genuine.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: Richard, wow! Still and quiet joy don’t count. Where does the Bible ever come close to saying that joy is going to be moving and loud? Don’t you see that your joy has turned you into a member of the joy police. To reverse Mencken on the Puritans, you are now saying that you fear that someone somewhere may be deficient in happiness.
RS: I am not sure what I said to elicit your response here. I don’t recall saying that joy had to be loud or even implying that. I argue for joy as part of the fruit of the Spirit in the believer, but have specifically said that the greatest and most exquisite joy cannot be spoken.
D.G. Hart: Sorry, but this strikes me as odd and extreme — not the Mencken point — but the idea that joy must take a certain form to qualify as genuine.
RS: But surely you would agree that there is a joy in the things of the world that is not the fruit of the HOLY Spirit. The HOLY Spirit works a holy joy in His people, and more specifically, works a joy that is a joy that is in God.
LikeLike
Psalm 131
A song of ascents. Of David.
1 My heart is not proud, LORD,
my eyes are not haughty;
I do not concern myself with great matters
or things too wonderful for me.
2 But I have calmed and quieted myself,
I am like a weaned child with its mother;
like a weaned child I am content.
3 Israel, put your hope in the LORD
both now and forevermore.
LikeLike
Richard, I may have misunderstood what you wrote: “I would not argue that a confessionalist cannot have joy in the risen Savior and it be a very still and quiet joy.” The double negative may have thrown me.
As for the joy of the Holy Spirit, what about joy in the creation of God? What if I view baseball as God’s creation? Can’t I take joy in it? Why does joy have to be religious?
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: Richard, I may have misunderstood what you wrote: “I would not argue that a confessionalist cannot have joy in the risen Savior and it be a very still and quiet joy.” The double negative may have thrown me.
RS: I am a very negative sort, but I have joy in being negative. Maybe this expresses what I was trying to say and yet not being so negative: “I would not argue against the fact that a confessionalist could have joy in the risen Savior and it be a very still and quiet joy.”
D. G. Hart: As for the joy of the Holy Spirit, what about joy in the creation of God? What if I view baseball as God’s creation? Can’t I take joy in it? Why does joy have to be religious?
RS: Allow me to sort of quote Augustine, though it is from memory and so I may have added something negative or a small word: “He loves Thee too little who does not love all things for Thy sake.” I would not argue that one cannot enjoy baseball as God’s creation, but stretching that to include the Phillies may be going too far.
Do you enjoy baseball on the Sabbath? I recall John Gerstner (a Pirates fan) that he prayed for them except on the Sabbath.
LikeLike