512 thoughts on “Regeneration, Intelligence, and Philosophy”

1. To be a GOOD TREE is first of all about being justified before God. There are two legal states before God. Either you are justified before God or you are condemned before God. To pass over from death to life is to be put into the new creation, and this mean first of all that the elect are given a new legal state, with the result that they begin to KNOW that assurance is not in what God does in us but rather in what God has done in Christ outside us.

   Romans 6, which explains about “justified from sin” and “sin shall not have dominion because you are not under the law” goes on to describe the resulting knowledge of those who have been justified. “Those who were once slaves of sin have become OBEDIENT FROM THE MIND TO THE STANDARD OF DOCTRINE to which God committed them” (Rom 6:17). Among the “things of which you are now ashamed” (6:21) is any idea that we are ever changed in such a way that we are no longer sinners like other people.

   Many who think of themselves as ontologically superior will be surprised on the last day

   Matthew 7:17 So every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. 18 A healthy tree CANNOT bear bad fruit, nor CAN a diseased tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.20 Thus you will recognize them by their fruits 21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty WORKS in your name?’ 23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you WORKERS of lawlessness.’

   Many “Calvinists” pay lip-service to “imputation” whose more basic hope is an ontological regeneration in them which they find to be more important than any “knowledge” about atonement, imputation, or justification. To them, the noetic effect of regeneration will produce in them “sanctification by synergism” which includes their works. The “federal vision” version of this is to speak of “covenant conditions” so that even the “elect” still have an “opportunity to fail”.

   So that you will not think I doing a caricature this exaggerated understanding of “regeneration”, let me quote one pastor.

   Regeneration Priority: “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, I miss the motivation of knowing my deeds today can actually please God, and I can be left with a gnostic academic Sandemanian view of my relationship with God.”

   mcmark responds: Like the Galatian false teachers, those who prioritize ontological regeneration do not deny justification by imputation. But they minimize justification as “mere knowledge” and only one “perspective”.

   I quote Mr Regeneration Priority : “I can begin to assume that it is only the perfect Christ that “God sees” (as though it were all some virtual reality and not a ontological 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 God in any real way.”

   mcmark: To give the priority to a regeneration that effectively “ends the law-grace antithesis” is to move the emphasis from what Christ has done and put it on what WE (changed ontologically) can now do. It makes us a lot more “relevant”, at least IF WE use our new abilities to change the culture. This possibility makes success depend on us, and has the added thrill of warnings about potential defeat. Those who emphasize this concept of regeneration over justification want to be present in their relationship with God in such a way that their ability to understand things the Bible does not talk about can supplement “hearing what God says in the Bible”

   To those with this viewpoint, it’s irritating that 2 k (or anabaptist) folks don’t want to be relevant in that way. Why call anything “providential natural intelligence ” when you could call it “grace” instead? Is not the “grace” that changes us so that we can do what needs done also “grace”?

   If we respond to these claims of ontological ability by asking which Christian is now no longer experiencing the noetic effects of sin, our question itself proves to some Calvinists that we are antinomians.

   LikeLike

2. Richard Gaffin, in Ordained Servant, reviewing Horton’s Covenant Union:

   “Horton voices reservations about the Reformed doctrine of regeneration. He agrees with its substance and intention but finds problematic the way it has been formulated, in particular the notion that regeneration produces a habitual change and involves the INFUSION of new habits. This he sees as a lingering residue of the medieval ontology that eventually made the Reformation necessary. These concerns, with his own proposal, are articulated especially in Chapter 10 (“Covenantal Ontology and Effectual Calling”). The promising alternative for him lies in adapting the Eastern Orthodox distinction between divine essence and energies, so that the activity of the Spirit in salvation is understood as an exercise of his energies that avoids “a causal scheme of infused habits” (213).

   Gaffin: “I share fully Horton’s concerns about the notion sometime present in Reformed treatments… that regeneration is prior to effectual calling and produces an antecedent state addressed in effectual calling. That notion is quite problematic and ought to be rejected. However, his view of “Regeneration as Effectual Calling” …prompts the following observations…. Having been called effectively involves having been regenerated, but the two are not identical. The exercise of the Spirit’s energies in calling produces an enduring change within sinners distinct from that exercise.

   Gaffin: “The result… is a permanent regenerate state marked… by a new and lasting disposition inherent in them, what Scripture calls a new heart. That is, at the core of my being, I am no longer against God and disposed to rebel against his will but, now and forever, for him and disposed in the deepest recesses of whom I am to delight in doing his will. In view of the undeniable reality of their own indwelling sin, believers need to be exhorted not to quench or grieve the Spirit at work in their lives. But his work in the justified ungodly does not merely consist of an ongoing countering activity within those otherwise only disposed to be thoroughly resistant and recalcitrant…. The Reformed use of “habitual” to describe this irreversible change, this radical dispositional reorientation in believers, seems appropriate and useful. I’m unsure whether and, if so, how these comments square with Horton’s covenantal ontology.”

   mcmark: If regeneration is by grace and justification is by grace, who cares? It’s all “union”. Or at least it all depends on “union”. And “union” depends on faith. Doesn’t it?

   http://opc.org/os.html?article_id=141

   LikeLike

3. http://www.mbird.com/2011/12/righteous-minds-moral-matrices-and-the-real-non-difference-between-liberals-and-conservatives/

   An early reference (last year) to The Righteous Mind…

   LikeLike

4. Darryl, methinks your stogie was doped before writing this one. As idolators create gods after their own imaginations, you seem to create neo-Calvinists after your own imagination. I can say that I’ve never met a neo-Calvinist that thinks like you’ve described. Of course, the Kuyper quote is proper neo-Calvinism. Common grace is one of the planks. I’d suggest that modern neo-Calvinism has a bit too much stress on common grace–as I like to say, transformationalism plus common grace minus the antithesis is social gospelism. Of course, you avoid that error by keeping transformationalism (and the antithesis?) out of the equation, so you just have “the common”.

   I’d love to see some quotes or references to your alleged brand of neo-Calvinism.

   Here’s a link to how I put it through the eyes of C. Van Til–The Similarity of the Christian’s and Non-Christian’s Science. I’m more than happy to say that worldview is part of philosophy and is by and large an academic discipline. Everyone has one whether they are conscious of it or not. Most people, including believers, can get along fine in the world and in the church without knowing anything about Reformed epistemology or who Herman Dooyeweerd is. They don’t even need to know what “cognoscenti” or “noetic” means. Of course, it’s better to say “In Christ alone my hope is found; He is my light, my strength, my song.”

   LikeLike

5. Someone’s making some sense here… and it’s welcome.

   LikeLike

6. “I’d love to see some quotes or references to your alleged brand of neo-Calvinism.”

   Me too. Notice his only quote from a Neo-Calvinist contradicts what he says Neo-Calvinists believe!

   LikeLike

7. Who is the someone who is making sense? We are talking about regeneration. What’s confusing to me (and what does not make sense) is the quote from Dort and equating regeneration with some sort of infusion of grace. What the post is trying to determine is if regeneration does anything to counter the effect of sin on our minds and make us more clear thinkers- at least more clear and insightful thinkers than unbelievers. I thought that regeneration is the cause for believing faith in the Gospel. It has nothing to do with clearer or more insightful thinking. I am confused on what it means in Romans 12 to be transformed by the renewing of your minds and how we do this. That may effect our clear and insightful thinking more than regeneration.

   LikeLike

8. Darryl,

   I’d love to see (or make) a full-length smack-down on how Neo-Calvinism renders unintelligible the religious lives of the mentally disabled. Most of the guys I serve love Jesus, pray to him nightly, worship him on Sundays, and do their manual work as best they can with dignity and little self-reflection. Being a Christian doesn’t make them more intelligent, yet even my most “severely retarded” clients have developed a vast body of knowledge/praxis: they know what to do, they learn the songs, they learn the stories, they know how to pray, etc. Most of the activities in the descriptions we have of heaven don’t require much intelligence, thank God.

   My tentative thesis is that by assigning so much meaning to the common realm, Neo-Calvinists risk demoting the mentally disabled from full participants/subjects of the Kingdom to some kind of object that more intelligent [read: real] Christians get to redeem. Retarded people become the target of “Kingdom Work,” not its laborers. In short, hardly any of the stuff that Neo-Calvinists say Christians should do apply to anyone with an IQ less than 80. That’s a feature, not a bug.

   PS: About 10 years ago I met you at the CFH in Indiana and got to hear you respond to Chris Shannon. I think that same lecture ended up in “Confessing History,” which I helped edit at Covenant. Anyway, you seemed nice.

   LikeLike

9. John,

   “if regeneration does anything to counter the effect of sin on our minds and make us more clear thinkers- at least more clear and insightful thinkers than unbelievers.”

   All that’s needed here is to show that regeneration does *something* to counter the effect of sin on our minds and make us more clear and insightful thinkers than unbelievers. In the post, even *Darryl* admits it does *something* in this regard—namely, for matters salvific.

   But you may want to qualify and ask if it does “something” apart from matters salvific. The answer here is yes too. This was assumed by the majority of Reformed, for example, it was the key point of theologia naturalis regenitorium.

   But you may want to qualify further and say, “Okay, does regeneration do *something* outside these last areas.” Whatever you think the noetic effects of sin cover can be affected. So note here that Dort claims that there are *some* things outside the above two categories: “There remain, however, in man since the fall, the glimmerings of natural light, whereby he retains some knowledge of God, or natural things, and of the difference between good and evil, and shows some regard for virtue and for good outward behavior.”

   But more properly, the Reformed have said that regeneration and sanctification are what affect the intellect. but really, this isn’t a neo-Calvinist view, it’s rather a more catholic view. Take virtue epistemology. No doubt Augustine and Aquinas held to certain accounts of this, and the position is becoming more in vogue again. If we agree with some of the basic and fairly uncontroversial themes of virtue epistemology, we can see how conversion can affect matters epistemic: there are certain epistemic vices which affect us as knowers, and certain epistemic virtues positively affect us as knowers. As recognized experts in virtue epistemology, Roberts and Woods, have noted, these virtues include but are not limited to things like “love of knowledge and the virtues of epistemic humility, caution, courage, tenacity, openness, charity, and generosity” (Intellectual Virtues, Oxford, p.28). The go on, speaking of epistemic generosity, which “belongs, stylistically, to Christianity, and it does so because of the centrality of the Christian virtue of love. The centrality of love is a consequence of God’s generous love as revealed and embodied in Jesus Christ (ibid, 304). Christianity also fosters

   an intrinsic interest in important truths about history, nature, and human beings. Nature, including human beings, is God’s creation and reflects his intelligence and beauty; and he is the Lord of history. It is a natur- al extension of the worship of God to have reverence for and interest in the things he has made and rules. (ibid)

   Examples could be multiplied. We might, for example, wonder about the negative cognitive effects that cognitive idolatry has on our minds (the theme of cognitive idolatry is explored in great detail by renowned epistemology Paul K. Moser in The Ellusive God, Oxford). In his fascinating study he points out the truth that our whole person is involved in the knowing process, not just some disembodied mind. Accordingly, with the reorientation of our *wills*, this will affect our epistemic condition in at least *some* (to meet your criteria) way. When heart and mind are aligned, as many Christian and non-Christian have pointed out, this has a profound effect on the knower.

   This point is elaborated on when we consider the interrelatedness of *ethics* with knowledge. These form a “normative web” (as Terrance Cuneo has forcefully argued in Normative Web (Oxford)). Given a change in our moral dispositions and affections and knowledge (as *all* Reformed creeds and confession attest to), changes at the normative level are bound to have *some* consequence. For starters, go back to the virtues point. And this isn’t some “neo-Calvinist” rejoinder—which wouldn’t matter if it were, for that’s insufficient to defeat what I say—it’s recognized by neo-Confessionalists like David vanDrunen (see, e.g., his book on Bioethics (Crossway) and his discussion of how regeneration and sanctification affect traditional virtues, allowing Christians to have more trustworthy and correct views and answers to some bioethical problems. As regeneration and sanctification cause the sinner to accept and appreciate God’s word in the Bible, she now has access to a broader storehouse of philosophical concepts about the nature of man etc. Guided by the word—caused by regeneration and sanctification—her judgments on many important issues will be more sound, knowledgeable, and trustworthy than the non-Christian. Some of these new concepts are spelled out in his list of “givens” the Christian approaching bioethical decisions must take into account. For example, we *must* take into account and apply our philosophical concept of man qua imago dei when discussion bioethical questions, and this will affect the way we think and reason in this area. One more example of the many he presents is our changed view—again, brought about through conversion—on the nature of death, which, clearly, affects much of our thinking on many bioethical matters. In these senses and on these matters the Christian’s thinking is clearly *better* than the non-Christian’s (and note: I do not mean by ‘thinking’ some rote *process* that happens in the brain or discursively in the mind, a *process* or *mechanism* that operates, roughly, the same in all people).

   Anyway, yeah, the virtues. DVD discusses my point in chapter 3, showing how the Christian cultivation and development of virtues (both moral and epistemic, I say) affects how we think and reason about matter bioethical.

   Another example has to due with what logicians and psychologists have pointed out, that our set of background assumptions affects what we take to be good arguments. Different background assumptions might cause two people two view the same argument differently, one with appreciation the other with disdain. One might say, “The argument shows no such thing, for it is invalid.” But it might only be believed to be invalid based on certain assumptions. This can in part explain why some believers will see that an argument clearly supports belief in God, while an atheist that it clearly doesn’t, and that it’s a bad argument. Not recognizing good arguments can be an intellectual defect.

   Finally, another example can be taken from what Alvin Plantinga has argued for in his Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism. Now, before touching on this argument, we should note that regeneration and sanctification brings about various philosophical changes for us (the extent differs on the starting place). But a Reformed Christian will not hold to physicalism, doxastic epiphenominalism, metaphysical naturalism, nihilism, radical empiricism, or the existence of gratuitous evils. Freed from these cognitively troublesome worldviews, the believer’s intellect is affected. But, more specifically, suppose you believe the conjunction of evolution + naturalism, E&N). On this conjunction, Plantinga argues, the probability that our cognitive faculties are reliable, R, on E&N, is low, i.e., Pr(R | E&N) < .5. Thus, holding to E&N gives a reflective person a *defeater* for all their beliefs. To put it mildly, this is cognitively disastrous! Conversion can affect this, and in defeating the defeater, some of one's beliefs now enjoy positive epistemic status, whereas before they did not have this property. Clearly, that's a change.

   I've only scratched the surface of a response, and only hi-lighted some of the moves I'd make. Notice, John, that Darryl and his followers won't interact with the actual *argument*, and if they do at all they will make inferences from what I *haven't* said and then try to draw out some alleged problem for me (something like, "So it looks like you think Christianity is only philosophy," or "You seem to be saying that unbelievers can't add," or some such other non-sequitur.

   LikeLike

10. Paul,

    Please explain how any of the regenerative effects you describe (access to a broader storehouse of philosophical concepts, acuity in bioethics, bracketing out certain worldviews) would apply to anyone with a mental disability. I’m just imagining the Holy Spirit trying to work in a severely autistic person’s life and mind and throwing up His hands, “I can’t work with this!”

    I’m not trying to be anti-intellectual here, because we are both smart and I like that we are both smart. I think it’s safe to say that anyone reading this is smart, though they might be less so afterwards! However, I think the temptation for smart Christians is to attribute our smartness to regeneration–or even worse, to attribute various conclusions or methods of thought to the work of the Spirit.

    I will throw you a bone and say that I do often reflect on the relationship between my work with the mentally disabled and my faith. For instance, I back Hauerwas in claiming that Christians should never try to justify the existence of the mentally disabled, because we do not justify the existence of our friends. We can only delight them as gifts that require no justification. It’s possible that this kind of “common insight” (there is nothing explicitly Christian about it) is found in people like Hauerwas, Swinton, Reinders, Nouwen, and Vanier because of the work of the Spirit, but I think it’s just as explainable from Hauerwas’ obsession with Wittgenstein or Vanier’s ethics-as-first-philosophy. It’s also an example of motivated reasoning because all of these thinkers have friends who are mentally disabled, and people are usually interested in defending the dignity of their friends.

    LikeLike

11. Abraham Booth, Glad Tidings

    p238 “According to fatalism, the word of truth having no influence, is of no use in regeneration, the salutary and important change being produced entirely without it..It is too hastily assumed that the mind is prepared to receive the light of spiritual knowledge before the truth have any influence on it.”

    p247 “Now the question is: Do the Scriptures lead us to conclude that the mind and the conscience are brought into the new state by an immediate divine energy, without the medium of either the law or the gospel? I think not. It is written: by the law is the knowledge of sin.

    p249 “For an ‘awakened sinner’ to be persuaded that regeneration is effected without the instrumentality of divine truth, is to give an injurious direction to his prayers and expectations. “

    LikeLike

12. Jeremy, looks like you got me.

    LikeLike

13. Jeremy, I don’t understand why the effects of regeneration have to be the same in every individual. In the CRC we speak of age- and ability-appropriate faith. Persons with intellectual disabilities can certainly love, worship, and serve the Lord. Their response to the gospel is the result of the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit. But why wouldn’t the work of the Spirit transform all aspects of our lives whatever our abilities and gifts. So there might be consequences of regeneration in the mind of the bioethicist that aren’t there for anyone who doesn’t really think about the questions a bioethicist might think about. But there are other consequences of regeneration that are unique to the person with intellectual disabilities. It seems that the hotbed of neo-Calvinism, the CRCNA, doesn’t do at all what you suggest and has a very active ministry to persons with intellectual and other disabilities through their Disabilities Concerns ministry and Friendship Ministries. See http://www.crcna.org/pages/disability.cfm Neo-Calvinism in action!

    LikeLike

14. Terry,

    I know of the good work that Reformed churches are doing with those members who are mentally disabled because I’ve done such work in both the PCA and the CRC. I think it disingenuous for you attribute such work to “Neo-Calvinism in action,” though, since what you linked to is just an example of church ministry. (By the way, if that’s your page put the Mental Illness Workshop in a separate page. It’s not the same thing.) Most denominations do work like that, and that’s a good thing. The best out there is probably L’Arche, and that’s mostly Catholic.

    Your claim that regeneration or effectual calling operates differently or at different levels depending on the person’s ability seems patently false. If this is true, you simply cannot avoid calling the mentally disabled second-class Christians. Everything that the WCF describes as happening to Christians happened equally to me and my severely autistic client. Same process, same result, same amount.

    My general axiom is that we can’t call something a Christian duty or a standard effect of being a Christian if the mentally disabled can’t do it. If you want to talk about what we do in grateful response to God’s grace, then yeah our abilities are all over the place and some are smarter. That’s fine. But the vast majority of disabled Christians I know live out their faith in a Two Kingdoms way.

    LikeLike

15. Paul,

    That was a nice try and I appreciate the tone in which you responded. It made me actually want to try to get what you were saying which did require lots of mental effort. There has been a lot of ink spilled on what regeneration and inward renewal (which includes sanctification I think) is in the Reformed world and many are questioning the conclusions and inferences that many Reformed thinkers have come to. You find a lot of contradictory explanations in all the major theologians of the reformation. Can we really know about ontological changes or changes of substance in our inner being? Is that what regeneration and renewal by the Holy Spirit is really talking about?

    LikeLike

16. To add another wrinkle to this question of inward renewal and what this means consider this quote from Berkfoff- how is this explained if justification comes after regeneration and faith:

    Louis Berkhof, History of Christian Doctrines, p220–”Calvin and Luther both described justification as a forensic act which does not change the inner life of man, but only the judicial relationship in which he stands to God. Moreover they deny that justification is a progressive work of God, asserting that it is instantaneous and at once complete, and hold that the believer can be absolutely sure that he is translated forever from a state of wrath and condemnation to one of favor and acceptance.”

    The important thing is that the guilt of our sin is dealt with in justification and that the believer has Christ’s righteousness in perpetuity. Regeneration is the seal that we will continue to believe this. What happens inside of us in the renewal is of secondary importance.

    LikeLike

17. I have to say, this is a really disappointing post. DGH, you can never accuse anyone else of caricaturing. There’s not a single non-r2k’er that would fit the above description. I’m not even going to waste my time pointing out all the errors.

    A truly good scholar always tries to present their opponent’s view in the best possible light. This post didn’t even come close. This is a real sign of a weak argument.

    LikeLike

18. Darryl,

    I suggest that your bias has shown throughout your argument. Both you and neo-Calvinists agree that God’s common grace works in non-believers as well as believers. You seem to want to conclude from this truth that the temporal/profane realm can and should be severed from the eternal/sacred realm. The neo-Calvinist will use the same truth to argue, as Dr. Schaeffer does, that creation must be the beginning of all Christian theology. He used to insist that every believer bows twice before God:acknowledging him first as Creator, and then as Redeemer. Dr. Schaeffer’s lifelong interest in the arts and humanities was a testimony to his conviction that the merely human, the merely created and unredeemed, had significance. He was especially concerned about recognizing the dignity that the image of God conferred upon man, even in man’s rebellion.

    This view does not mean that regeneration will render a believer to think more intelligently than a non-believer, but rather that whatever gifts and desires have been given will be transformed to glorify God, instead of man.

    LikeLike

19. John, I never made a claim about “ontological changes.” Remember I said all responses to my post would be based off things I did *not* say, and there would be an intimation that I *did* say those things. So far, this has been the case in the two responses so far, yours and Jeremy’s. I don’t hold it against you; habits are cultivated often by imitation. Since responding to things interlocutors did *not* say but acting as if they *did* say those things is the M.O. of Hart, Zrim, &c., then those who spend a lot of time here will, consciously or sub-consciously, pick up those bad habits for themselves.

    LikeLike

20. Guys, don’t be too hard on Darryl for his obvious and blatant straw men and caricatures. He’s not trying to be serious, he’s trying to be provocative. He’s being edgy. He’s trying to “stir the pot.” He’s trying to “drum up business” for Old Life. Make a name. Get attention. Be . . . controversial. This would be cute, but given all that he’s said about others who use such tactics, it’s actually sad.

    LikeLike

21. Paul, I have to say – I agree with you. The problem is that I am not amused. I am seeking TRUTH. These are important matters. I want my children to grow up in a good country. So what’s my role in building and fighting for that? I lean heavily towards the theonomy camp because they take this situation more seriously and their answers are more clear and lucid. But I read and interact here because I really want to hear both sides out. But if DGH is just toying with me and using me, then I am wasting my time. I will have to find a place where they tke this debate more seriously.

    LikeLike

22. Paul,

    You said: “given a change in our moral dispositions and affections and knowledge (as all Reformed creeds and confessions attest to), changes at the normative level are bound to have *some* consequences.”

    And this: “As regeneration and sanctification cause the sinner to accept and appreciate God’s word in the Bible.”

    And this: “Guided by the Word-caused by regeneration and sanctification- her judgments on many important issues will be more sound, knowledgeable and trustworthy than non-Christians.”

    Are not your assumptions giving you a much broader definition of regeneration and sanctification than how the scriptures define the terms? One of my main points of the original post I made was questioning the accuracy of the Dort statement. I was actually questioning the validity of a confessional statement. I thought you might pick up on that more than trying to prove to me that “all that’s needed here is to show that regeneration does *something* to counter the effect of sin on our minds and make us more clear and insightful thinkers than unbelievers.”

    And isn’t a “change in our moral dispositions and affections and knowledge” an ontological change?

    My point was that what is important in regeneration is that it causes faith in the Gospel- whether the inward work of the Holy Spirit changes our moral dispositions and affections and knowledge is of secondary importance. I am not sure if it does or if it is that important. Your argument may prove that it does but I think you are giving to broad of a definition of regeneration and sanctification. What seems to be biblically important is how regeneration and sanctification are related to the Gospel not to our moral dispositions.

    LikeLike

23. Dear Darryl and other disputers (2K vs. whatever you call the supposed anti-2Kers)— I have long read much on the nearly dayly OLT offerings of Darryl Hart and comments thereon. Could anyone read it all?! Reminds me of a conversation I had in the early 1950s with a fellow student at WTS. I had just said, “John, we have to separate the essentials of our Christian Faith from the non-essentials.” John’s response: “Bob, there ARE NO non-essentials! ” School is out! I say that much of the stuff on OLT is brother fighting brother about the secret things (Deut. 29:29). I say, too, that we should be reading Job, who knew he wasn’t God! (Understatement of the century!) We should be fighting hard against Satan’s wiles in this, God’s world (yes the CHURCH too), ought to be involved in fighting for her survival—in Muslim lands and everywhere else.!) AND we must fight against Satan’s wiles in opposing us and God in evangelism. As Darryl says (Puh-leeze) notice, as Eric Metaxas did (great Bonhoffer book – we can learn from the sleepy church of Nazi Germany!), what Satan is doing to our nation, Our church, Truth, and our families. Stop gagging on matters too great for us (Ps. 131:1)! Stop battling Brothers! Let’s roll! Bob Morris

    LikeLike

24. John, rather than get sidetracked I’ll simply note that I argued that regeneration and sanctification can and does affect the intellectual life. You continue to try to respond to my post by brining up things I did *not* touch on and then act as if that is a failure. I argued that regeneration and, more specifically, sanctification, has a broader consequences than Darryl suggests. There are positive intellectual changes, and I highlighted many of them. I did *not* say these were the primary or most important aspects of regeneration or sanctification. If someone said working out has a narrow benefit, affecting areas X and Y, and I pointed out it has psychological and intellectual benefits too, this could not be refuted by saying, “But it is X and Y that are most important.” Or if someone says, “Being an American gives you benefits P and Q, but probably not R,” and I point out that it gives your R as a benefit, you could not defeat this by saying, “But P and Q are more important than R!” You savvy?

    LikeLike

25. Bob, I have often had the same feelings, but the question HOW THEN SHALL WE LIVE can’t be put on hold. These aren’t merely academic musings for me. As the father of a large family in a decaying nation, I need answers and I need them now. I totally respect Hart’s intellect and contrary views, but I think he needs to take this seriously. To me, I don’t think this post takes the opposition seriously.

    LikeLike

26. @Jon, yeah, you may not want to stick around. Hart has admitted that his blog posts are not meant to be arguments, and they are not meant to be taken seriously. So he will frequently grossly exaggerate and caricature, and when he’s called on it he has nothing but snark and smarm to offer in response.

    LikeLike

27. “Jeremy, looks like you got me.”

    Paul, I appreciate your honest and humble admission. Did you learn this quality from Darryl G. Hart?

    LikeLike

28. Jon: “I will have to find a place where they tke this debate more seriously.”

    Paul’s blog is a good place to explore: Triablogue.blogspot.com/

    LikeLike

29. Jeremy – Paul already addressed the essence of your question about a believer with a mental disability when he said the following:

    “Now, before touching on this argument, we should note that regeneration and sanctification brings about various philosophical changes for us (the extent differs on the starting place).”

    Everyone’s “starting place” is different. Some (like the Apostle Paul, Augustine, Luther, Calvin, etc.) are much further advanced prior to regeneration & sanctification than are others. The difference is in degree, not kind.

    LikeLike

30. Can the unbeliever love the Lord with all of his heart soul and MIND? No. Quite the opposite.

    Does a believer (even if imperfectly) love the Lord with his mind? Yes. Why? Regeneration & sanctification. He is a new creation in Christ.

    That’s my Cliff Notes version of an answer to this debate.

    LikeLike

31. TUAD, I was being sarcastic, and yes, I got that from Darryl Hart.

    LikeLike

32. Fine Paul, I’m savvy.

    LikeLike

33. Paul+Andy,

    Perhaps it would more helpful to see the Holy Spirit’s work of regeneration on the intellect in terms of direction/telos instead of improving/upgrading certain faculties. All of the examples that Paul gives (the philosophical insights) can be better explained as a reorientation of direction instead of an improvement in faculty. We should obviously say that the Holy Spirit directs the intellect (and any other faculty like emotion or mood) toward the glorification of God. That way, we can affirm the equality of the Spirit’s work in both geniuses and the mentally disabled while acknowledging the obvious difference between how this plays out in their lives. Both are equally “reoriented”

    However, referring to an unregenerate’s “starting place” seems quite un-Reformed, as if a genius gives the Holy Spirit more to work with. Hence my preference for “regeneration of the intellect as a reorientation of direction.”

    (Not that this observation helps with the 2K debate, since a Neo-Calvinist might just say that “reorienting the direction of activity toward its proper telos” is exactly what they mean when they speak of redeeming culture.)

    LikeLike

34. “Direction/telos” now you sound like a neo-cal!

    LikeLike

35. Jeremy, I think of this in similar terms to what C.S.Lewis (ducks!) said in the chapter of Mere Christianity called “Nice People or New Men.”

    We might see two people who have very different dispositions or personalities and make a rather inaccurate judgment of each of them in relation to the other. One might seem to be a sweet old lady whom we esteem as quite saintly and far, far along in the way of sanctification. On the other hand we may meet a brother in Christ, but find him to be gruff, cantankerous, and generally not very pleasant. We could wrongly assume that he has made very little progress in sanctification, but we could be wrong on both counts.

    The sweet old lady might have already had a rather sweet disposition before coming to faith in Christ, and she may have actually made very little progress in sanctification, whereas the man we just met may have been marvelously saved from a life of absolute chaos and debauchery.

    That is similar to what I think Paul means by “starting point.”

    God doesn’t “have much to work with” even with the best among us. He used a dopey fisherman like Peter every bit as much as He did a powerful intellect like Paul. (But sometimes even Peter had difficulty “getting” Paul – 2 Peter 3:16.)

    LikeLike

36. I can’t shake my Covenant education entirely! But seriously, a 2K-er wouldn’t deny that regeneration re-orients the entire believer toward the glorification of God, but other than serving the church, it just wouldn’t have all that much to do with the excellence of their work.

    To use my own example, I clearly see my work with the mentally disabled as related in some way to my being reoriented by the Holy Spirit, but to be honest you probably couldn’t tell while I’m at work. Lots of atheists are better than me at my job. My being regenerate doesn’t give me any special insights, either, other than “Because I am a Christian, I went to Covenant College, and met Jay Green, who made me read Hauerwas–and from there Vanier and the other L’Archians–and they are very insightful about the mentally disabled.”

    LikeLike

37. @Andy, I think you’ve described Hauerwas’ personality very well! But seriously, I agree with everything you said, but only because your examples were clearly about sanctification and Christian virtue. In other words, sinful behavior and habits. That’s fine.

    The specific problem I have is with attributing to the Holy Spirit’s noetic work a kind of intellectual benefit that goes beyond the bare-bones knowledge described in Westminster Confession X. Paul seems to attribute an array of philosophical beliefs to the Holy Spirit’s work in regeneration, when I think it’s much safer to say that regeneration orients your natural faculties towards God without making them any better.

    LikeLike

38. Ha!

    I don’t know that becoming a believer has made me any “smarter”, but I sure do think I was dumb before then. 🙂

    LikeLike

39. Good stuff, DH:

    What is important is that Calvin does attribute to the Spirit the knowledge that pagans possess. Truth, wisdom, and intelligence do not exist independent from God. At the same time, the wisdom of pagans is spiritual work that does not include regeneration. It is in effect another iteration of the doubleness that 2K tries to maintain.

    Although the back-benchers are having none of it… All part of the conversation. Thanks.

    LikeLike

40. The Reformed epistemologists can maintain that regeneration and sanctification affect the intellect. What 2ker has any problem with this? I’ll see it and raise the affections and will and body. The problem is just how much or to what meaningful extent? And with something like HC 114, which makes it clear that even the holiest men, while in this life, have only a small beginning of this obedience, it may well be that the Spirit’s affect on the faculties of any imago Dei creature is much more modest than the epistemologists seem to imply.

    It will likely draw howls, but if the Spirit does the kind of wonders neos and their philosophical helpmeets imply, is this not a sort of prosperity gospel for the intellectualists? When the neos talk about what the Spirit can do for the mind, I can’t help but see parallels to what some say he can do for the body. Surely, the Spirit is at work on our bodies, but does anyone here imagine that the TV preachers are onto something? If the body isn’t being improved with the sort of manifest acceleration the TV preachers suggest then why would it be any different for the mind?

    LikeLike

41. Jon, you seem to way overestimate the powers of blogdom. The tick for overestimation may be what razzes you about this post and explains your admitted tilt toward theonomy. I appreciate that you take these things seriously, but is it possible to take them too seriously? Are you really pinning all your familial and political hopes on getting these points right? Isn’t there a difference between Jesus returning and the sky falling?

    LikeLike

42. Zrim.

    Isn’t there a difference between Jesus returning and the sky falling?

    You’re getting almost poetic with your turn of phrase…

    LikeLike

43. Zrim: “The Reformed epistemologists can maintain that regeneration and sanctification affect the intellect. What 2ker has any problem with this? I’ll see it and raise the affections and will and body.”

    —————————————–

    Amen. We are being renewed in the whole man.

    Likening Reformed epistemologists or Neo-Calvinists to prosperity gospel preachers? A stretch (even if a pretty funny one).

    LikeLike

44. Zrim, it seems to me that the WSC’s description of the knowledge attained at regeneration is different than the kind of knowledge we gain through study and inquiry (which depends on innate intelligence): “convincing us of our sin and misery, enlightening our minds in the knowledge of Christ, and renewing our wills, he doth persuade and enable us to embrace Jesus Christ, freely offered to us in the gospel.” It doesn’t say “and for those above an IQ of 70, here are some additional effects…”

    Descriptions of noetic regeneration in the Reformed confessions are extremely narrow, and it’s not hard for me to imagine my mentally disabled clients possessing such knowledge. Adding extra benefits (other than a reorientation of one’s natural abilities to a Christian telos) seems to create a two-tiered or scaled work of the Holy Spirit.

    LikeLike

45. Zrim,

    So are you saying that I shouldn’t take anything you say here seriously? You’re doing it all for sport to flex your intellectual muscles, I presume?

    No, my family’s hopes don’t rest on talking sense into any full time ivory tower intellectuals. But we are losing liberty at an amazing rate in this country and we have Christians saying just to sit back and let them go. ALL our children will suffer while you stay safely nestled in your corner waxing eloquent about the virtues of escapism. But there I go being too seriously again. . . . .

    LikeLike

46. Andy,
    we have Christians saying just to sit back and let them go.

    What 2K Christians (you know the dread Escondido bunch) are saying this? Can you quote a few of them for me? Who is saying that Christians as citizens of the state shouldn’t vote, can’t vote, or shouldn’t advocate for a preferred direction in their state?

    LikeLike

47. Sorry… that last one should have been addressed to Jon not to Andy.

    cheers…

    LikeLike

48. Jon,

    But we are losing liberty at an amazing rate in this country and we have Christians saying just to sit back and let them go.

    I can sympathize with your concerns at the alarming erosion of liberty that is occurring in The Home of the Free, however I am afraid most well-meaning Christians are almost totally ignorant regarding the causes of such erosion, choosing to focus on symptomatic moral-cultural issues that only point to deeper economic and political causes. But here’s the rub, the erosion of liberty isn’t a problem that faces merely Christians in this society, it faces all.

    As far as I can tell, the US is in the late stages of Empire, which historically is an awful place for a nation and it’s people to be. Empire has leverages the economic model of extraction, where the power elites (in business, politics, and military), amass wealth and influence by extracting wealth and resources first from it’s vassal states (which the US does with energy and base resources), and from it’s population through outright fraud – which leads back into a sort of feudalism. Empire’s most fundamental problems lie primarily in greed and lust for power, and nearly every social problem branches out from there. And the problem in the current context is many of the best critiques against the avarice, and greed of the American Empire are coming from outside the Christian world – as they understand the economic impacts of a bloated Military Industrial Complex, and other over-reaching social institutions. More often than not, American Christians have allowed themselves to become the pawn of the political right that equates wars of choice with patriotism, regardless of the social and financial burden it places on the population (not to mention the populations we go to war against), and champions a “business first” mentality that allows corporate largess, profligacy, and at times outright fraud to flourish in our halls of industry. Republicans will throw the evangelicals a bone and remain pro-life (while not doing much about abortion from a political standpoint) simply to placate them into the belief that they have the best interests of the average middle class American at heart.

    And, here’s where 2k is such a helpful way of approaching Christ and culture – many of the problems I have just alluded to concern me as much as they do my atheist neighbor, and while addressing the issue of freedom in the public square may not bring him to faith, it can be a means of neighborly love that testifies to the true freedom offered in Christ, simply by identifying areas of common concern in the civic space that Christians and non-Christians can cooperate on. Unfortunately, many Christians are more concerned with legislating more broadly Christian politics, wherein they chase their tails, alienate their neigbors over issues that have nothing to do with the offense of the gospel, and pass up opportunities to work together with others for better local, state, and even federal governance. This is because 2k does not seek to impose the will of the church on the state, rather recognizes that the state is God-ordained and intended to be a minister for good for those within or outside of the family of faith. When the Christian right starts decrying greed, violent, costly, and unnecessary wars, and the follies of the “War on Terror” and the overreach of government power that has resulted, they might be taken more seriously, and not be seen as a mere “voting block”.

    LikeLike

49. Jack, it must be the regeneration and sanctification kicking in and becoming manifest. PTL.

    Andy, you may laugh (Paul no doubt will spit, curse, mock, and crucify), but I am being serious. If the gospel is for every station of life then why not a prosperity gospel for the ivory tower as well as the trailer park (and suburb, for that matter), the cultured and learned as well as the crass and uncouth? Legalism isn’t only and ever about substance use, and prosperity gospel isn’t only and ever about cash and bling.

    Jeremy, I think you got me, and I mean that sincerely, not sarcastically (hi, Paul).

    LikeLike

50. Jon, Paul says I don’t have any intellect to flex. But, no, my point isn’t about withdrawal and flippancy. It’s about retaining the dignity of this world but also lowering the stakes. Is there any NT precedent for overly worrying so about the state of this world?

    LikeLike

51. Jed,

    You’re too quick to group me with the “religious right”, brother. I am completely against interventionism. I also see the problems with greed in the business world. I don’t agree with most Republicans as they are usually closet liberals. I am more of a Christian libertarian. The funny thing is that I bet you and I would agree on most political issues, but disagree as to WHY.

    However, there is something that inevitably leads atheists to big government politics MOST of the time. They must put their faith in something, and oftentimes it’s the State.

    I will continue to pray for this country and its leaders to repent.

    BTW when you say the state should be a minister for good, you imply a moral standard and the only reliable moral standard is the Bible. Sorry, natural rev just won’t do. But i guess this is where we part company.

    LikeLike

52. Jon,

    Where did I imply you were a card carrying member of the Religious Right? I don’t know your political views. All I argued was that 2k allows for a means for Christians to be active in the public square without dragging the church into matters to which it hasn’t bern called. One of the more common groups detracting from 2k in thr Reformed camp are reformed members of the political right, that was the broad issue I was speaking to… you are assuming more from what I wrote than I intended to communicate. Trust me, if I wanted to disparage you as a toothless, bacwater, card-carrying member of the religious right I would have said so much more directly.

    LikeLike

53. As an (innocent!) bystander, today I read this in an amazon review By “PresbyReader”
    Children and the Lord’s Supper

    “I recommend this book for all sides of the paedocommunion debate. Mind you, it is targeted to American Presbyterians but it is well worth the purchase and moves the debate forward for several reasons. First of all, it has the imprimatur of two luminaries of the Mississippi Valley Presbytery of the PCA. Thereby embossing these essays with a Good Housekeeping seal. This isn’t on the fringe.”

    “Secondly, it stakes out issues like Alzheimer’s patients. As Ian M. Duguid indicates in the second essay “Christ Our Passover”, not withstanding pastoral sensitivity and care, the Lord’s Supper should be withdrawn from Alzheimer’s patients. Fantastic. There has been trepidation to say so but I like Dr. Waters’ and Rev. Duncan’s boldness on the matter. ”

    mcmark: and no, I don’t know who the reviewer is….

    LikeLike

54. Jon,

    I admit it does seem logical that atheists would be more inclined to support state power, but at least today that’s not the case. I don’t think the relationship between atheism and statism is as clear as you think. Atheistic anarchism and Randian libertarianism seem to be logically consistent and really prevalent.

    William Cavanaugh’s work on the rise of the state would support your general idea better. The growth of the state through bureaucratization came first, and required a civil religion to support its sovereignty. State theorists created the myth that the state existed to contain religious wars, and further stigmatized exclusive religions as dangerous. The state created (and perpetuates) civil religion and national society, which as MacIntyre wryly observed “gives atheists less and less to deny.”

    This is just a rough sketch, but if Cavanaugh is right that state power gave birth to civil religion, then the causation seems reversed. Statism may actually beget atheism, because only God (and the Christian’s refusal to invest the state with eschatological meaning) can threaten its power. The atheist is the one who fails the test Jesus passed when he refused to bow down in exchange for earthly power.

    LikeLike

55. Mark,

    I really hope you aren’t quoting this review with approval. I’ve never heard of a church withdrawing communion from a believer afflicted with Alzheimer’s, nor have I seen them refuse it to those “of age” who are severely mentally disabled.

    Granted, the same principle would also seem to imply paedocommunion (which is why I accept it) but in my experience even anti-paedocommunion churches (like my own) make such exceptions. It’s not logically consistent, IMO, but in this case I prefer it that way.

    LikeLike

56. Zrim: Is there any NT precedent for overly worrying so about the state of this world?

    RS: We are to love God and His glory above all. We are also to love our neighbor as ourselves. The greatest thing for a neighbor is to know God and obey His commandments out of love. Yes, we are to have concern for the world.

    1 Timothy 2:1 “First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, 2 for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. 3 This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.”

    Whatever one thinks of the parameters of “desires all men to be saved”, there is a link between the welfare of those in authority and our quiet lives seeking godliness. Then again, there is that great truth of the Great Commission where we are to make disciples and that includes going to all the nations. True, we are not to overly worry about that, but we are still to be part of carrying it out.
    “Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God” (I Cor 10:31). If we are commanded to do that, then surely we are to tell our neighbors that they should do this as well. The commandments are for all people as all will answer to God for violating them. Surely a love for God and others will include warning others of the judgement to come upon them and their sin.

    LikeLike

57. Richard,

    Dont forget “Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.”

    LikeLike

58. Jon, you may want to distance yourself from the religious right, but when you say that the only reliable moral standard is the Bible, and when you admit a sympathy for theonomy, it’s hard to see that distance. Honest theonomists will admit a co-belligerence with the RR. I also wonder why you’d disparage natural revelation as insufficient to rule natural life. Isn’t God its author?

    And how does Richard’s point forget the Lord’s Prayer? Praying for and living quietly among the earth’s inhabitants seems a far distance from the kind of transformation and takeover neos, theos, Protestant liberals, and religious righties envision.

    LikeLike

59. Jed,

    You say, 2k does not seek to impose the will of the church on the state, rather recognizes that the state is God-ordained and intended to be a minister for good for those within or outside of the family of faith. When the Christian right starts decrying greed, violent, costly, and unnecessary wars, and the follies of the “War on Terror” and the overreach of government power that has resulted, they might be taken more seriously, and not be seen as a mere “voting block”.

    A non-2k would agree with Calvin and you that the state is the God-ordained minister for good, but would define the good as protecting the true religion proclaimed by the true King. How can you define good otherwise? Do you disagree with Calvin or my summary of his thinking?

    LikeLike

60. Zrim: Jon, you may want to distance yourself from the religious right, but when you say that the only reliable moral standard is the Bible, and when you admit a sympathy for theonomy, it’s hard to see that distance. Honest theonomists will admit a co-belligerence with the RR. I also wonder why you’d disparage natural revelation as insufficient to rule natural life. Isn’t God its author?

    RS: But natural revelation shows us that we are sinners who do not keep the Law and points us to the need of a Savior who is the real and rightful King.

    Zrim: And how does Richard’s point forget the Lord’s Prayer? Praying for and living quietly among the earth’s inhabitants seems a far distance from the kind of transformation and takeover neos, theos, Protestant liberals, and religious righties envision.

    RS: It idoes not forget the Lord’s Prayer, but perhaps recognizes as aspect to it that you would disagree with. The first petition tells us to pray that God’s name would be honored, stood in awe of, and glorified. I would think that this would mean both believer and unbeliever. The second petition tells us to pray for His kingdom to come, that is, to increase. At least one way for His kingdom to increase is for those in the world to be transferred from the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of His beloved Son. But the kingdom is not apart from the reign and rule of the king which we are to pray for and seek. The third petition (from Jon’s point) tells us to pray for His will to be done on earh as it is done in heaven. It does not limit this to believers only.

    Zrim: Praying for and living quietly among the earth’s inhabitants seems a far distance from the kind of transformation and takeover neos, theos, Protestant liberals, and religious righties envision.

    RS: Would it be okay with you if the government passed a law forbidding the practice of Christianity and the violation would be punishable by death? Would it be okay with you if the government passed a law saying that murder was a crime in the Bible and it along with all laws that are in the Bible were no longer to be considered as crimes because they were religious laws? At what point do you move from saying that there are two kingdoms and never the twain shall meet? Why wouldn’t we prefer and seek righteous and just laws rather than unrighteous and unjust ones? The very heart of doing what the Lord commands is to do justice (Micah 6:8). If we desire peace in the church and our land, there is only one Peacemaker and that is the Prince of Peace. Surely the wisdom of God is wiser than the wisdom of men in setting out laws for human conduct even if the majority of people are not Christians. Surely it is not wrong to desire justice and peace for our fellow men even if they are not Christians. Surely it is not wrong to desire and seek for laws that are in line with the Ten Commandments which all men will answer to God for whether they believe that or not.

    LikeLike

61. I’ve been away in Mongolia, so I missed the chance to comment early.
    Anyway, exactly who is supposed to be advocating the view that Darryl is arguing against here? Or, is this just another strawman?

    LikeLike

62. Baus,

    Exactly!!

    LikeLike

63. Zrim, I have no need to curse, spit, and crucify—boy, you 2Kers sure do have a flair for the dramatic, I thought you were supposed to act with “comportment,” anywho . . . for you simply identified yourself with Darryl’s Neo-Cals when you say that regeneration and sanctification affect the intellect regarding matters outside salvation (and, how could you say otherwise given my post?). So, congrats, you’re the Neo-Cal of the year! (See, not cursing or spitting or crucifying, just props.)

    LikeLike

64. Interesting to see the juxtaposition of “straw man” dissenters and Paul defending profound intellectual changes brought by the Spirit. So why isn’t this debate between Paul and the dissenters?

    LikeLike

65. Baus, we’re all waiting for Darryl to produce some citations.

    LikeLike

66. Paul said this:

    “Another example has to due with what logicians and psychologists have pointed out, that our set of background assumptions affects what we take to be good arguments. Different background assumptions might cause two people two view the same argument differently, one with appreciation the other with disdain. One might say, “The argument shows no such thing, for it is invalid.” But it might only be believed to be invalid based on certain assumptions. This can in part explain why some believers will see that an argument clearly supports belief in God, while an atheist that it clearly doesn’t, and that it’s a bad argument. Not recognizing good arguments can be an intellectual defect.”

    What are the “backround assumptions” about regeneration that have been expressed in these posts:

    1) Effectual calling is the work of God’s Spirit, whereby, convincing us of our sin and misery, enlightening our minds in the knowledge of Christ, and renewing our wills, he doth persuade and enable us to embrace Jesus Christ, freely offered to us in the gospel. (WSC 31); He infuses new qualities into the will, making the dead will alive, the evil one good, the unwilling one willing, and the stubborn one compliant; he activates and strengthens the will so that, like a good tree, it may be enabled to produce the fruits of good deeds. (Dort III/IV, 11)- What a couple of the reformed confessions say; they are not saying the same thing

    2) To be a GOOD TREE is first of all about being justified before God. There are two legal states before God. Either you are justified before God or you are condemned before God. To pass over from death to life is to be put into the new creation, and this mean first of all that the elect are given a new legal state, with the result that they begin to KNOW that assurance is not in what God does in us but rather in what God has done in Christ outside us (notice that “new creation” is not about being changed internally but being put into a new legal state of “in Christ” from the old legal state of “in Adam.”) That tells me that new creation has nothing to do with regeneration; and this tells me that justification comes logically before regeneration; Many “Calvinists” pay lip-service to “imputation” whose more basic hope is an ontological regeneration in them which they find to be more important than any “knowledge” about atonement, imputation, or justification. To them, the noetic effect of regeneration will produce in them “sanctification by synergism” which includes their works; so is union with Christ a legal state or something which is caused by regeneration and internal changes brought about by the Holy Spirit? (This is McMark, which no one has addressed, who is questioning whether what the reformed confessions assumptions about regeneration are accurate according to what the scriptures teach).

    3) But more properly, the Reformed have said that regeneration and sanctification are what affect the intellect. but really, this isn’t a neo-Calvinist view, it’s rather a more catholic view;….. If we agree with some of the basic and fairly uncontroversial themes of virtue epistemology, we can see how conversion can affect matters epistemic: there are certain epistemic vices which affect us as knowers, and certain epistemic virtues positively affect us as knowers (I am taking conversion here to mean something similar to regeneration-the Holy Spirit changing someone in their epistemology); Given a change in our moral dispositions and affections and knowledge (as *all* Reformed creeds and confession attest to), changes at the normative level are bound to have *some* consequence (This is Paul who is arguing that regeneration not only affects believers in a salvific sense but also affects changes in our minds)

    These are three very different assumptions about regeneration. It seems to me this is a very important issue. We need to be sure we are thinking with correct biblical assumptions.

    LikeLike

67. Richard, I’m not sure what your point is, but I was enlisting your point for 2k purposes to push Jon the would be theonomist. But if you’re now saying that it’s a good thing to seek laws patterened after the Decalogue–which includes outlawing idolatry and blasphemy and would seem to entail outlawing Roman Catholicism and Mormonism–maybe you want to join Jon in thinking only the Bible should norm society. Kuyper has some hard words for you.

    Paul, my point was to agree that the Spirit is at work in all human faculties, but to say that it’s not nearly as profound, manifest, and immediate as neos seem to think. It’s more mysterious, unseen, and mediate. It’s a glory versus cross point again.

    LikeLike

68. Zrim: Richard, I’m not sure what your point is, but I was enlisting your point for 2k purposes to push Jon the would be theonomist.

    RS: I think I understood something of what you were doing, but simply used your words as a springboard.

    Zrim: But if you’re now saying that it’s a good thing to seek laws patterened after the Decalogue–which includes outlawing idolatry and blasphemy and would seem to entail outlawing Roman Catholicism and Mormonism–maybe you want to join Jon in thinking only the Bible should norm society. Kuyper has some hard words for you.

    RS: I do see your point, but am trying to point out that when men sin it is against God and against His Word. Nature itself leaves men without excuse regarding who God is and of their sin. If God is not the norm of society, then what other norm are we going to set up? As Christians, I would think that it is plain that any norm other than God would be an idol. I am not arguing that the Church should run the state, but that does not mean that the state does not answer to God and that the Church should not inform the state of that. The mission of the Church, however, in declaring the Law and the Gospel will always seek the glory of God and the good of its neighbors. If you call that transformationalism, then so be it. That is, however, different than trying to transform society by laws in and of themselves.

    LikeLike

69. John Yeazel: Effectual calling is the work of God’s Spirit, whereby, convincing us of our sin and misery, enlightening our minds in the knowledge of Christ, and renewing our wills, he doth persuade and enable us to embrace Jesus Christ, freely offered to us in the gospel. (WSC 31); He infuses new qualities into the will, making the dead will alive, the evil one good, the unwilling one willing, and the stubborn one compliant; he activates and strengthens the will so that, like a good tree, it may be enabled to produce the fruits of good deeds. (Dort III/IV, 11)- What a couple of the reformed confessions say; they are not saying the same thing.

    RS: While they may be using different words in these two posts, are they really teaching something different at the heart of the matter?

    LikeLike

70. John Yeazel: 2) To be a GOOD TREE is first of all about being justified before God. There are two legal states before God. Either you are justified before God or you are condemned before God. To pass over from death to life is to be put into the new creation, and this mean first of all that the elect are given a new legal state, with the result that they begin to KNOW that assurance is not in what God does in us but rather in what God has done in Christ outside us (notice that “new creation” is not about being changed internally but being put into a new legal state of “in Christ” from the old legal state of “in Adam.”) That tells me that new creation has nothing to do with regeneration; and this tells me that justification comes logically before regeneration;

    RS: If you read the book of I John carefully (and other books too), you will see that assurance has a lot to do with what God does in us. He writes His laws in us and puts them in our minds. He is the very life of our souls. His love abides in us and His Spirit abides in us, and we must not forget that Christ is our life. Believers are the temple of the living God. If the soul is not united to Christ then how is that soul declared just? Yet the soul is not united to Christ until that soul has been born from above and is now a spiritual being that can exercise spiritual faith.

    John Yeazel: Many “Calvinists” pay lip-service to “imputation” whose more basic hope is an ontological regeneration in them which they find to be more important than any “knowledge” about atonement, imputation, or justification.

    RS: Apart from regeneration no one can understand the truly spiritual nture of the atonement, imputation, or justification.

    John Yeazel: To them, the noetic effect of regeneration will produce in them “sanctification by synergism” which includes their works; so is union with Christ a legal state or something which is caused by regeneration and internal changes brought about by the Holy Spirit? (This is McMark, which no one has addressed, who is questioning whether what the reformed confessions assumptions about regeneration are accurate according to what the scriptures teach).

    RS: Can the Divine nature of Christ be joined to one that has not had the wrath of God removed from him or her by the cleansing work of the Spirit? It is not that regeneration causes a legal state as such, but in regeneration the soul becomes a believing soul and it is that faith by which one is united to Christ.

    LikeLike

71. John Yeazel: 3) But more properly, the Reformed have said that regeneration and sanctification are what affect the intellect. but really, this isn’t a neo-Calvinist view, it’s rather a more catholic view;

    RS: No necessarily. How can one have the hardening influences of sin taken away from the mind without there being a difference? Scripture is quite clear that those with a pure heart will see God and that seeking a holy heart will indeed affect our spiritual insight (as you point out using different language below).

    John Yeazel: ….. If we agree with some of the basic and fairly uncontroversial themes of virtue epistemology, we can see how conversion can affect matters epistemic: there are certain epistemic vices which affect us as knowers, and certain epistemic virtues positively affect us as knowers (I am taking conversion here to mean something similar to regeneration-the Holy Spirit changing someone in their epistemology); Given a change in our moral dispositions and affections and knowledge (as *all* Reformed creeds and confession attest to), changes at the normative level are bound to have *some* consequence (This is Paul who is arguing that regeneration not only affects believers in a salvific sense but also affects changes in our minds)

    RS: Believers are given new hearts and minds. The spiritual realm is now opened to them in a different way and they have a different understanding of virtually everything. A regenerate person is said to be a new creature and as such will have new ways of thinking. Colossians 3:2 ” Set your mind on the things above, not on the things that are on earth.” One who does that is changed. We must not forget that the desires are changed and as such the things that a person wants to think about and the way a person views things will be changed. A person that hates sin will view sin differently than one that hates it.

    Jeremiah 17:9 “The heart is more deceitful than all else And is desperately sick; Who can understand it?

    LikeLike

72. RS: While they may be using different words in these two posts, are they really teaching something different at the heart of the matter?

    Is convincing, enlightening and renewing the same thing as infusing new qualities into a person? Using infusion language makes you think that the Holy Spirit is changing the substance of something internally in someone. And, as Paul said, that is more a Catholic concept than a Protestant concept. Horton was very leery of using infusion language as McMark pointed out in the first three posts. In fact, Horton wrote a whole chapter about it in his book COVENANT AND SALVATION- chapter 10, Covenantal Ontology and Effectual Calling. When you start talking about changes of substance (infusing new qualities) you are getting away from the Holy Spirit using the Law and the Gospel to convince, enlighten and renew. That seems like a significant difference to me.

    There are two distinct differences in how “new creation” is understood too. Is it a new legal state brought about by imputation and justification (which propitiates God’s wrath before the work of the Holy Spirit- does not God justify the ungodly before Christ gives the Holy Spirit?; Christ is always the one giving the Holy Spirit in the scriptures) or is “new creation” something the Holy Spirit does? Richard, your assumption is that new creation is a work of the Holy Spirit. Someone has to be made holy by the Holy Spirit before that person is justified. This is what you look for to determine if someone is justified. You then always point to the book of 1John. I’m not convinced you are understanding 1John correctly.

    LikeLike

73. How do we makes sense of the fact that our bodies and minds are decaying in this life if regeneration and renewal involve changes of substance and infusing new qualites? This body of sin is still part of us after justification/adoption/redemption/regeneration/renewal. Our hope is in a future glorification where this body of sin will be done away with.

    LikeLike

74. John Yeazel: Quoting RS: While they may be using different words in these two posts, are they really teaching something different at the heart of the matter?

    John Yeazel: Is convincing, enlightening and renewing the same thing as infusing new qualities into a person?

    RS: Perhaps they are not the same thing in and of themselves, but that does not mean that they contradict each other.

    John Yeazel: Using infusion language makes you think that the Holy Spirit is changing the substance of something internally in someone.

    RS: Not necessarily (see below).

    John Yeazel: And, as Paul said, that is more a Catholic concept than a Protestant concept. Horton was very leery of using infusion language as McMark pointed out in the first three posts. In fact, Horton wrote a whole chapter about it in his book COVENANT AND SALVATION- chapter 10, Covenantal Ontology and Effectual Calling.

    RS: Infusion is a Roman Catholic concept if it is used in terms of justification, but not in terms of sanctification. Horton can be leery as he wishes, but we are told (by Scripture) that the Spirit dwells in His people and that there are fruits of the Spirit. We are told that we share in the divine nature (II Peter 1:4). We are told that Christ lives in us and that He is our very life. None of these things lead us to being justified, but we are justified in order that we may be temples and vessels of His glory.

    John Yeazel: When you start talking about changes of substance (infusing new qualities) you are getting away from the Holy Spirit using the Law and the Gospel to convince, enlighten and renew. That seems like a significant difference to me.

    RS: Again, perhaps different but not contradictory. When one speaks of substance and it having new qualities, what can that mean? The spirit is of substance in the sense that it is something rather than nothing, but it is not substance in the sense that it is a physical something. What does the Holy Spirit convince? It is the physical brain or perhaps a non-physical part of the human being? In some way the sinner that was dead (spiritually) is born again and now has spiritual life. Could it be that the Spirit operates in a way different than human so and actually works in the perosn? Could it be that the Spirit actually does some cleansing and renewing in the soul and that gives a greater degree of light?

    John Yeazel: There are two distinct differences in how “new creation” is understood too. Is it a new legal state brought about by imputation and justification (which propitiates God’s wrath before the work of the Holy Spirit- does not God justify the ungodly before Christ gives the Holy Spirit?; Christ is always the one giving the Holy Spirit in the scriptures) or is “new creation” something the Holy Spirit does?

    RS: It is something that the Holy Spirit does. Jesus taught that in John 3:3-8. A person must be born from above in order to see or enter the kingdom. Who does this? It is the Holy Spirit who does this as He pleases (v. 8). Titus 3:5 “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.” The work of the Spirit is the washing of regeneration and renewing.

    John Yeazel: ,Richard, your assumption is that new creation is a work of the Holy Spirit.

    RS: It is not just an assumption, but it is clearly taught in Scripture.

    John Yeazel: Someone has to be made holy by the Holy Spirit before that person is justified.

    RS: I am not exactly sure what you mean but that, but a person is made legally holy by God or God would be declaring a person holy who was not holy. But a person is not made holy in terms of his own holiness in order to be declared holy, but is declared righteous on the basis of Christ alone.

    John Yeazel: This is what you look for to determine if someone is justified.

    RS: But one can perform outward acts of holiness and be nothing but a Pharisee.

    John Yeazel: You then always point to the book of 1John. I’m not convinced you are understanding 1John correctly.

    RS: It is hard (impossible in my estimation) not to see that I John has a lot to do with the inward work of God in the soul. Those who love are those that the love of God abides in. Only those who love are born of God and know God. The very Gospel itself, the very glory of the mystery, is that of Christ in the person.

    1 John 4:13 By this we know that we abide in Him and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit.

    1 John 4:16 We have come to know and have believed the love which God has for us. God is love, and the one who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him.

    Colossians 1:27 to whom God willed to make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.

    LikeLike

75. John Yeazel: How do we makes sense of the fact that our bodies and minds are decaying in this life if regeneration and renewal involve changes of substance and infusing new qualites? This body of sin is still part of us after justification/adoption/redemption/regeneration/renewal. Our hope is in a future glorification where this body of sin will be done away with.

    RS: But it is our inner man that is being renewed day after day while our body is decaying. Indeed we have a carcass of clay and it is going down the hill, but the image of God has been renewed in the soul and it is what “has been created in righteousness and holiness of the truth” (Eph 4:24). The life of Christ and the Spirit can infuse life into the soul so that we are made partakers of the divine nature (not the ontological nature) as II Peter 1:4 teaches and our bodies can be decaying at the same time.

    LikeLike

76. Don,

    A non-2k would agree with Calvin and you that the state is the God-ordained minister for good, but would define the good as protecting the true religion proclaimed by the true King. How can you define good otherwise? Do you disagree with Calvin or my summary of his thinking?

    I am not quite sure if your “true King” is referring to a good human magistrate, or if it refers to Christ as King, however I will assume the former, correct me if I am wrong. I think we have to look no further than the New Testament to answer this question, Paul and Peter are writing in the context of Roman rule when they affirm that the state and it’s system of governance is God-ordained. However both of these apostles were put to death by the same state they called Christians to obey. So, even though Rome was on and off as to how much protection it offered the Church, in general, it was an institution to which Christians were called to submit, the only point at which Christians did not submit is when loyalty to Christ was called into question, and here the historical precedent shows that Christians submitted to death and imprisonment rather than rebel politically against the state’s power. So, while the state was prone to evil, as it is ruled by fallen men, I don’t think the state, in the eyes of Paul and Peter was evil inherently, even if the people who ruled it were.

    Of course the NT critique of the state, especially Empire, in the eschatological witness of John’s Apocalypse adds more texture to Peter and Paul’s interpretation of human governments. Here, the Imperial impulse of human governments are susceptible to Satanic deception and influence, but even here the model for believers suffering under the tyranny of the State (under what we would call religious persecution) was martyrdom as opposed to revolt – And they have conquered him (Satan and his power mediated by the State) by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony, for they loved not their lives even unto death. Any sins of the State against the church, such as not protecting her freedoms, aren’t dealt with through the work or ministry of the church, but by the wrath of God poured out in final judgement.

    So, the state, as a God-ordained institution is still good, and in those times when it falls into oppressive tyranny, the Church is called to oppose the state, but in the same subversive manner in which Christ did, not by opposition through force, but through the willingness to hold fast to the gospel even at the cost of one’s life or freedoms. This has the dual effect of strengthening the other-worldly witness of the Church, which historically was one of the reasons why it grew so much in the face of sometimes fierce Roman opposition, and it also becomes the impetus by which God will judge those who participate in the persecution of the church. I think that Calvin, in many ways correctly describes the responsibilities, and limits upon the state’s power, but whether or not the state operates within these guidelines seems to owe to Providence rather than any power the Church has been given to enforce whether or not the State respects it’s proper role and boundaries.

    LikeLike

77. Gaffin (Pentecost, Before and After)— “Likely, the verses in John 3:3-8 are not, at least primarily, a proof-text for the place of regeneration, particularly its causal priority to faith, in the ordo salutis.38 Rather, the birth from “above” is “new” in the sense of being brought by the coming of the kingdom of God that has (finally) arrived in Jesus. It explicates and is explicated by his claim, for example, that he is “the resurrection and the life” (11:25). Granting such a redemptive-historical, eschatological understanding of this passage, however, does not require calling into question the divine monergism involved in individual salvation prior to (as well as after) Jesus’ coming. ”

    38 See, representatively, the exegesis of J. Murray, Redemption—Accomplished and Applied (Grand Rapids Eerdmans, 1955) 98, 103f.

    LikeLike

78. mark mcculley: Gaffin (Pentecost, Before and After)— “Likely, the verses in John 3:3-8 are not, at least primarily, a proof-text for the place of regeneration, particularly its causal priority to faith, in the ordo salutis.

    RS: Whether the text has this as the primary meaning or not does not negate the fact that it does teach this.

    mark mcculley: 38 Rather, the birth from “above” is “new” in the sense of being brought by the coming of the kingdom of God that has (finally) arrived in Jesus. It explicates and is explicated by his claim, for example, that he is “the resurrection and the life” (11:25). Granting such a redemptive-historical, eschatological understanding of this passage, however, does not require calling into question the divine monergism involved in individual salvation prior to (as well as after) Jesus’ coming. ”

    RS: One has to ignore some of the plain teaching of Jesus to arrive at that conclusion. The beginning of John 2 has Jesus doing his first sign (of being the Messiah, God in human flesh) of turning water into wine. The end of John 2 has Jesus doing miracles and many people believing in Him in some way, but of course He did not entrust Himself to them. One of the men who saw the signs was Nicodemus (saw the signs Jesus was doing (3:1-2) and so came to Jesus at night. He told Jesus that he knew that Jesus came from God as a teacher because of those signs. The reply was that no one could see or enter the kingdom apart from the new birth. Faith is the sight of the soul. It is by faith that one beholds or sees spiritual things (see Hebrews 11). But one has to be born again or from above in order to even see the kingdom. So one can argue about the primary meaning of John 3, but it is focused on the new birth and is clear to how important it is.

    It might also be added that John 1:12-13 can be looked at as well in the context. Men do not become a child of God by their bloodline (Jew or Gentile, thus shocking Nicodemus), nor by any act of the will of a human being, but by the will of God. In other words, God’s will is primary in the new birth. Spiritual faith cannot come from a person that is spiritually dead, so a person must be made spiritually alive in order to have a spiritual faith.

    LikeLike

79. Jed,

    Sorry for the confusion — I actually referred to Christ, not the human magistrate, as the “true King.” Nevertheless, I agree with you in everything you have said. But I think you have falsely inferred from what I said that the Church’s responsibility is to impose its will on the human magistrate to serve God.

    Scripture is clear that the Church is to submit to the human magistrate whether good or evil, as it is God who has ordained the magistrate. Scripture also makes it clear that the human magistrate is judged by God as good or evil on the basis of his fear or lack thereof for God. Either way, the human magistrate is still responsible to God to protect the true religion, and the Church is responsible for praying for and proclaiming the truth to the world, including the human magistrate.

    Psalm 2 is written to the Kings of the earth for this very purpose.

    Now therefore be wise, O ye kings: Be instructed, ye judges of the earth. Serve Jehovah with fear, And rejoice with trembling. Kiss the son, lest he be angry, and ye perish in the way, For his wrath will soon be kindled. Blessed are all they that take refuge in him.

    LikeLike

80. Richard, I do not consider declaring law and gospel, living to glorify God, and seeking the good of neighbors transformationalism. I consider it Christian obedience, and I do agree that it is different from trying to transform society by laws. But I would suggest that if you think so then it may better not to talk about “seeking laws that are in line with the Ten Commandments.” That’s more or less how neos and theos talk.

    How about seeking laws that reflect how a republic has constituted itself? But even more than that, how about dialing down the overestimation of the power of politics and legislation and propping up the power of families, communities, and general civic rigor that actually create and sustain human beings and their endeavors?

    LikeLike

81. Zrim: Richard, I do not consider declaring law and gospel, living to glorify God, and seeking the good of neighbors transformationalism. I consider it Christian obedience, and I do agree that it is different from trying to transform society by laws. But I would suggest that if you think so then it may better not to talk about “seeking laws that are in line with the Ten Commandments.” That’s more or less how neos and theos talk.

    RS: I guess what I am trying to get at, however, is if the basic moral laws of God are clear to all men by the light of nature in some way, then we are not telling them anything that they don’t already know. If we look at the second table, laws 6-9 are on the books. All laws will either reflect the character of God and be in accordance with Him or they will be toward the opposite of that. I am not sure why it is wrong to seek the most just laws that we can get from the wisdom of God as long as the Church does not have the power to enforce them.

    Zrim: How about seeking laws that reflect how a republic has constituted itself? But even more than that, how about dialing down the overestimation of the power of politics and legislation and propping up the power of families, communities, and general civic rigor that actually create and sustain human beings and their endeavors?

    RS: I am not sure that I have overestimated the power of politics and all of that. As a nation that is governed by laws (to a greater or lesser degree), which is what a Republic should be, we should have the most just laws possible. Since all judges and lawmakers will stand before the real Judge and Lawmaker, it is best for them to seek to have laws that reflect His perfect justice.

    LikeLike

82. RS: Infusion is a Roman Catholic concept if it is used in terms of justification, but not in terms of sanctification; Could it be that the Spirit actually does some cleansing and renewing in the soul and that gives a greater degree of light?;
    .
    RS: It is something that the Holy Spirit does. Jesus taught that in John 3:3-8. A person must be born from above in order to see or enter the kingdom. Who does this? It is the Holy Spirit who does this as He pleases (v. 8). Titus 3:5 “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.” The work of the Spirit is the washing of regeneration and renewing.

    John Yeazel says: The issue was with “infusion of new qualities” not “cleansing and renewing in the soul.” Besides cleansing and renewing in the soul sounds like it is washing away the sin from our bodies of sin (the flesh- which includes disobedience to the Law of God in thought, word and deed and our propensity and bent towards self-righteousness- which includes help by the Holy Spirit to obey the commandments of the Law of God) so we can obey the Law of God. Cleansing in the scriptures usually means cleansing by the blood so we can believe that Christ obeyed the Law of God perfectly for us and continue to believe it. It is more related to believing than doing. This is what causes the “offense” of the Gospel. The self-righteous can’t stand it. Then they get all pious and sanctimonious or else lose it altogether like the Pharisees did on Jesus.

    I think you are close to Catholicism Richard. “Most Reformed folks end up saying that “definitive sanctification”(defined as a break with sin, and a release from sinning too much or too often) is a result of union, along with justification, but then fail to explain what union by the Spirit means if it’s not this very same “definitive sanctification”. If union results in justification and sanctification, but then sanctification is what union means, then it would be better to say straight out that sanctification (cleansing by the Spirit) results in justification, and that therefore justification is not of the ungodly. But I deny that new birth comes before justification, and say that it’s the righteousness imputed which results in having Christ and life.”

    The Spirit is a communicative agent not a causal agent- see speech/act theory. The Spirit does not force, coerce or infuse new qualities into the soul. The Spirit communicates the Gospel in such a clear and convincing way (illuminates the mind, renews the will and circumcises the heart) that we are enabled to have faith, repent and believe. If the Spirit did not do this there would be no effectual call. However, there is no infusion of new qualities into the soul. That is a Catholic idea whether it involves justification or sanctification.

    LikeLike

83. I should have said in my last post that besides, it sounds like you (Richard) are using the words cleansing and renewing like……..

    LikeLike

84. The cleansing and washing is a cleansing of our guilt and a cleansing of our conscience by the blood. It is what happens when we are put into the atonement of Christ by God. The righteousness of Christ (which becomes ours) gives us a just standing so we can deal with our guilt and get our consciences cleansed.

    LikeLike

85. Terry, like MikelMann says, Paul (along with Jon) would certainly give lots of evidence for thinking that the noetic effects of regeneration are far reaching. But if you and Baus are saying that regeneration doesn’t affect intelligence or w-w, and that people need smarts to be philosophical and instruction to be w-wish, great. Still, you have to admit that folks like Kloosterman say that gen. rev. can only be interpreted truly by Scripture, which implies that regeneration and illuminiation are essential for interpreting Gen. Rev., since you’re not going to interpret the Bible correctly without the work of the H.S. And Kuyper in his worse moments did draw the antithesis in a way that affected intellect — hence the whole need for a Free University where Christians would allow their different outlook affect their study of the arts and sciences.

    Are you really saying that regeneration (and antithesis) don’t matter when it comes to knowledge of math, literature, and medicine? Or it only matters when you want it to matter?

    LikeLike

86. “Are you really saying that regeneration (and antithesis) don’t matter when it comes to knowledge of math, literature, and medicine? Or it only matters when you want it to matter?”

    This is where it gets confusing for me. Early Kuyper wants to say the hard disciplines are unaffected, but it’s the softer disciplines (philosophy, literature, art, theology) are directly affected by the antithesis and most subject to regenerative effects, though if your principles and institutions founded on those principles are well enough established then you basically don’t need a regenerative populace. Then Dooyewerd wants to push it back firmly into the hard and soft disciplines and Van Til, wants to say yes and no on both accounts, but with an emphasis on an ever-increasing antithesis as opposed to Kuyper who still wants to maintain(most of the time) a common grace realm. You’ll have to forgive us 2kers if we too feel like we’re always being given a moving target.

    LikeLike

87. John Yeazel says: The issue was with “infusion of new qualities” not “cleansing and renewing in the soul.” Besides cleansing and renewing in the soul sounds like it is washing away the sin from our bodies of sin (the flesh- which includes disobedience to the Law of God in thought, word and deed and our propensity and bent towards self-righteousness- which includes help by the Holy Spirit to obey the commandments of the Law of God) so we can obey the Law of God. Cleansing in the scriptures usually means cleansing by the blood so we can believe that Christ obeyed the Law of God perfectly for us and continue to believe it.

    RS: So if this cleansing occurs during regeneration, then regeneration does precede faith. But you also have to deal with what true faith really is. It is not just a matter of believing three facts.

    John Yeazel: It is more related to believing than doing. This is what causes the “offense” of the Gospel. The self-righteous can’t stand it. Then they get all pious and sanctimonious or else lose it altogether like the Pharisees did on Jesus.

    RS: But believing is not just believing facts, it is having Christ as all. If believing is something we can do in our own power, then our salvation does rest in our own power.

    John Yeazel: I think you are close to Catholicism Richard. “Most Reformed folks end up saying that “definitive sanctification”(defined as a break with sin, and a release from sinning too much or too often) is a result of union, along with justification, but then fail to explain what union by the Spirit means if it’s not this very same “definitive sanctification”. If union results in justification and sanctification, but then sanctification is what union means, then it would be better to say straight out that sanctification (cleansing by the Spirit) results in justification, and that therefore justification is not of the ungodly. But I deny that new birth comes before justification, and say that it’s the righteousness imputed which results in having Christ and life.”

    RS: You may deny that the new birth comes before justification, but that leaves you (as above) with faith coming from the sinful flesh of man and leaves eternal life and grace in the hands of men to dispense to themselves. No, I am not Roman Catholic or even close. I might remind you that men like John Owen used the word “infusion” in terms of sanctification. I think that you are so afraid of God doing something in you that you flee from it, but we need to stick with Scripture rather than our fears. The Spirit Himself dwells in people and all of our love, joy, peace and so on are the fruit of His infusion in us. We can do nothing good apart from Christ our vine. All spiritual fruit comes from Christ our vine and by the Spirit. Yet none of that produces anything in us that causes God to declare sinners just in His sight.

    John Yeazel: The Spirit is a communicative agent not a causal agent- see speech/act theory. The Spirit does not force, coerce or infuse new qualities into the soul.

    RS: So when all of our love, joy, peace and so on are His fruit, do those things then come from somewhere other than our souls?

    John Yeazel: The Spirit communicates the Gospel in such a clear and convincing way (illuminates the mind, renews the will and circumcises the heart) that we are enabled to have faith, repent and believe. If the Spirit did not do this there would be no effectual call. However, there is no infusion of new qualities into the soul. That is a Catholic idea whether it involves justification or sanctification.

    RS: The communication of the Spirit is when the Spirit actually communicates Himself into the soul. The infusion is of the Spirit Himself who because Christ is united to the soul and He is the Spirit of Christ shares Himself and works spiritual fruit in us. That is a biblical idea and is not Roman Catholic.

    LikeLike

88. Don,

    But I think you have falsely inferred from what I said that the Church’s responsibility is to impose its will on the human magistrate to serve God.

    The statement was in general about the church, not your personal beliefs, I certainly am not trying to misconstrue your convictions, so apologies for the confusion on that point. From your comments here the biggest point of disagreement I think we have is the amount of conscientious cultural transformation that the church, owing to her commission, should have in society. Most bona-fide neo-cals I know do not think the church can impose anything on society, but some theonomists do, and some prolific bloggers and commenters who may be sympathetic with aspects of neo-Calvinism think that the church should (via her ministers) speak to certain political issues, demanding change – even from the pulpit. This was the “imposition” I was speaking to – but the statement was a general criticism, not one of you per se.

    LikeLike

89. I’m done Richard!! You are a much too deep theological thinker for me. You make me feel inadequate.

    LikeLike

90. All laws will either reflect the character of God and be in accordance with Him or they will be toward the opposite of that. I am not sure why it is wrong to seek the most just laws that we can get from the wisdom of God as long as the Church does not have the power to enforce them.

    Richard, I’m sorry but this sounds an awful lot like the theonomic worldview: either theonomy or autonomy. And theonomy doesn’t want the church to enforce the civil laws culled from the Bible either. It wants the state to enforce biblical law. So when I read you on this point it seems an awful lot like when I read you on revivalism, which is to say that you don’t want to give cover to revivalism or theonomy but then you essentially speak a lot like their adherents. The difference between neos and theos seems to be the dame one between the semi-revivalists and revivalists. Like Sean said, moving targets.

    And so if you think “…we should have the most just laws possible. Since all judges and lawmakers will stand before the real Judge and Lawmaker, it is best for them to seek to have laws that reflect His perfect justice,” then why not embrace the theonomic program more fully, by pass natural revelation, as well as the Reformed tradition altogether which holds that the civil and ceremonial laws are expired with Israel, and make the Bible the blueprint for political arrangement? If the Bible is the final word on what is politically and civilly just, why waste time with the allegedly semi-final word of natural revelation?

    LikeLike

91. Pingback: When Basic Belief Isn’t Basic Anymore: Mistakes Of The Culture Warriors « Way Station

92. Zrim: Richard, I’m sorry but this sounds an awful lot like the theonomic worldview: either theonomy or autonomy. And theonomy doesn’t want the church to enforce the civil laws culled from the Bible either. It wants the state to enforce biblical law. So when I read you on this point it seems an awful lot like when I read you on revivalism, which is to say that you don’t want to give cover to revivalism or theonomy but then you essentially speak a lot like their adherents. The difference between neos and theos seems to be the dame one between the semi-revivalists and revivalists. Like Sean said, moving targets.

    RS: Just because two positions speak in similar ways at similar points does not in and of itself mean that they are the same all the way through. Look very carefully, however, and you will notice that I did not say that the state should enforce biblical law. I simply said that lawmakers should seek laws from the most perfect wisdom and justice. In my way of thinking there is a huge difference there. There is a huge difference between revivalism (man-focused and man-manipulated) and those who seek true revival which is to say that its is those who seek for God to be the focus and for God to do the work in the hearts of human beings.

    Zrim: And so if you think “…we should have the most just laws possible. Since all judges and lawmakers will stand before the real Judge and Lawmaker, it is best for them to seek to have laws that reflect His perfect justice,” then why not embrace the theonomic program more fully, by pass natural revelation, as well as the Reformed tradition altogether which holds that the civil and ceremonial laws are expired with Israel, and make the Bible the blueprint for political arrangement? If the Bible is the final word on what is politically and civilly just, why waste time with the allegedly semi-final word of natural revelation?

    RS: In terms of right and wrong, natural revelation is not speaking with a different message than special revelation. Both come from the same author who cannot change. The only way to escape the position that we should have the most just laws possible is the position that we should not have the most just laws possible. I am not sure how anyone could argue that. I am also not sure how any Christian could argue against (not that you are totaly) the fact that all men will stand before the infiinite Judge and Lawmaker some day and give account of themselves. If that is so, they should certainly be careful to seek the most just laws possible. That is not the same thing as saying that governments should follow the laws of Israel like a theocratic form of government. But in terms of basic morality, all will answer to God who speaks the same message in both general and specific revelation.

    Romans 1: 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
    19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
    20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
    21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened

    Romans 2:12 For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law;
    13 for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified.
    14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves,
    15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them,
    16 on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.

    LikeLike

93. RS; I simply said that lawmakers should seek laws from the most perfect wisdom and justice.

    Sean; O.K., what is this most perfect wisdom and justice, that is NOT Christological, and not theocratic(siniatic)?

    LikeLike

94. sean: Quoting RS; I simply said that lawmakers should seek laws from the most perfect wisdom and justice.

    Sean; O.K., what is this most perfect wisdom and justice, that is NOT Christological, and not theocratic(siniatic)?

    RS: Finding just and wise laws would require obtaining them from the character and nature of God, but that is true of both natural revelation and specific revelation. That is not specifically theocratic in nature. That also does not mean that the laws should come specficially from the OT laws of Israel, but you do see Divine wisdom underneath them and you see perfect justice in them. I know a man who was not a believer (actually, and atheist) and he lived a long distance from where his wife wanted to go to church. So he convinced her to stay home with him if he would read the Bible. In reading the Bible he was amazed at the justice displayed in it.

    Is it more just to send a thief to jail for a few years and get free room and board or is it more just to make him pay back what he took plus quite a bit more to the person he took it from plus the expenses of the state? Do lawyers always seek for justice or do they want to convict one one side and on the other sider have their client exonerated? In other words, they want to win rather than seek for justice. Do we have a justice system any longer or something else? Those things do not require us to go back to following the OT laws as such, but surely they were far more just than what is going on in our legal system.

    LikeLike

95. There are none who are justified by their doing of the law. John Fesko makes the case for Romans 2 being an empty set.

    “Richard Gaffin tries to argue, on the basis of the grammar involved in a similar Pauline statement, that works are not the ground of judgment: “It is not for nothing, I take it, and not to be dismissed as an overly fine exegesis to observe, that in Romans 2:6 Paul writes, ‘according (kata) to works,’ not ‘on account of (dia),’ expressing the ground, nor ‘by (ek) works,’ expressing the instrument” (By Faith, Not By Sithgt [Carlisle: Paternoster, 2006], 98-99; similarly, Venema, Gospel, 266). Though Gaffin’s comment concerns Paul’s statement in Romans 2:6, at the same time we find the same prepositional combination with the accusative in John’s statement in Revelation 20:12e, the only difference being in the use of the singular and plural pronouns (cf. Rom 2:6).

    “Relying upon the analysis of Ridderbos and Murray, Gaffin’s finer point is that the judgment kata works is “in accordance with” the works, and such works are synecdochical for faith in Christ (see Herman Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology, trans. John Richard de Witt [1975; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992], 178-81; Murray, Romans, 78-79).

    Yet can such a fine distinction be supported by the grammar alone? The use of “dia” with the accusative means “because of, on account of,” and the use of “kata” with the accusative means “in accordance with, corresponding to” (Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996], 368-69, 376-77). One must ask, what difference exists between the two? In fact, when we delve more deeply into the significance of “kata” with the accusative, we find that “often the noun that follows kata specifies the criterion, standard, or norm in the light of which a statement is made or is true, an action is performed, or a judgment is passed. The prep. will mean ‘according to’, ‘in conformity with’, ‘corresponding to.’ This use is common in reference to the precise and impartial standard of judgment that will be applied at the great Assize (Matt. 16:27; Rom 2:6; 1 Cor 3:8; 2 Tim. 4:14; 1 Peter 1:17; Rev 2:23)” (Murray J. Harris, “Prepositions and Theology in the Greek New Testament,” in NIDNTT, 3:1200).

    “The argument apparently fails to account for judgment kata works for the wicked. This point seems to be borne out by Paul’s own use of kata, as he says, “He will render each one according to [kata] his works” (Rom. 2:6), but this rendering kata works is for both the righteous (v. 7) and the wicked (v. 8). According to Gaffin’s interpretation, are the wicked judged according to their works, but are they not the ground of their condemnation (see 2 Cor. 11:15)? Again, note how Paul uses kata: “Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due [to de ergazomeno ho misthos ou logizetai kata charin alla kata opheilema]” (Rom 4:4; see also Brian Vickers, Jesus Blood and Righteousness [Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2006] 95; Yinger, Paul, 21-26, 89-90, 135-136, 175, 182, 186). Judgment therefore is indeed kata (in accordance with, or on the basis of) works – the evil works of the unbeliever and the good works, or righteousness, of Christ.

    “Justification: Understanding the Classic Reformed Doctrine” p. 315

    LikeLike

96. Richard, part of the problem is that you seem to want exact or perfect justice instead of being content with provisional or proximate justice. All we can expect in this life is the latter because both still depend on sinful creatures. You may want to point to a current justice system and bemoan it, but nothing that is structured on natural revelation yields any worse society than what Israel had
    .
    You cite examples and say of an allegedly insufficient justice system: “Those things do not require us to go back to following the OT laws as such, but surely they were far more just than what is going on in our legal system.” This is where I wonder how much it would take for theonomy to woo you. If it’s a more perfect justice you want to see, and if you think OT laws surpass any law humans have devised, then why not vie for OT laws? And have you considered that the legal system by which God chose to display his perfect justice against sin was pagan, as in the Roman cross, and not a system based upon OT jurisprudence? Part of what makes a civilization like Rome great is a swift and just legal system; if one hung on a Roman tree it was because he belonged there. Sure, to the extent that it put down the only innocent human being, the cross demonstrates the folly of proximate human justice. But if God chose that system to carry out his eternal program then it must be sufficient to regulate provisional life.

    LikeLike

97. Terry, there is a fellow here, Jon, who thinks that only believers are wise, and unbelievers can never be wise. It is a common view among many Van Tillians. Kloosterman also says that gen rev must be interpreted by spec rev. Is he not neo-Cal? Have you and Baus the sole keys to the neo-Calvinist kingdom?

    Even Baus’ beloved Clouster argues for the antithesis among scholars. The Kuyper project was premised upon the antithesis between Christian and liberalism.

    LikeLike

98. McJeremy, good point. If I seemed nice, it was only by appearance. Just ask my cats.

    LikeLike

99. Jon, only disappointment from my wife works with me. You have to do better than that.

    LikeLike

100. Jon, you are a great example of a neo-Cal who can’t give an account of the intelligence, wisdom, and philosophy of unbelievers. For you it has been all folly. Please tell me where I am wrong about your underestimation of unbelievers (or the God who sustains them).

     LikeLike

101. Paul channeling DGH. Very funny.

     LikeLike

102. Andy, beware Christian perfectionism cometh before a fall of mind.

     LikeLike

103. Jon, where have Christians in the U.S. lost liberty to worship?

     And have you considered that the militarization of the U.S. inevitably leads to consolidation, centralization, and uniformity — all of which destroy the liberty of persons and voluntary associations since the state needs the support of all citizens. Most Christians in the U.S. want a united United States. They fear diversity and difference. But real liberty means diversity and lots of differences.

     LikeLike

104. Baus, Clouser comes to mind who uses the antithesis to divide Christian from non-Xian scholars. Remember, no neutrality (i.e. commonality)?

     LikeLike

105. Zrim: Richard, part of the problem is that you seem to want exact or perfect justice instead of being content with provisional or proximate justice. All we can expect in this life is the latter because both still depend on sinful creatures. You may want to point to a current justice system and bemoan it, but nothing that is structured on natural revelation yields any worse society than what Israel had

     RS: I don’t expect perfect justice, but I certainly think we should look at what perfect justice is if we are to strive for real justice at all. If you (not your personally) don’t aim at perfect justice, then what are you aiming at? No justice at all. The case of Israel, however, is that they did not seek justice but instead sought false gods.
     .
     Zrim: You cite examples and say of an allegedly insufficient justice system: “Those things do not require us to go back to following the OT laws as such, but surely they were far more just than what is going on in our legal system.” This is where I wonder how much it would take for theonomy to woo you.

     RS: But again, looking at the underlying justice of God in the OT is not the same as saying every jot and tittle should be the law in our land.

     Zrim: If it’s a more perfect justice you want to see, and if you think OT laws surpass any law humans have devised, then why not vie for OT laws?

     RS: The OT laws display a justice that we should look for, but not in keeping them exactly but in looking for the principles of them.

     Zrim: And have you considered that the legal system by which God chose to display his perfect justice against sin was pagan, as in the Roman cross, and not a system based upon OT jurisprudence?

     RS: Your point is sound, but it misses part of the issue as well. Jesus kept the Jewish law perfectly and earned a perfect righteousness for His people. His death, while under Roman law, was also the curse of the OT law carried out.

     Zrim: Part of what makes a civilization like Rome great is a swift and just legal system; if one hung on a Roman tree it was because he belonged there. Sure, to the extent that it put down the only innocent human being, the cross demonstrates the folly of proximate human justice. But if God chose that system to carry out his eternal program then it must be sufficient to regulate provisional life.

     RS: Or it could also demonstrate that it was very weak in what it did. After all, Pilate caved to the Jewish leaders out of his own self-interest and as such demonstrated a great weakness in the Roman law in allowing an innocent man to be put to death.

     LikeLike

106. Zrim, re your comment. It’s good to see you using the neo-Calvinist Kuyper against the theonomists. I’m not sure I regard theonomy to be neo-Calvinist in all actuality. I think the pluralism of Kuyper’s neo-Calvinism answers theonomy. I still can’t figure out why you R2K folks lump them together. Pluralism recognizes worldviews and that different groups in society have different starting points for their thinking about all sorts of things. In Kuyper the state is to allow (and perhaps even to support in societal structures where the state has an interest as in schools) the various worldviews and their institutions to flourish. Christian schools, Christian journalism, Christian political parties, Christian labor unions exist side by side with secular ones, Roman Catholic ones, and nowadays I guess we might add Islamic ones. The number and brand depends on the history and composition of the particular society. (I guess 2K folks would identify with the secular worldview.) Common ground can be struck from time to time on particular issues and there might be cooperation. Neo-Calvinism does not advocate a monolithic Christian theonomic state (unless that is the composition of the particular society).

     LikeLike

107. Darryl, re your comment. Of course, it only matters when I want it to matter. Just like you.

     Snarkiness aside–I think that the closer something comes to what is revealed in scripture the more regeneration matters. The WCF refers to “enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God,…determining them to that which is good.” Let’s take the extreme case of the hard sciences–physics, chemistry, biochemistry–I’ve thought a lot about these topics. I grasp them. I teach them. I don’t think regeneration helped me understand the Henderson-Hasselbalch equation. Natural ability aided by good professors, textbooks, doing homework, and finally, being forced to teach it mattered most. By and large I don’t think regeneration matters a lot in most of what scientists do. The presuppositions of an orderly universe and an empirically derived theory is what is needed to do science. Theists presuppose this in a lawful creation where God was free to create how he pleased, thus we have order and we have a need to actually look at what God created in order to see what he did. Non-theists get there by saying that’s just the way it is. Either way you can do good science based on those foundations.

     However, part of the truth of science that gets to its spiritual dimension that is impacted by regeneration is the acknowledgment that nature is Creation. That it is created. That it has a Creator. This is actually quite fundamental religious/spiritual truth that some atheists deny. The denial of the Creator is a form of idolatry (Rom 1:18ff.) It seems to me that regeneration “cures” you of that particular intellectual (which is really a spiritual) problem. At least “the dominion of the whole body of sin is destroyed”–surely that includes the idolatry of Atheistic Naturalism. Admittedly, that idolatry like many others rears its ugly head even in believers–but, as WCF says, its “dominion” is destroyed. You may complain that this isn’t really science and I would concur, but to the likes of Richard Dawkins and the other new atheists, atheism is a consequence of science. In their darkened minds one of the conclusions of the hard sciences is atheism. But the “intellectual” enlightenment that I am talking about doesn’t require advanced degrees in the hard sciences. There is a sense in which the non-scientist believer who “knows” that God created the sun knows more about the sun (or at least has a more fundamental knowledge about the sun) than the astronomer who knows all the technical details about its luminosity, its chemical composition, the nuclear processes that take place there, its cosmic history, etc. but denies its divine origin and Providential upholding and purpose.

     The closer you get to revealed truths (spiritual matters) the more regeneration (which awakens our trust in revealed truths) matters. So in psychology, for example, a psychologist who does not recognize the reality that human beings are body/soul dualities, that we are fundamentally religious creatures, that human nature was created good and in God’s image, but is now fallen, that the work of the Holy Spirit sanctifies, etc., is going to miss the mark on the truth about human beings.

     I’m really not sure that Paul (not the apostle) is saying much different from this. Regeneration, having a Christian mind, being influence by Biblical teaching and the Reformed confessions, matter in our thinking when the thinking, theorizing, etc. get close to topics that are spiritual and religiously influenced. As you can see, even the hard sciences provide some example of that. I honestly think this allows for a consistent reading of Kuyper, Dooyeweerd, and Van Til.

     So the upshot is that it matters when it matters (not just when I want it to matter or when you don’t want it to matter). As for your reference to Kloosterman, I think there is a lot riding on that word “truly”. Can non-Christians do chemistry? Of course, “after a fashion” as Van Til puts it (see the link I gave in the previous comment in this thread). And you have to be pretty smart to do chemistry (at least people who can’t figure it out think so). Those kind of smarts aren’t the result of regeneration–they are the result of humans being created in the image of God and of common grace. But doing chemistry isn’t the same as “truly” interpreting the natural world. I actually resist the phrase “natural world” or “nature” because it connotes autonomy. To call the “natural world” Creation is much more religiously/spiritually rooted and recognizes the Creator. I realize that some may see that as mere semantics, but I think it makes a point.

     I think at some point it might be worth asking what do we mean by a Christian worldview. To me most of it is Biblical/Confessional. There is a God, he has revealed himself to us, he has such and such attributes, he made the world, he made humans, including me, humans have fallen into sin, Christ came to save us and initiated the new age with his death, resurrection, ascension, session, and giving of the Holy Spirit, he will come again to judge the world and usher in the fullness of the eschatological age. In one sense, thinking about all of life in light of those truths is all that we’re talking about. If that Christian confession is true, how do I now live? I honestly can’t see how you all can object to this.

     As for citations–I’d like to see something by Kuyper, Dooyeweerd, Runner, Spykman, Clouser, H. Hart, Goheen, Bartholomew that gives the radical denial of common grace that you imply in your original post. And, really, do you read Clouser to say anything more than what I’m saying here?

     LikeLike

108. Psssst Richard, I was being sarcastic!!

     LikeLike

109. “” I was going to say that, but missed.

     LikeLike

110. Terry, I think the human sciences are much closer to the hard sciences than you think. Everyone is interpreting. Facts aren’t simply out there. In which case, to use your examples, psychology is more like chemistry than your neo-Calvinism admits.

     I don’t necessarily object to your w-w. What I don’t see is why it needs to be turned on all the time for whatever a person does. Most neo-Cals speak of an epistemological self-consciousness that is impossible even to philosophers when they eat a meal or cross the street.

     Christian schools and the rationale for them are a classic instance of denying common grace — as if we need to send our children to Christian institutions so that they learn the right way (in contrast to Daniel). BTW, this rationale goes all the way to the top — it is called the Free University.

     LikeLike

111. Terry, the reason for seeing neos and theos on a spectrum is that both seem to want Christianity to have direct and obvious bearing on the plight of the provisional age. Both seem incognizant of what it means that Jesus’ kingdom is not of this world, almost as if he had his fingers crossed when telling us this. Both lack a robust sense of otherworldiness, lack which seems to be what causes them to think 2kers are latent Gnostics and Dispesationalists.

     You mention schools. I was reminded of just how neos and theos fall along a spectrum yesterday when a neo-Calvinist friend from my former CRC communion approvingly passed along this paranoid piece:
     http://chalcedon.edu/research/articles/public-schools-social-justice-education-cloaks-marxist-teaching/#.T-dUWSAe0_0.facebook

     But as conservative Calvinists, 2kers worry more about theonomic agendas in the church than Marxist ones in the world. I get that neos have their distinctions from theos, but it’s a distinction without a difference because you both think Christianity has to be relevant. But the doctrines of religious relevancy are a function of modernity, not the teachings of the NT. I appreciate the seeming affirmation of creation in the neo-Calvinist outlook, but when it moves from a robust affirmation of creation to a dubious form of redemption, you’ve gone off the rails.

     LikeLike

112. Richard, you continue with a false dichotomy between perfect justice and no justice. There is a proximate justice and it’s what we should be content to live with.

     And if you want to cull principles out of OT laws in order to apply them to contemporary pursuits of justice then you’ve begun to employ a hermeneutic that is less than Christological. In other words, the OT laws were given to point to Christ alone, not give us pointers on how to arrange our public policies. Maybe you’re tempted to say it’s both, but that seems to be a form of “Jesus plus something else.” By his own hermeneutic, the Scriptures are about him alone.

     LikeLike

113. John Yeazel: Psssst Richard, I was being sarcastic!!

     RS: I realized that which was why I didn’t reply.

     LikeLike

114. Zrim: Richard, you continue with a false dichotomy between perfect justice and no justice. There is a proximate justice and it’s what we should be content to live with.

     RS: I don’t think that I am as I don’t think that a perfect justice will be found in practice on earth by men until heaven.. However, if one is not seeking true justice, what is one seeking? What is your proximate justice guided by and what is the goal of it? If there is no true standard for justice, then there is a false standard or not standard at all. I don’t think that leads to real justice but instead is a system that is set up for some civility rather than order. But that is not the same thing as setting up a false dichotomy.

     Zrim: And if you want to cull principles out of OT laws in order to apply them to contemporary pursuits of justice then you’ve begun to employ a hermeneutic that is less than Christological. In other words, the OT laws were given to point to Christ alone, not give us pointers on how to arrange our public policies. Maybe you’re tempted to say it’s both, but that seems to be a form of “Jesus plus something else.” By his own hermeneutic, the Scriptures are about him alone.

     RS: True justice always points to Christ in some way just like everything there is points to Christ in some way. All things were created through Him and were created for Him. While it may be accurate to say that all things point to Christ, that is not the same thing as saying that the OT laws cannot be used as a guideline for justice. Many things have more than one use. The Law was given to point to Christ, yes, but there are different ways that it did this. One way was in setting out what perfect justice and now men have a standard to show them their sin and need for Christ. So again, we are back to one use of reading the OT which is to show some practical ways that true justice works.

     LikeLike

115. RS:Those things do not require us to go back to following the OT laws as such, but surely they were far more just than what is going on in our legal system.

     RS: The OT laws display a justice that we should look for, but not in keeping them exactly but in looking for the principles of them

     Sean: Richard, As Zrim has pointed out, a great deal of what you say tracks VERY closely with theonomy. To be fair to theonomists, they are not jot and tittle folk,as they work it out. They argue for an interpretive exercise accomodated to a modern context but looking for as much positive application as possible when applying siniatic case law. There’s a great deal of acovenantal interpretation and sphere bounding transgressions that NL2K folk object to when this is being championed and argued for, but that’s another discussion. You might really benefit from giving ground to the idea of ‘proximate’ justice and patience and lowered expectations. I understand you also want to argue for the principle of shooting for perfection but in reality ending up with something less but that STILL being better than what we have. But, is that really what ends up happening when you’re dealing with human political systems? Isn’t generally what occurs a deformation in the form of totalitarianism or despotic monarchianism or other such ‘ultimate’, often times theocratic, political systems? All in the name of aiming for Camelot, even a religious one, we end up with the Emperor’s cult. Despite all our supposed best intentions, we are a pretty sinful lot, and maybe, just maybe God’s intention is to keep us pining away for something better.

     LikeLike

116. John Yeazel: Psssst Richard, I was being sarcastic!!

     RS: I realized that which was why I didn’t reply.

     That made me laugh Richard- I’m glad you can take it not to seriously too. We are both working on completely different assumptions about the nature of regeneration, renewal and our own inherent righteousness and holiness after justification and sanctification. I think we remain simultaneously fallen (sinful) yet justified. Our justification and sanctification is something completely outside of us. The Christ in us and the Holy Spirit in us has to do with cleansing our consciences and washing away our gulit which liberates us to good works. We cannot perform good works when we are under condemnation- these types of works are dead works. You think our inherent holiness is something which is progressive and changes us internally and makes us different internally than the unregenerate. I think this is dangerous and leads to subtle forms of self-righteousness, even when we convince ourselves that it is the Holy Spirit we are relying on for this internal change.

     LikeLike

117. Zrim, I guess we’ll just have to disagree. You are putting a lot of weight on John 18:36. You read it “My kingdom is not of Creation.” Why isn’t it rather “My kingdom is not of this sinful evil age”? Or “My kingdom is not of the militaristic, power base of which your Roman kingdom is”? You use this verse to deny the relevance of the kingdom of God for Creation in general. Given the testimony of the rest of scripture, I think you are quite mistaken. If 2k (vs. neo-Cal) is based on this verse, then it’s a rather flimsy position. Of course, we both recognize that Jesus’s way is not the way of conquest and of force–that hearts are changed by the power of the spirit and faith in Christ ensues. We also know that redemptive victory and the setting right of all thing came through his death on the cross. I don’t think that Jesus is even suggesting the temporariness of Creation here. Earthly powers are subject to divine rule even though they don’t know it.

     When Christian citizens and politicians base their decisions on principles of God’s Word and his Kingdom rule, they are also not being of this world in the sense that Jesus referred.

     LikeLike

118. Terry;
     ‘When Christian citizens and politicians base their decisions on principles of God’s Word and his Kingdom rule’

     Sean; Terry, what are these UNIQUELY biblical principles and how specifically do they do this in accord with ‘his Kingdom rule’ and how do they(politicians particularly, but otherwise as well) do this without transgressing the sphere bounds of the church?

     LikeLike

119. Darryl, I think you’re missing my point. I did not say that the hard sciences were free from being impacted by the Christian worldview. The example about Creation is fundamental. And I think it applies across all disciplines. We could also think about literature–of course, much of literature is about the human experience. Of course, we have to interpret literature in light of the worldview (in the post-modernist sense) of the writer–his/her times, culture, personal history, corporate history. More or less anyone can do that. But do we evaluate that in light of truth–The Truth. Do we ask, “Is this a right reading of human experience?”

     I’m glad to hear that you don’t object to the Reformed Confession as worldview. Perhaps you’re more of a neo-Cal than you want to imagine. I think you overestimate the requirement for self-conscious reflection. Even Reformational philosophers recognize ordinary experience. Most that I know don’t have a problem enjoying God’s good gifts in Creation and thanking God for them. Of course, thanking God for them is an expression of their worldview.

     I disagree that Christian schools are a denial of common grace. Most of what is taught is the result of non-Christian scholarship and artistry. No denial of common grace here. Christian education says the Reformed confession (i.e. what we believe about God, humanity, history, the good, the bad, how it gets fixed, the end) is worth thinking about as we do the disciplines. The secularist (2K’s excepted , of course) thinks the same. Public education says the secular confession (see the Humanist Manifesto I & II) is worth thinking about as they do the disciplines. No doubt there’s lots of overlap because we live in the same Creation and even post-modernists can’t deny the relevance of gravity. Secularists (aside from 2K’s) are neo-Cals in the sense that they too live all of life include their schools in light of their worldview.

     LikeLike

120. Darryl and all, Here’s a question. Do you think it’s possible to be a Reformed theologian and do Reformed theology without being converted? Remember the Gilbert sermon, “On the Dangers of an Unconverted Ministry”. Is it possible to rightly exegete, apply, and preach the Word of God without being regenerated? Is theology a science as Hodge and Warfield used to say (queen of the sciences)? How is our theologizing influenced by our regeneration? Why are there different theological traditions if the same Holy Spirit is influencing the thinking about all this?

     LikeLike

121. Terry, in fact I do read it as not of this present evil age (not as a denial of Christ’s lordship over creation). Though it is not at all unusual for a neo-Calvinist to say this, it is odd to me that you’d think a 2k reading is a way to deny the very goodness of creation. 2k says it’s so very good that it doesn’t need to be redeemed, while neo-Calvinism seems to find something wrong with creation that it needs to be transformed. This is the irony of your last remark. When from out of your imprecise distinction between creation and redemption you guys talk about transforming the world, my 2k mind wants to know what is wrong with it. Sure, it’s got its problems, but it looks pretty good as-is to me. Are you sure it’s not neo-Calvinism that is in a state of denial?

     As to your question, I think Noe has shown that it is possible for an unbeliever to do Reformed theology. That it is preferred is another matter. And the Reformed tradition has always maintained that the efficacy of the means of grace does not depend on the whether their minister is regenerate. So be careful pointing to Tennant’s revivalistic sermonizing that was high on conversion and low on the means of grace.

     LikeLike

122. Terry,
     1)yes
     2)yes
     3)yes, if you want to talk about a body of knowledge which can be known and/or needs to be known(intellectually)
     4)Well, we ‘know’ that body of knowledge but now ‘savingly’ . IOW, we exercise saving faith towards He of whom the scripture testifies.
     5) That same Holy spirit does not call all effectually, and even when he does, not all things in scripture are plain in themselves, nor clear unto all.

     LikeLike

123. Sean, there are sphere bounds for the church. I’m not sure there are sphere bounds for the individual believer. He/she acts as a godly citizen in the sphere of the state, a godly parent in the sphere of the family, a godly scientist in the sphere of academia, a godly businessman in the sphere of the marketplace. In none of those spheres is there a need to go through “the church as church”. The principles are quite general. For example, the state is not ultimate. Does that have implications for how one does politics? There is evil in the world that needs to be constrained by the civil magistrate. Does that have implications for how one does politics. Nature is not autonomous and is Creation. Does that have implications for how one does science? Surely, the doctrine of Providence tells us that we can’t conclude Naturalism as a philosophical system from a successful mechanistic science. Etc.

     LikeLike

124. Zrim, don’t assume I’m on Gilbert Tennant’s side.

     You seem to have a very limited view of Creation. Creation include societal structures and political systems and economic systems, etc. There’s a lot wrong with those. Creation includes the human soul. A lot wrong with that too as brilliant as we are. The Creation groans and waits for full redemption just like you and I do. If you think it’s pretty good now then I suggest that you are denying the effects of the Fall. The Fall had consequences for Creation and those consequences are part of what is renewed in the cosmic redemption of all things–Colossians 1. I do not suggest that you deny the goodness of Creation. You do deny the persistence of Creation. The Bible says that it will be renewed — the fires of Peter are purging fires not destroying fires. I’ve thought from first reading DVD that the problem is with the eschatology primarily.

     LikeLike

125. John Yeazel:
     RS: I realized that which was why I didn’t reply.

     John Yeazel: That made me laugh Richard- I’m glad you can take it not to seriously too. We are both working on completely different assumptions about the nature of regeneration, renewal and our own inherent righteousness and holiness after justification and sanctification. I think we remain simultaneously fallen (sinful) yet justified.

     RS: But I agree that we are simultaneously fallen and yet justified.

     John Yeazel: Our justification and sanctification is something completely outside of us. The Christ in us and the Holy Spirit in us has to do with cleansing our consciences and washing away our gulit which liberates us to good works. We cannot perform good works when we are under condemnation- these types of works are dead works.

     RS: But Christians are created for good works, which means a person does good works when that person is converted (Eph 2:10). The context of that argument is that works do not save, but instead a person is saved for good works. Going back to Colossians 1:27 and Christ in the soul, just two verses later (29) he says this: ” For this purpose also I labor, striving according to His power, which mightily works within me.” Paul labored according to His power which worked within him. So the conclusion is not hard to see that something of sanctification comes from within the person.

     John Yeazel: You think our inherent holiness is something which is progressive and changes us internally and makes us different internally than the unregenerate. I think this is dangerous and leads to subtle forms of self-righteousness, even when we convince ourselves that it is the Holy Spirit we are relying on for this internal change.

     RS: Whether it is dangerous or not does not determine the truth of the matter. If I determine something is dynamite and therefore dangerous that does not make it stop being dynamite.
     Hebrews 12:10 “For they disciplined us for a short time as seemed best to them, but He disciplines us for our good, so that we may share His holiness.” My position is that when Christ is in a person and the Spirit makes them His temple, that person shares in His holiness rather than finding a righteousness of holiness of his own. Again, if our power and strength comes from another, it must come from Him who lives in us.

     LikeLike

126. Terry,

     Great comments. You do a way better job of articulating these points than I could.

     LikeLike

127. Terry,

     How about the short answer is it makes a subjective difference, unto the glory of God, but not an objective difference; a 3/4′ fitting can be objectively, optimally, threaded to a 3/4′ pipe, by a regenerate or unregenerate person. And I’m not sure the principles you have given are uniquely scriptural though maybe not inconsistent with scripture and seem readily available via general revelation. Certainly the roman jurists knew a thing or two about ‘good’ governance apart from special revelation and to the extent which one arrives at the state as a penultimate sphere, seems to me the theocrats violate this a lot more often than the pagan secularists, one can be said to ‘rightly’ understand the role of the sphere(whichever one under consideration, the state in this case) as a ‘created’ or temporal or contextualized opportunity as opposed to an eternal, ultimate one. I’m not sure how the neo-calvinist, seeking objective differentiation, doesn’t end up eclipsing the Imago Dei of all human creatures, albeit maybe unintentionally, and over-realizing the redemptive impact and scope of election. I mean, rom 2:14-15 is still true, and even the unregenerate sin and get it wrong fairly often.

     LikeLike

128. Zrim,

     Zrim: “2k says it’s so very good that it doesn’t need to be redeemed, while neo-Calvinism seems to find something wrong with creation that it needs to be transformed.”

     Seriously? Have you heard of the fall? What about Romans 8 where it talks about creation groaning? Not to repeat Terry, but it’s such an obvious point. You seem to totally deny the fall, or at least radically compartmentalize it.

     Every time I start to think I can MAYBE KINDA start to see where some of the R2K guys are coming from (even if I don’t agree with them), one of them comes out with a totally radical statement like this and I go back to thinking they are waaaaaayyyyyyyy out of whack.

     How can you complain about the charge of gnosticism if you separate creation from human souls so radically?

     LikeLike

129. Darryl,

     You must not be reading me too closely because I have already stated my fears of militarization and its centralizing influence.

     As far as losing liberty to worship (although I didn’t define liberty this narrowly), we haven’t lost it yet, but we may be headed that way fast. How long do you think it will be before you aren’t allowed to exegete Romans 1 in public (homosexuality)?

     LikeLike

130. Oops, that should be the regenerate sin and get it wrong fairly often.

     LikeLike

131. Darryl: “Jon, you are a great example of a neo-Cal who can’t give an account of the intelligence, wisdom, and philosophy of unbelievers. For you it has been all folly. Please tell me where I am wrong about your underestimation of unbelievers (or the God who sustains them).”

     Here you go:

     DGH “attribute to the supernatural work of the Spirit the intellectual genius of believers”

     Jon: I never said the HS makes believers GENIUS, or even smarter. What I did say it that he grants them the BEGINNING of true wisdom. If they ARE smart, then they can use their smarts in a God-glorifying direction. And if they aren’t smart, they can still possess a true wisdom of how to live life.

     DGH: “because they operate in what at times seems like a Manichean universe divided between the knowers (of Christ) and the ignorant”

     Jon: I never called unbelievers ignorant. They can be highly intelligent. But their worldview can never substantiate their proximate knowledge. Maybe using Calvin’s proximate/ultimate dichotomy and applying it to epistemology would be helpful.

     DGH: “If regeneration does produce a new w-w, then why is education necessary? Shouldn’t the regenerate already have the tools, by virtue of the illuminating power of the Spirit, to understand all things correctly?”

     Jon: This is just a gross caricature. No one has ever argued that the HS grants wisdom apart from means. In other words, wisdom is HOW knowledge is used. It’s how the facts are organized and interpreted. That’s why a pagan can be an expert at calculus, but never really understand or give an account for WHY calculus is possible in his random universe.

     DGH: “In fact, in communions where w-w has expanded, catechesis has generally declined.”

     Jon: Not in mine. Correlation is not causation.

     DGH: “At the same time, regeneration does nothing to take someone from a low to a high IQ. Nor does regeneration place someone all of a sudden as a graduate of a Masters-level curriculum in western philosophy”

     Jon: No one has ever argued this. Ever. That’s why I called it a straw man.

     LikeLike

132. Terry, when I say creation I have in mind the things you list—it includes everything from rocks and rivers to societal structures to economic systems. But I also make a distinction between animated and non-animated creation, or that which is made in the imago Dei and that which isn’t. Rocks and economic systems are in the latter class. Only human beings are in the former and as such are the only facet of creation that can be said to be the target of redemption right now. Neo-Calvinism seems to want to include rocks and economies, but that would seem to suggest that Jesus not only lived and died for his PEOPLE but also their social, political, and economic systems (and rocks). And out pops something awkward about redeeming creation. This strikes me as quite odd for any Reformed to embrace, since, to the extent we agree it reflects the biblical witness, covenant theology is about God and his people. It also seems borderline sacrilegious to imply that Jesus lived and died for anything other than that which is made in God’s image.

     I agree that the non-animated aspect of creation groans for renewal. But a more precise way of saying it is that it groans for the sons of God to be revealed because it knows that the imago Dei creation has primacy over it—as goes the state of human beings, so goes the state of everything else created. Once the sons of God are revealed, all things will be set aright.

     LikeLike

133. DGH: “What is important is that Calvin does attribute to the Spirit the knowledge that pagans possess. Truth, wisdom, and intelligence do not exist independent from God. At the same time, the wisdom of pagans is spiritual work that does not include regeneration. It is in effect another iteration of the doubleness that 2K tries to maintain. In the same way that Christ rules the work of redemption differently from the order of his creation, so too the Spirit works upon the minds of people differently, with the illumination of regeneration providing a knowledge distinct from understanding politics, the liberal arts, or even neo-Calvinists’ beloved philosophy. ”

     This last part regarding Christ’s rule being different in creation vs. redemption and the subsequent conclusion that politics, arts, and philosophy are therefore morally-neutral (or at least unaffected by regeneration), needs a systematic argument and Biblical support. This is a huge conclusion with a wide impact and merely asserting it is not enough. I need proof.

     LikeLike

134. Jon, like I said to Terry, if you don’t make a distinction between non/imago Dei creation then it seems to me you end up having to say that Jesus lived and died for fish and government. Talk about way out of whack. Is it really so rrrrrrradical to suggest that only human beings are the target of redemption? My guess is that you don’t bring your dog to church.

     LikeLike

135. Zrim,

     Your theology results in the most radical and extreme conclusions. I doubt that anything but a tiny minority of Reformed folk would agree with them.

     1) Christian schools are unnecessary. (This one is the most easily empirically disproven.)
     2) The fall didn’t affect creation.
     3) And the worst one: Reformed theology can be done by a unregenerate person. Theology is knowing God. If you claim you can know God, without really knowing him, something is off in your theology.

     I fear the radical two kingdom folk are starting with a conclusion perhaps (they don’t want to involve themselves in government) and working backwards into a theology. But it produces all kinds of problems and contradictions, which is why they have to write articles about why it’s okay to sound convoluted and self-contradictory. But I don’t think most Reformed folk would agree with this way of thinking. I think that if you start to contradict yourself, you need to take a hard look at where you went wrong.

     LikeLike

136. Colossians 1:22 he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before him

     mark: but wait wait, not yet, not now, not by Christ’s death alone, that was only the first step, that death and resurrection alone would not reconcile anybody, let alone cause them to be presented holy and blameless, this verse does not have the word “soul” in it, so we need to move on to other important stuff

     23 if indeed you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel that you heard, which has been proclaimed in all creation[g] under heaven, and of which I, Paul, became a minister.

     mark: and to continue means to move on, I don’t deny that business about now and about reconciliation by Christ’s body of flesh or by Christ’s death, indeed I agree with all that, I am reformed, so now lets assume that and shift to talking about the soul, which of course is also part of the hope, indeed, if we read on enough we shall see that when it comes to being holy then we shall need to talk not only about Christ in us, but also about what Christ is causing us to be and to do, so that we know that by His presence He is making us holy but not quite yet, He in our souls is making us blameless but of course not yet perfectly….

     24 Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church, 25 of which I became a minister according to the stewardship from God that was given to me for you, to make the word of God fully known, 26 the mystery hidden for ages and generations but now revealed to his saints. 27 To them God chose to make known how great among the Gentiles are the riches of the glory of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.

     mark: and of course that doesn’t mean Christ in you, we know from Edwards that it means Christ in your souls, and even Plato knew that our souls are not us, but something immaterial and invisible in us, and also remember that the hope is not merely Christ’s presence but also Christ’s presence as a means to an end, which is of course changing our souls, making us better than we were, and tomorrow better than we were yesterday, so of course we are not yet holy, not yet totally blameless, but nevertheless we can approach God with some assurance now not so much because of that death alone, that was only justification, but we can now approach God, or begin to, not because of a righteousness done already, but by means of a righteousness being done by us, because Christ is in us, and remember I am not talking about justification now, but don’t forget sanctification, and you can’t be really holy or truly worship God until in your soul God changes you so that you too can begin to fulfill the law and thus begin to approach, it’s not an either or because you can’t just be justified because now that your soul has been changed your work is not only accepted as not dead work but now accepted as some of the reason you are holy, not strictly of course, but in grace…..

     LikeLike

137. “My guess is that you don’t bring your dog to church.” I’m taking that, thank you very much, and the cannolis

     LikeLike

138. Zrim,

     I don’t even totally disagree with how you put it: “But a more precise way of saying it is that it groans for the sons of God to be revealed because it knows that the imago Dei creation has primacy over it—as goes the state of human beings, so goes the state of everything else created. Once the sons of God are revealed, all things will be set aright.”

     In a way you are stating federal theology (with regard to man representing creation, in a sense). I don’t disagree.

     But how do you go from there to concluding that creation is “just fine” as it goes and doesn’t need redemption? And then go from there and say that creation is so good that we don’t even need a uniquely Christian way of educating children? It’s your conclusions that seem radical to me.

     LikeLike

139. Colossians 1:24 Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church, 25 of which I became a minister according to the stewardship from God that was given to me for you, to make the word of God fully known, 26 the mystery hidden for ages and generations but now revealed to his saints. 27 To them God chose to make known how great among the Gentiles are the riches of the glory of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.

     mark: and of course that doesn’t mean Christ in you,

     RS: There are many verses that speak of Christ in you and of the Spirit being in believers. In fact, Jesus tells us that the Father will make His abode in them as well. Of course the text does mean Christ in you.

     McMark: we know from Edwards that it means Christ in your souls, and even Plato knew that our souls are not us, but something immaterial and invisible in us,

     RS: I think we should follow Scripture rather than Plato (or at least your intepretation of him) on this point. When the man Adam was given life, he because a living soul. What is it about my soul that can fail to heed a prophet and yet that is apart from me or not me? You may be flirting with some form of Gnosticism here. A human being is created body and soul.
     1 Corinthians 15:45 So also it is written, “The first MAN, Adam, BECAME A LIVING SOUL.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.
     Acts 3:23 ‘And it will be that every soul that does not heed that prophet shall be utterly destroyed from among the people.’

     McMark: and also remember that the hope is not merely Christ’s presence but also Christ’s presence as a means to an end, which is of course changing our souls, making us better than we were, and tomorrow better than we were yesterday, so of course we are not yet holy, not yet totally blameless, but nevertheless we can approach God with some assurance now not so much because of that death alone, that was only justification, but we can now approach God, or begin to, not because of a righteousness done already, but by means of a righteousness being done by us, because Christ is in us, and remember I am not talking about justification now, but don’t forget sanctification, and you can’t be really holy or truly worship God until in your soul God changes you so that you too can begin to fulfill the law and thus begin to approach, it’s not an either or because you can’t just be justified because now that your soul has been changed your work is not only accepted as not dead work but now accepted as some of the reason you are holy, not strictly of course, but in grace…..

     RS: One is declared perfectly holy and righteous on the basis of Christ alone. However, the one that knows God and is united to Christ that soul now lives in love because love lives in him or her. It is the grace of God in the soul that grants that soul to share in His divine nature (II Peter 1:4) that we may become partakers or share His holiness (Heb 12:10). When a true believer is holy, it is not something done outside of Christ, but it is a sharing in the holiness of God through Christ and by the Spirit.

     LikeLike

140. Terry,

     Something I’ve been wondering about, and this seems like a good opportunity to ask: Is it possible to hold to neo-Cal epistemology without also holding to neo-Cal eschatology? You say:

     I think at some point it might be worth asking what do we mean by a Christian worldview. To me most of it is Biblical/Confessional. There is a God, he has revealed himself to us, he has such and such attributes, he made the world, he made humans, including me, humans have fallen into sin, Christ came to save us and initiated the new age with his death, resurrection, ascension, session, and giving of the Holy Spirit, he will come again to judge the world and usher in the fullness of the eschatological age. In one sense, thinking about all of life in light of those truths is all that we’re talking about.

     Hard to argue with that. But then you also say (to Zrim):

     I do not suggest that you deny the goodness of Creation. You do deny the persistence of Creation. The Bible says that it will be renewed — the fires of Peter are purging fires not destroying fires. I’ve thought from first reading DVD that the problem is with the eschatology primarily.

     In your view, does one have to agree with the latter to agree with the former? Can one be neo-Cal without holding to a high degree of continuity between the present creation and the new one?

     LikeLike

141. I hope it is OK to butt into the conversation so late. Terry, you wrote, “However, part of the truth of science that gets to its spiritual dimension that is impacted by regeneration is the acknowledgment that nature is Creation. That it is created. That it has a Creator.”

     How is this uniquely impacted by regeneration? I see that a regenerate person will acknowledge these things, but so will mormons, jews, muslims, and unitarians. It seems to me that these truths are less a consequence of regeneration than of common grace.

     LikeLike

142. Jon, I take it you now see how I’m not saying the fall didn’t affect creation. Yes, my point about redemption being for human beings follows a federal theology.

     But how do you go from there to concluding that creation is “just fine” as it goes and doesn’t need redemption? And then go from there and say that creation is so good that we don’t even need a uniquely Christian way of educating children? It’s your conclusions that seem radical to me.

     Because creation is still very good. Are you saying it isn’t very good anymore? There is no question that humans are fallen and sinful. Rom 1-3 and Eph 1-2 (among other places) is abundantly clear about that. What is less clear to me that creation per se is fallen or sinful, nor is it clear to me that creation or creational enterprises need to be redeemed, though evangelicals and transformationalists speak this way routinely. Creation is subject to futility (Rom 8:19-23) and is groaning to be released from the bondage to decay and to enter into the consummate state, but that is not quite the same thing as to say that creation is “fallen.” Rocks don’t have any faculties. They don’t sin. I doubt that dogs sin. My Goldendoodle is stubborn. Certainly she suffers from the consequences of the fall, but whatever we say in that regard, nothing about the fall makes creation evil or even something that needs to be “redeemed.” I worry about the effect of equivocating about sin and redemption by applying the same terms to humans and creationally generally. The effect is to broaden thus weakening the ideas of sin and redemption.

     But how do you go from federal theology, which is about God and man, to redemption being about God and man and everything else? And how is to question the need for a uniquely Christian way of delivering the 3rs really so rrrrradical? I know it touches a third rail among P&R influenced more by modernity than catechetical religion, but I’ve yet to be convinced it’s as necessary as catechism.

     LikeLike

143. Terry, let’s be clear. I do object to the confession being turned into w-w. A confession is an affirmation by the church. A w-w is something Hegel had.

     What I don’t get is how your w-w waxes and wanes. Sometimes it’s only doctrine. Then it goes cosmic. Neo-cals do need a little discipline and restraint.

     If not a denial of common grace, how do Christian schools affirm common grace? Isn’t there a lot of doubt raised by Xian schools about other kinds of schools? And have you not heard, Kuyper doubted the outlook of liberals and the schooling they provided. Sometimes the antithesis is hard to handle. Again, more restraint or clarity please.

     LikeLike

144. Terry, if it is possible to conjecture that the sermon by an unregenerate minister is the word of God (as the second Helvetic affirms) it is certainly conceivable that Reformed theology could be done (though not ideally) by an unregenerate believer.

     LikeLike

145. Terry, has it dawned on you that neo-Cals have an overly high estimate of creation, and that the categories for creation are not damnation and salvation but good and blessed. The original creation was only good, not blessed. Creation will not be blessed until Christ’s return (whether that means getting nuked or simply transformed). But ever since Al Wolters Creation Regained, neo-Cal’s have not done justice to the fact that Adam, even though created good, had another stage of existence waiting for him if he did not sin. The original creation was not as good as it gets.

     BTW, when is a neo-Cal ever going to do more than wave the wand over Col. 1? Calvin did not think that Paul’s appeal to the cosmos implied “all creation.” Do neo-Cals do exegesis?

     LikeLike

146. Jon, in the U.S., it will be pretty long. Just play the victim card and Washington D.C. goes wobbly.

     LikeLike

147. Zrim, we’ve been here before. I guess it’s sort of an impasse. The scope of the Fall and the scope of Redemption and the scope of the Eschatological Renewal is the same as the scope of all Creation. It’s all things, cosmic in scope. Dogs don’t have eternal souls, but I’d guess there will be dogs on the New Earth. They don’t have to come to church get renewed. That’s the other part where we are at an impasse. You see everything happening via church as church. I see believers living out their vocation in the world bringing salt and light to every area of life (church as organism; believers expressing God’s rule in all of life).

     LikeLike

148. Jon, good, so we agree. Regeneration has little if anything to do with intelligence or philosophy. I don’t think the rest of the w-wers will agree. Why establish a separate university run on Christian convictions if you think that philosophy and other forms of learning can be learned as well at a state university?

     LikeLike

149. Jon, who used the word neutral? The word in play is common. But if politics, arts and philosophy are not morally neutral, then how can you say that regeneration is not the basis for genuine learning and wisdom? After all, if philosophy is not neutral, then an unbelieving philosopher cannot be telling the truth. Can he?

     LikeLike

150. Jon, how could you “prove” that Christian schools are necessary? Also, creation did not sin. Creation may groan because it has to support sin. But it cannot be redeemed (and doesn’t need to be). It doesn’t have a soul. It wasn’t in covenant with God. There is a difference between wicked, good, and blessed. The original creation was not blessed, only good.

     LikeLike

151. Darryl, Christian schools recognize common grace by using the fruit of unbelievers science, art, literature, philosophy, psychology, etc. Granted, they are subjected to scrutiny to see if any fruit of an unbelieving worldview produces any of their conclusions, but clearly, much of the science taught in a Christian school is the work of unbelievers. We’ve probably learned a thing or two about the psychology of learning from unbelievers. There are plenty of novelists, historians, artists, computer programmers, etc. worth studying and learning from. Don’t forget the CRC/PR battle in the 1920’s. Neo-Cals are advocates of common grace. You yourself quoted Kuyper in the lead post. Why do you keep acting like Kuyper is not a neo-Cal?

     Again, you’re making stuff up. Who says that Adam didn’t have another stage of existence–his eschatological reward for keeping the covenant of works? Why do you think that neo-Cals don’t recognize that there is a discontinuity (as much as I have been emphasizing the continuity)? There will be no more death, there will no sin, there will be perfect communion with God, as it would have been had Adam reached his eschatological goal. That’s a pretty substantial discontinuity and it will not come as a result of neo-Cal’s kingdom building efforts but by the coming of our Lord to put an end to the remaining rebellion. As the Vossians say, “eschatology precedes soteriology”. Who denies that? Why do you think the neo-Cal denies that? Why does kingdom in all areas of life and “redemption” of all things imply that there won’t be a Parousia where the drama dramatically ends? Who says that the original Creation was as good as it gets? Obviously not, especially if Adam was “able to sin”. Surely, “not able to sin”, our condition after the New Heavens and the New Earth are brought in is better. The threat of “you shall sure die” will no longer be over us as it was for Adam. That’s better too. But why the eschatological glorification implies the undoing of the Created order is beyond me. I just don’t see where you get it. The imagery of both the Old Testament prophets and the Apocalypse paint a picture of continuity–but not only a return to the original Creation but a eschatological emergence of everything as it was meant to be had Adam not sinned. Christ brings us to the glory that eluded Adam. Not only that but we get to see writ large God’s love, grace, and mercy toward Adam’s race that had at first failed–something we may have never known had Adam not failed the probation.

     As for your worry about Hegel–you trouble yourself with too much philosophy I fear. Just because the term originated in a certain context doesn’t mean that the concept hasn’t always existed. With Creation we have the Christian worldview. With the Fall we have alternatives.

     LikeLike

152. sdb, I would never say that the creator god of “mormons, jews, muslims, and unitarians” is the one true God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, Maker of heaven and earth. Their god is an idol.

     LikeLike

153. David R., I think they go together, but I suppose you could distinguish them. 2k’s seem to, although they might object to being said to hold to a neo-Calvinist epistemology. I’ve always distinguished between dispensationalists/fundamentalists eschatology and Reformed eschatology in terms of the stress on the goodness and continuity of Creation. Before running into these 2k folks I took as the dispensationalists/fundamentalists view that this world was going straight to hell, that the the only thing that would be saved was human beings, that references to a good, peaceable kingdom were only to the Millennial rule of Christ which would be rebelled against at the end only to have Christ come to defeat and judge the enemy, send them to hell and send Christians to heaven. There was no talk as far as I could see of a New Earth. People were discouraged from going to college because the Lord was coming soon and it would be a waste of time to study the things of the world.

     But it seems that that’s very close to the eschatology of 2K’s. I don’t get it. Amillenialism sees the good, peaceable kingdom as the New Heavens and the New Earth with the New Heavens (the place where God dwells) actually descending to the New Earth. Lots of original Creation language. The original experience of the good Creation and the experience of it today is not just because God made a bit of a way station for us on our way to glory, but because in its eschatological perfected state it’s the world God intended all along. That’s where we’re headed. And the mustard seed and leaven that was planted with Christ’s first coming is taking root, growing, and spreading to the ends of the earth.

     2k’s say they affirm the goodness of Creation. I accept that. But the image of polishing a sinking ship just so it’s a comfortable ride until the end doesn’t really work for me. 2k doesn’t make sense unless you promote an eschatology that makes a radical break with the original creation.

     It seems to me that there’s an either/or mentality. It’s either the church or it’s creation/society/culture. I won’t deny that some so-called neo-Cals have it to. 2k’s pick the church. These so-called neo-Cals pick society/culture. But there’s no either/or for the Bible. The church is the gathering of the called out ones who follow Christ (and their children). They gather for worship, are discipled by the preaching of the Word, are nourished by the Sacraments, and disciplined by the officers of the church. But they live out the gospel and Christ’s Word in Creation and bring their understanding of God and his purposes to bear on all things. So, it’s both the church and creation/society/culture

     LikeLike

154. I agree which is why I don’t understand what regeneration gas to do with science. How will a nonregenerate theist view science differently from a believer? If the only difference is that they give credit to the wrong god, then while this has serious consequences for their soul, I don’t see how it is at all relevant to how they view science.

     LikeLike

155. Mark Karlberg: “Through long years of controversy and debate , Protestant dogmaticians made increasingly heavy use of scholastic distinctions To speak about the ‘graciousness’ of the first covenant with Adam, most Reformed federalists employed the speculative and dualistic distinction between nature and grace. As a result, the covenant order was set over against the natural order of creation. This new development, or rather revision to an older view, appeared in the writings of Francis Junius, a highly respected Dutch scholar and professor. Junius emphasized the sovereign, electing purpose of God in creation. Although Adam was obliged to render complete and perfect obedience to the law of God by virtue of his debt as a creature (ex puris naturalibus), the covenantal reward of life eternal was one of ‘grace’…..”

     Covenant Theology in Reformed Perspective:

     LikeLike

156. Terry, if you go back to some other comments by your antithetical friend, Jon, you’ll see that he had real trouble answering that Christians can learn from non-Christians, as in take advice about a host of matters in this life. He would likely qualify that as you do so that wisdom and learning becomes a small little area that winds up not being as cosmic as the wave that neo-Cals make to Col. 1. But if Xians do learn so much from non-believers, what’s the point for separate schools? (Jon even insists that Christian schooling is so necessary that it is obvious.) If we use non-xians in Christian schools, what makes xian schools so distinct?

     As for the point about creation and eschatology, you really need to look at Wolters. His title pretty much says it all. Redemption is regaining creation. And Wolters has been the seed from which the integration of faith and learning has grown throughout all Christian colleges.

     LikeLike

157. Terry, if you paid more attention to Peter when he talks about the burning of the world than you do to Paul’s language of cosmic salvation, you might be more circumspect about creation and where it’s going. I’d also be care to identify too much with this order and its good things since a major failing of the Israelites was their identification of “as good as it gets” with Jerusalem, the kingdom, and the Temple. This made even the apostles reluctant at times to go to a new stage of redemptive history where all of that passed away. Do you really think that this order may actually go away and something very different might come? If not, you may be too deeply attached to perishable things (to borrow a phrase from a paleo-Calvinist, John Calvin).

     LikeLike

158. Darryl,

     Whoa, whoa. I said that math could be done competently by a pagan, but not philosophy. An unbeliever can rightly say 1 + 1 = 2, (though he can’t say WHY 1 + 1 = 2 in his random universe (multiverse?)), but philosophy deals with the basic foundations of belief, and can’t be done properly from an autonomous point of view. Once again, I could even agree FORMALLY with a pagan philosopher on a specific point, but I will never agree with his starting point, and thus the antithesis between our worldviews.

     LikeLike

159. Darryl,

     Also, speaking of philosophy, let me ask you a question:

     Did philosophy start with Adam, or with the Hebrews, or did it not start until Thales? In other words, if I wanted to research the history of philosophy, would I start with the Hebrew Scriptures, or would I wait until the pre-socratics?

     LikeLike

160. Darryl/Zrim,

     I agree that creation does not need redemption in any way even close to the same as man. My only point is that thorns, thistles, biting lions, and stinging mesquitos will not exist in heaven.

     As far as “proof” for the need for Christian education, here goes:

     “The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom.”

     “We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ” (2 Cor 10:5)

     “that their hearts may be encouraged, being knit together in love, to reach all the riches of full assurance of understanding and the knowledge of God’s mystery, which is Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.
     (Colossians 2:2-3 ESV)”

     Can your child properly understand human nature if he is taught that man evolved from spacedust?
     Can your child understand logic if he is told that something came from nothing?
     History is nothing more than a pile of data without a philosophy to underpin it. Will we use Christian philosophy or autonomous philosophy? (If you say there’s no difference, you have never attended a government school.)
     Can your child understand sexuality aright when they are taught that their is no ultimate authority (other than man), that there are no pre-defined genders, and that pre-born babies are fetuses?
     Can your child be taught philosophy properly when he is taught that man is the measure of all things? And that autonomous thinking is the only REAL way of doing philosophy.
     English: is the meaning of a passage really determined by the reader?
     Sports: Are there really no differences between boys and girls?

     I could go on . . . .

     LikeLike

161. Jon, the Greeks do philosophy (not banking, clearly). The Hebrews did God. I don’t see why neo-Cals don’t see that philosophy, the categories, the questions, the analysis, started with pagans, and yet neo-Cals want to use philosophy for Christian ends. Haven’t they ever heard of Tertullian? If so, they might give up w-w as a German concoction.

     LikeLike

162. Jon, you could go on but before you ask your Sagan-esque questions, Aristotle and Cicero would not have framed any of your questions that way? If you have a problem with evolution, say so. That’s not the key to modern learning, any more than the French Revolution was the key (for Kuyper) to all modern social developments.

     As for thorns and thistles, how do you know what will be in glory? Have you not heard that weeds are a human construction, what some cultures call weeds are valuable plants to others. Also, the lion will lie down with the lamb. It doesn’t that lambs won’t have any lions around.

     LikeLike

163. Terry, bingo on the differences turning on an institutional (2k) versus an organic view of church (neo-Cal). This is precisely DVD’s point in “Always Reformed.” In your response to David, you suggest that the 2k emphasis on church and the neo-Cal emphasis on culture is a false choice biblically. But if we claim the Protestant Reformation and its confessional tradition, and to the extent that this was a project in reclaiming Scripture, the case for emphasis on culture becomes weak. The Reformation was all about the reform of the church, not impact on culture. I’d suggest that neo-Calvinism is a Reformed slouch toward liberalism. You may want to say that 2k is a latent Fundamentalism, but since Fundamentalism is a non-churchly phenomenon it’s hardly clear what high church Calvinism has in common with low church revivalism.

     LikeLike

164. Jon, what always strikes me about the defense of Christian education as necessary is the whiff of distrust. God has promised to instill and perpetuate faith his people and their children by way of things like Word, sacrament, discipline, catechism, and prayer. It’s almost as if Xian schoolers think God’s liturgical, sacramental, ecclesiastical, and doxological program is pretty good but just not quite enough; it needs to be supplemented with philosophy and worldview. This isn’t to suggest a sort of Pollyannaism about raising covenant children, but it is to wonder what neo-Cals think when God says he has chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise.

     LikeLike

165. Zrim/Darryl,

     I am not a neo-Cal. I read Wolter’s book and was not impressed. I thought the structure/direction thing was way overused. (Anecdote: I was talking to a friend who was all hyped up about neo-calvinism and has just read Wolters. He was talking about Christian psychology and I explained how a lot of it is based on autonomous thinkers like Freud and Jung. He said “well what can be REDEEMED in these thinkers?” I said “Nothing! Throw them out. Why start with something bad?”)

     LikeLike

166. Darryl,

     The categories of philosophy (or philosophy itself) was no more invented than Aristotle invented logic. It was DISCOVERED. Being, knowing, and doing are just fundamental aspects of the world and every religion/philosophy/group has wrestled with them (yourself included).

     LikeLike

167. Zrim,

     I find nothing lacking in preaching, Bible, catechism, etc. The problem I have with your position is that it seems you are willing to throw your children to Molech, trust their impressionable minds to the State-run alters to secular humanism, and then sprinkle a little catechism and Bible reading on top and expect everything to work out well.

     I believe strongly in the Bible and catechism being the BASIS for their education. Which is exactly why they need a Christian one! How can the one hour per week your kids spend at church compete with the 30+ hours they spend at the State indoctrination camps?

     That is why 80%+ apostacize at age 18. They see all knowledge as neutral, with a little Christianity sprinkled on top, and you wonder why they discard the toppings?

     LikeLike

168. Jon, discovered, then. It was the pagans, who had no beginning of wisdom moment, who established the categories that neo-Cals, theonomists, and all foundationalists use — not God’s people.

     LikeLike

169. So they established a category, so what? What did they do with them? They had a piece of knowledge, but did they know how to apply it (wisdom)? Did they know how that piece fit into the rest of reality (wisdom)? Could they see things from God’s perspective (special revelation)? Or did they warp the sliver of truth they had into a false, God-dishonoring view?

     The history of autonomous philosophy is 4000 years of failure. The never agreed on a metaphysic, an epistemology, or an ethic. Why? Because they started with MAN THE MEASURE, rather than IN THE BEGINNING GOD. So can they really be said to possess true wisdom? I think not. Everything based on the initial assumption of man as ultimate, will ultimately be false, even if it contains fractions of truth here and there.

     LikeLike

170. Jon, I’m glad for the explicitly stated faith in the things God has ordained, but it still does little to quell my worries that you overestimate the powers of philosophy. And the Molech meme does more to reinforce my suspicion that educational legalism lurks. I also seriously wonder about the tendency to compare numbers of hours with ordination of institutions. This is the sort of thing that makes me wonder about faith in the things God has ordained. Is it rrrrrrradical to suggest that 1 hour at home is worth more than 7 at school?

     The irony of your outlook is how it plays into the undermining of the home to make human beings (and the church to redeem them). Schools don’t really have that kind of power. You may want to rant about “State indoctrination camps,” but you’ve then already agreed with the statists that education is co-equal with the home, or worse, supersedes the home. But all schools do is educate minds, they don’t make people–there’s a huge difference. And even granting worldview, they don’t make that either. Homes do. Schools just teach them to think.

     LikeLike

171. Jon, if the history of philosophy is a story of failure, why use their categories? I’m confused.

     BTW, Christians, with all their revelation and spiritual illumination, hardly agree. You establish a standard that no one can meet. I thought only God could do that.

     LikeLike

172. Jon says;

     “The problem I have with your position is that it seems you are willing to throw your children to Molech, trust their impressionable minds to the State-run alters to secular humanism, and then sprinkle a little catechism and Bible reading on top and expect everything to work out well.”

     Jon says:

     “The history of autonomous philosophy is 4000 years of failure. The never agreed on a metaphysic, an epistemology, or an ethic. Why? Because they started with MAN THE MEASURE, rather than IN THE BEGINNING GOD. So can they really be said to possess true wisdom? I think not.”

     Calvin says;

     “If we regard the Spirit of God as the sole fountain of truth, we shall neither reject the truth itself, nor despise it wherever it shall appear, unless we wish to dishonor the Spirit of God. For by holding the gifts of the Spirit in slight esteem, we contemn and reproach the Spirit himself. What then? Shall we deny that the truth shone upon the ancient jurists who established civic order and discipline with such great equity? Shall we say that the philosophers were blind in their fine observation and artful description of nature? Shall we say that those men were devoid of understanding who conceived the art of disputation and taught us to speak reasonably? Shall we say that they are insane who developed medicine, devoting their labor to our benefit? What shall we say of the mathematical sciences? Shall we consider them the ravings of madmen? No, we cannot read the writings of the ancients on these subjects without great admiration. We marvel at them because we are compelled to recognize how preeminent they are. But shall we count anything praiseworthy or noble without recognizing at the same time that it comes from God? Let us be ashamed of such ingratitude, into which not even the pagan poets fell, for they confessed that the gods had invented philosophy, laws, and all useful arts. Those men whom Scripture [I Cor. 2:14] calls “natural men” were, indeed, sharp and penetrating in their investigation of inferior things. Let us, accordingly, learn by their example how many gifts the Lord left to human nature even after it was despoiled of its true good. (Institutes II.2.15)

     . . . the unbelieving world excels in many things. Precious treasures have come down to us from the old heathen civilization. In Plato you find pages which you devour. Cicero fascinates you and bears you along by his noble tone and stirs up in you holy sentiments. And if you consider your own surroundings, that which is reported to you, and that which you derive from the studies and literary productions of professed infidels, how much more there is which attracts you, with which you sympathize and which you admire. It is not exclusively the spark of genius or the splendor of talent which excites your pleasure in the words and actions of unbelievers, but it is often their beauty of character, their zeal, their devotion, their love, their candor, their faithfulness and their sense of honesty. Yea, we may not pass it over in silence, not infrequently you entertain the desire that certain believers might have more of the attractiveness, and who among us has not himself been put to the blush occasionally by being confronted with what is called the “virtues of the heathen”?” (Lectures on Calvinism, 121ff)

     Jon, it doesn’t necessarily prove the point, but I think you need to really give some reconsideration to your ‘scorched-earth’ version of epistemological antithesis. As I said before, Rom 2:14-15 is still in the scriptures as are numerous reminders of the continuing mark of the Imago Dei on all human creatures. And the idea of pure starting points and ferreting out epistemological foundations owes a great debt to unregenerate German philosophical idealism

     LikeLike

173. Sean,

     I fail to see how the Calvin quote contradicts what I’ve stated.

     LikeLike

174. Jon,

     The simple point is your aggressive use of antithesis regarding epistemology has a strong tendency to not give creedence to the goodness of God in creation, particularly Imago Dei creation.

     Calvin;

     “But shall we count anything praiseworthy or noble without recognizing at the same time that it comes from God? Let us be ashamed of such ingratitude, into which not even the pagan poets fell, for they confessed that the gods had invented philosophy, laws, and all useful arts. Those men whom Scripture [I Cor. 2:14] calls “natural men” were, indeed, sharp and penetrating in their investigation of inferior things. Let us, accordingly, learn by their example how many gifts the Lord left to human nature even after it was despoiled of its true good. (Institutes II.2.15)”

     Jon;

     “The history of autonomous philosophy is 4000 years of failure. The never agreed on a metaphysic, an epistemology, or an ethic. Why? Because they started with MAN THE MEASURE, rather than IN THE BEGINNING GOD. So can they really be said to possess true wisdom? I think not. Everything based on the initial assumption of man as ultimate, will ultimately be false, even if it contains fractions of truth here and there.”

     Calvin’s conclusion seems to differ quite dramatically from your conclusion. Not to mention your, maybe unbeknownst to you, dependence upon pagan philosophers for the categories and formulations upon which you now decry their efforts and conclude them as failures. This attempt to re-invent the wheel, if you will, is unnecessary, unbiblical, and runs the very real risk of not being ’round’. To paraphrase Calvin; ‘ It smacks of ingratitude toward God himself for the good gifts that he has given the unregenerate, not as an admiration of underived excellence, but a failure to not recognize God’s gifting of his creature. Even the now fallen and unregenerate sort.’

     LikeLike

175. Darryl,

     “Jon, if the history of philosophy is a story of failure, why use their categories? I’m confused.”

     Because the categories are sound. The way they are used isn’t.

     “BTW, Christians, with all their revelation and spiritual illumination, hardly agree. You establish a standard that no one can meet. I thought only God could do that.”

     We may disagree on the non-essentials, but we agree on the primary issues. Even you and I agree on the issues most pertinent to the faith: God, man, salvation, etc.

     LikeLike

176. Jon, still confused. The Greeks were smart/wise enough to come up with the categories basic to W. Philosophy but not to use them. That doesn’t make sense or acknowledge how important categories are for shaping an area of learning.

     LikeLike

177. So, Zrim, you could observe a week of public (statist) school education and exclaim, “That’s just the thing for my covenant kids! Please, sir, may I have some more?”

     LikeLike

178. 2866oa, yeah, you nailed it, that’s exactly the point. But in case you’re sarcastically challenged, the point actually has more to do with the ordination of the home to make human beings, the upshot of which is that Christian parents can employ secular schools and 2k parents can employ transformationalist schools without too much worry. And for those who love irony, note how the co-belligerents of the family values crowd miss this point about the ordination of the home.

     LikeLike

179. (Shouldn’t the regenerate already have the tools, by virtue of the illuminating power of the Spirit, to understand all things correctly?)

     Ahhhh no. Take you and Zrim for example, neither one of you can understand virtually anything correctly.

     LikeLike

180. Also, the lion will lie down with the lamb. It doesn’t that lambs won’t have any lions around.

     Darryl, I suggest you read Gary Demar’s “Myths, lies, and half truths”.

     This (lion and the lamb) is a common canard. The Bible does NOT say that the lion will lay down with the lamb. I know you tend to get sloppy, but puleeeeze try to get you’re facts right, especially when you’re miss-quoting (in your case) God’s Word! If you’re going to correct Bret for miss-quoting Machen, how is it, you can’t even quote the Bible aright?

     @Jon: Keep pressing on bro! You’re doing a great job! Keep shining the light of truth to our mentally flummoxed R2K brothers.

     LikeLike

181. Doug, no love for Terry, Baus, or Richard?

     LikeLike

182. Doug, or Pilgrim “PLM” Paul? But stupid is as stupid does, Ma’am.

     LikeLike

183. Darryl,

     You’re right that the categories are important. I’m not saying pagans can’t come to important truths, like 1 + 1 = 2. But look at what they do with the categories. They totally mess them up.

     LikeLike

184. Zrim,

     I don’t know what you mean by “co-belligerents of the family values crowd miss this point about the ordination of the home.” That’s totally my problem with public schools – parents turn their kids out of the home over to the state. We homeschool our kids. Deut 6 & Eph 6.

     LikeLike

185. Jon, are you saying that Christians don’t mess them up? This is where the antithesis leads to breast beating for Xians, and just plain beating up pagans.

     LikeLike

186. Jon, as one who employs public schools for his covenant children, I don’t consider it “turning my kids out of the home over to the state.” Your rhetoric is the convoluted flip side of those who portray homeschoolers as isolationist wingnuts. But my point about the ordination of the home isn’t necessarily to buttress homeschooling, though I’ve nothing against it (would that homeschoolers returned the favor to public schoolers). It’s to say that the home is ordained with such power that its children can withstand more than modernists of whatever ilk seem to think.

     LikeLike

187. Darryl,

     Again, we’re not talking outcomes here, we’re talking foundations. Sure, the prodigal son can blow his inheritance, but that’s only because he had an inheritance to blow. Unbelievers CAN’T be truly wise in the Biblical sense. They can’t have the right foundation. They’re worldview just won’t support it.

     I don’t beat my chest any more than I would due to the fact that God sovereignly chose me for salvation, but left others in their sins. It wasn’t a work of me, but a gift of God lest I should boast.

     LikeLike

188. Zrim,

     I don’t know what state/city you live in, but I sure hope it’s conservative. I would NEVER let my kids attend a public school. What would you do if you were in Massachussets where a father was NOT ALLOWED to opt his 5 or 6 year old son out of homosexual storytime? Please tell me how you could control that from home? Don’t you have any duty to protect your kids from harmful exposure?

     Don’t take this the wrong way, but I often wonder if peoples’ theology doesn’t sometimes arise to support their life choice, i.e., they are anti-Sabbitarian because they like to eat out on Sundays. Is it at least possible that many parents support public schools simply because they’re convenient (and economical)?

     LikeLike

189. Doug,

     I’ll try. But it might come down to a Mad Max style cage fight in the end. ha ha

     LikeLike

190. Doug, of course. But isn’t it also possible that some choose public education because they esteem the virtue of living and learning along with their neighbors and want to instill that virtue into their children? Isn’t it possible that some choose it because they want to instill from an early age the understanding that it’s possible to have strong religious and moral convictions and practices that are at odds with many of one’s neighbors but that they nevertheless have to find a way to live in the common arena, because that’s actually what they have to do with the greater balance of their lives after age 18? And that maybe creating nothing but a Christian bubble in a child’s formative years does very little to instill a sense of what it means to take seriously the command to “be in the world but not of it”? I understand you don’t like it, but isn’t it possible that some want to put their real world practice where their 2k theology is?

     And couldn’t I just as easily return the favor and employ the least charitable read on homeschooling as a way to justify a dubious theory? Sure, some homeschoolers are isolationist wingnuts, but from my experience amongst them, most aren’t. Sure, they’re fun to tease sometimes, but they are people with particular and respectable convictions on a matter indifferent. Can you at least try to grasp my point and return the favor?

     LikeLike

191. And by Doug I obviously mean Jon.

     LikeLike

192. Jon says;

     “Don’t take this the wrong way, but I often wonder if peoples’ theology doesn’t sometimes arise to support their life choice, i.e., they are anti-Sabbitarian because they like to eat out on Sundays. Is it at least possible that many parents support public schools simply because they’re convenient (and economical)?”

     Sean; Oh, come on Jon. Is this some version of Ricky Bobby’s; ” I said with all due respect……..” And to put the shoe on the other foot, how about your theology being born of your choice to homeschool?”

     LikeLike

193. Zrim,

     Feet OFF the couch, and did you touch my drum set………….

     LikeLike

194. Sean,

     Actually, no the argument couldn’t be reversed. Homeschooling is more work, money, and effort. So someone would never do it from expediency.

     LikeLike

195. Zrim,

     Would you train a soldier how to fight on the battlefields abroad or safe at home? Why are kids any different?

     The formative years are important, IMO.

     LikeLike

196. Great battlefield comment, Jon. By the way, Zrim, in our area Christian school children have plenty of interaction with public schoolers through sharing bus rides to school, interscholastic community events, neighborhood socials, summer work, and not to mention all the social media. I think the day of your “Christian bubble” is gone and covenant parents need to arm their children with right-thinking education for the battle, as Jon says.

     LikeLike

197. 286y, that’s interesting. I forgot that Paul mentioned the howitzer of education in Eph. 6’s description of spiritual warfare.

     LikeLike

198. Jon, if it’s about being principled, try being a public schooler advocate in at ground zero for all things Reformed world-and-life view. I agree that homeschoolers are principled. I’m still waiting for returned favors. As far as training, again, why so little faith in catechism and regularly attending the means of grace? And who said formative years aren’t important? On top of catechism and the means of grace, I’ve been instilling 2k theology from their birth for that very reason.

     LikeLike

199. Two thousand eight hundred sixty sixoa, here in worldview-laden Little Geneva world religions is a required course in the CSIs while catechism is regarded as a quaint but entirely outdated and unnecessary practice. Gotta be equipped to know the wider world, I suppose, before transforming it. Good on your area for mingling with the heathen. But dd you know the early church went a little further and schooled their kids amongst them? Then along came modernity and, amongst other things, helped everyone conclude that children are too delicate to live in the world but not be of it.

     LikeLike

200. Jon:

     “Actually, no the argument couldn’t be reversed. Homeschooling is more work, money, and effort. So someone would never do it from expediency.”

     Sean: You’re the one alluding (throwing stones) to the idea that people who utilize public schools are really just kinda lazy and maybe cheapskates. But, of course, you precluded that idea with; “don’t take this the wrong way”. So, I guess you’re covered. I must live in the wrong part of the country, when did christian schooling become a confessional mandate? Much less a biblical imperative. I’ve got plenty of war-stories about homeschooling gone wrong, as if homeschooling were some panacea against sin. It’s just like everything else in this life, it can be done well or poorly, same goes for public education or Christian schools.

     LikeLike

201. Zrim, re your comment. Sounds like a worldview to me.

     LikeLike

202. Zrim, sorry, I meant to include the link. This comment– https://oldlife.org/2012/06/regeneration-intelligence-and-philosophy/#comment-51124

     LikeLike

203. Darryl, I’m guessing Doug can distinguish between theonomy and neo-Calvinism (unlike most people here, it seems).

     LikeLike

204. sdb, I think you need to read my post more carefully (as does Darryl). Didn’t I already say that given the presupposition of an orderly universe that has to be discovered empirically that Christian scientists and non-Christian scientist have most in common? The answer is “yes” if you don’t want to scroll up and read it again (or maybe for the first time). My point is mainly that the truth of science includes the religious truth of there being a Creator and Sustainer. And truth about Creation requires the rightful response of acknowledgment of the true Creator, thankfulness to the true Creator and worship of the true Creator. Now if you want to define science narrowly to mean what Van Til calls knowledge “after a fashion” then we have a simple semantic issue and we will be in agreement. But surely, in light of Darryl’s most recent post on our common psychological disorder we wouldn’t want to call our disagreement mere semantics. Of course, our differences are large enough that we should have separate Reformed/Presbyterian denominations–the neo-Cal version and the 2K version.

     LikeLike

205. Darryl, I pay plenty of attention to Peter and have already talked about that. The Creation is purged and renewed by these fires, not completely destroyed and made again from scratch. The old age and the effects of since are destroyed.

     But, I’ll take you up on your challenge to study Colossians 1 more carefully. It’s a fantastic passage even if I come out on your side after studying more carefully. Can’t help but be edifying. Anyone else I should read besides Calvin?

     LikeLike

206. Terry, but Jon is closer to you on epistemology and not a theonomist like Doug is politically. So much for your duck.

     LikeLike

207. Terry, on Col. 1, I suspect that everyone before Kuyper interpreted the passage in less thisworldly fashion. Try Matthew Henry.

     LikeLike

208. Darryl, I’ll look at Wolters again with this question in mind because I agree that had Adam passed the probation there would have been some sort of eschatological transition similar to what we expect at the Parousia.

     My first suspicion however, is that you are gleaning all of the book’s content from the title.

     LikeLike

209. Terry, so is your point that true science goes from knowledge of creation to worship of creator and doesn’t stop with mere knowledge of creation’s stuff? That’s fine and I understand it. But as you well know, that’s now how the world of scholarship defines science and that world, for all of its problems and pride, produces some pretty remarkable stuff (including this machine I am now using and the supporting apparatus of the blog). My point is that none of us lives all of life in the “true” or whole way that you describe true science. And in fact, none of us can because we are finite and some of us aren’t even inclined to philosophical (wholistic) categories. What I see neo-Cals doing is an intellectual version of pieties where you as a true Christian have to wear your faith not only on your sleeve but also on your mind. Mind you, I see the value of philosophical and wholistic schemes in limited doses. But the appeal to the antithesis is never limited. It groups all people and their entire beings according to faith or unbelief. I just don’t see that as a very productive way of operating either in the academy or the public square. But I do see how it inspires the faithful and makes them feel more important than their beleaguered status allows.

     LikeLike

210. Terry, reserve some of your suspicion for Wolters. And look for this — his narrative goes from creation, to fall, to redemption. He doesn’t include consummation, which if you read VanDrunen’s chapters on the Dutch tradition is revealing because the Dutch have a habit (post Kuyper) of collapsing everything (creation and consummation) into redemption.

     LikeLike

211. (Terry, the link doesn’t work. Try just cutting/pasting.)

     LikeLike

212. Zrim, I’ll try to be nicer 🙂

     It seems unrealistic (to me) that you would expect you’re children to be mature enough to withstand being taught ethics that contradict God’s Word. Take for example, in public schools, they teach children that “homosexuality” is a gender issue, just like being born male or female. Why would you allow you’re children to be *molded* by an unbeliever?

     After all, the Bible calls mankind *sheep*. Why? It’s not a compliment; we’re stupid, and easily tricked, and can let sin entangle us. Why put you’re covenant child in an environment that contradicts God’s Word before they’re even secure in the faith?

     LikeLike

213. Doug, haven’t you been listening? Because I’m stupid, lazy, cheap, and unprincipled.

     LikeLike

214. Zrim, okay. I’ll try again…You wrote:

     And who said formative years aren’t important? On top of catechism and the means of grace, I’ve been instilling 2k theology from their birth for that very reason.

     Sounds like worldview to me.

     LikeLike

215. Terry, no, it’s a theology. Do the means of grace really flow from a worldview?

     LikeLike

216. Darryl, I’ll look at DVD again as well, but my first reaction is to say that it’s picking up on the Biblical language of renewal (rather than re-creation). So we might write: Creation, Fall, Redemption, Renewal (Renewal is to be preferred to the sometimes used Restoration because it can include an eschatological enhancement.) I also see: Creation, Fall, Redemption, Consummation. If Consummation goes beyond mere Restoration, then I think we can easily get our eschatological enhancement. Thus, Wolters’ “Regained” includes “Consummation” rather than mere “Restoration”. I may also write Al Wolters and ask him directly. I don’t have a copy of Spykman’s Systematic Theology but I would suspect that he engages this point.

     Let me say that I agree with you that if the Dutch theologians are talking mere Restoration then it falls short. I don’t particularly remember that being a deficiency in Ridderbos or Berkhouwer. I’ve not read enough Bavink since much has just only recently come out in English translation.

     I do admit to having had a few conversations with Calvin College folks and with broader evangelicals who aren’t nearly as wedded as we Presbyterians (yes, I still count myself as one) are to the Covenant of Works, the notion of an eschaton following Adam’s probation. I get the impression that they think the probation was indefinite and that Adam would have always been in this state of being able to sin. I wonder if they think that about our state in glory.

     LikeLike

217. Darryl, I think you capture what I’m saying

     that true science goes from knowledge of creation to worship of creator and doesn’t stop with mere knowledge of creation’s stuff

     and I agree that that’s not how science is commonly practiced (although it’s clear that sometimes a Naturalistic philosophy slips in between the lines and perhaps not so in-between-the-lines in cases like Richard Dawkins). No doubt it’s a form of piety…but there is a place for piety (you once listed several pieties that you perform: family devotions, ordering 2-7 so you can observe the Sabbath, observing the Sabbath, weekly worship, etc.).

     Personally, I think that it’s one of the things that Christian academics should do to varying degree. Granted, meta-thinking about your discipline is a discipline in itself and can take you away from other pursuits. In part I attribute my not getting tenure at Calvin College to my spending more time on the Creation/evolution debate and the controversy in the OPC than on my protein folding research. This blog functions as a similar distraction on some days like today when I should be getting to compiling the new protein dynamics software that we just purchased.

     LikeLike

218. Zrim, I’m talking about your indoctrination of 2k theology. That’s what I don’t get about you guys. It’s not that you don’t have a worldview, you just have a different worldview than neo-Calvinists. The way you apply Christian theology to life in general gives a worldview.

     Of course, the 2k and the neo-Cal worldview have a lot in common. Really! View of God, humans, revelation, sin, Christ, etc. Just a few differences which we accentuate (perhaps in a bad-mannered way) on the implications for life in this world and aspects of eschatology.

     LikeLike

219. Terry, if you want to wrangle over a word, fine, it’s a (2k) worldview. But the larger point really is that there is more than a polite, even negligible, difference between 2k and neo-Calvinism. And from where I sit (which was the last 15 years in the culturalist CRC), “worldview” is the language you guys use which is function of esteeming philosophy over doctrine, culture over confession, curriculum over catechism, and theorizing the faith over simply confessing and practicing the faith. When you say “worldview” with that meaning, I take exception.

     LikeLike

220. Zrim, curious…I’ve never meant that.

     Reformed philosophy flows out of Reformed doctrine. Cultural activity flows out of confession, “Curriculum” (whatever you’re talking about) includes and build upon catechism, 24/7/365–all of life is “practicing the faith”.

     LikeLike

221. Yes, Terry, I know the all-of-life drill. But you’ve already put your finger on it up above somewhere when you observed that the differences turn on an institutional (2k) versus an organic view of church (neo-Cal). What arises from such a taxonomy is that 2k wonders if all-of-lifery is basically a function of Reformed narcissism: I am Reformed, I think X, therefore X is Reformed. “Reformed philosophy,” then, flows out of the organic church’s own mind, not Reformed confession, which flows from the Bible. The latter is infallibly inspired, the former, not so much.

     LikeLike

222. Wow, Terry got Zrim to admit he has a worldview! I failed to do that free repeated effort. Who’s next, DGH?!

     LikeLike

223. Zrim, you misread what I wrote earlier. It’s not either/or. It’s both/and. Believers are members of the institutional church which operates to do the limited things the institutional church does under the authority of its officers and assemblies: preaching of the Word, administration of the sacraments, church discipline. I agree whole-heartedly with that.

     But believers are also in the world in their vocations, 24/7/365. This is “church” as organism. I’m not sure I really like the designation of that as “church” because it’s confusing and tends toward equivocation, but it’s got a history. (Anyone here read R.B. Kuiper’s The Glorious Body of Christ?) (I used to distinguish between church and kingdom, but with you 2k folks church and kingdom are identical.) Even in the CRC there is acknowledgement (weakly) that the church shouldn’t do some stuff. (See my “Thoughts on Synod 2012” at http://grayt2.wordpress.com/2012/06/20/thoughts-on-synod-2012/ ) What churches do through its officers and assemblies is sphere sovereignty limited. However, individual believers and groups of believers function in other spheres. It’s not either/or. It’s both in each one’s respective place. I keep sensing that you always think in terms of institutional church (as in your “bring your dog to church” example). But believers function as believers in all of life not just in the institutional church.

     LikeLike

224. Jon, Darryl did say on June 26 at about 3:17pm

     I don’t necessarily object to your w-w.

     I think that might be as much as we can expect.

     LikeLike

225. Zrim, are you a Christian 24/7/365–all of life? I think so. You practice your faith the same way I do.

     LikeLike

226. Terry, but is the kingdom both/and? Is the church as organism as responsible for kingdom work as the keys of the kingdom or the sacraments? This is where both-and rhetoric does not help and why church as organism can bleed into fuzzy notions of redeeming television or plumbing. And just so you have this straight, 2k did not invent church as kingdom. It is right there in the confession you once subscribed (and everywhere implicitly that Reformed Protestants explained the keys of the kingdom).

     LikeLike

227. Darryl, church as institution is responsible for the keys of the kingdom and the sacraments. No quarrel there. Those determined by church officers to be believers function in the world in their vocations–that’s church as organism. I don’t see where there has to be any confusion. The institutional church does its sphere limited work and believers work in all of the other spheres.

     LikeLike

228. Terry,

     You’re right. I forgot about that reference. 🙂

     LikeLike

229. Terry;

     But believers function as believers in all of life not just in the institutional church.

     Sean;

     And they either do it well or poorly or otherwise, according to creational standards,(NL, common grace categories of temporal life) in the objective while subjectively their ambition is; “unto the glory of God”. These “w-w” attempts at objective differentiation is so much wish-fulfillment, it doesn’t exist. Christian’s do creation well, poorly and otherwise just like the unregenerate do it well, poorly or otherwise, in the objective. The ‘organic’ distinction is one of sanctified ambition(subjective), not objective accomplishment.

     LikeLike

230. Terry, despite the ostensible agreements with other worldview advocates, your conclusions regarding creation and scientific methodology — assuming you reject intelligent design as scientific — would make it very hard for you to teach in most worldview academies, if not on the verge of church discipline. Of course, I’m not saying anything you don’t already know. But given the insistence on the Christian worldview leading to the Christian view of science, how do you explain this dichotomy within neocalvinism? And how do you determine who wins?

     LikeLike

231. Terry, it’s not that 2k has a problem with the idea of the organic church. To pick up on Sean’s point, it’s the overestimation of just what it can do. Neos talk as if just because the Spirit indwells believers have some sort of leg up in common endeavor. That just doesn’t resonate with actual experience. But leg uppery is legit, and the institutional emphasis gives believers a legit way of realizing it: only the Spirit indwelt can be raised into the heavenlies each Lord’s Day in ways unbelievers can’t–and isn’t being so raised the precise point of faith? Here is where the antithesis makes sense. Sure, wheat and tares are mixed each Lord’s Day, but that makes more sense then the narcissistic idea that believers can do philosophy (and everything else pertaining to creation) better than unbelievers the other six.

     LikeLike

232. Terry G.said:

     “Personally, I think that it’s one of the things that Christian academics should do to varying degree. Granted, meta-thinking about your discipline is a discipline in itself and can take you away from other pursuits. In part I attribute my not getting tenure at Calvin College to my spending more time on the Creation/evolution debate and the controversy in the OPC than on my protein folding research. This blog functions as a similar distraction on some days like today when I should be getting to compiling the new protein dynamics software that we just purchased.”

     John Y says: that is not very progressively sanctified of you Terry, but I got a kick out of the candor

     Why is it that discussions of regeneration on Calvinist web sites usually end up in discussions of culture and education. There has to be some quirk or connection in Calvinist soteriology to regaining and redeeming culture. I am pretty sure Van Drunen addressed this issue in a not so indepth way in his book NATURAL LAW AND THE TWO KINGDOMS. Can anyone comment further on that?

     LikeLike

233. Also, why all the battle metaphors with unbelievers? I thought Christians were supposed to bare the burden of afflictions from unbelievers when they reject the Gospel and remain enemies of the cross of Christ; not overtake the culture that is passing away. I guess that is the difference between a amillenial and postmillenial eschatology.

     LikeLike

234. Zrim,

     Let’s just zero in on one thing you said for a minute:

     “Sure, wheat and tares are mixed each Lord’s Day, but that makes more sense then the narcissistic idea that believers can do philosophy (and everything else pertaining to creation) better than unbelievers the other six.”

     Are you really ready to defend the statement that unbelievers can do philosophy as well as believers? Let’s break down the implications of your assertion:

     Metaphysics: physicalism is equally true as supernaturalism.

     Epistemology: autonomous epistemologies, such as rationalism and empiricism, are equally true as revelationalism.

     Ethics: might makes right is equally true as “Thus sayeth the Lord.”

     Please defend the above implications. Please be specific and detailed. Thanks

     LikeLike

235. Terry, but you dodged WCF on the visible church as the kingdom of Christ. I suspect that this is where lots of confusion and evasion lies and sorry but the neo-Cals introduced it.

     LikeLike

236. John Y.: my hunch is the dominance of neo-Calvinism in twentieth century Reformed Protestantism. Sanctification, education, and culture generally go together in the neo-Cal mind, and it may have had a point in 1890s Netherlands. But the problem that 2kers face is that we have discovered a Calvinism prior to neo-Calvinism and the neo-Cals, who assumed theirs is the most consistent most philosophical most active version, are shocked, just shocked, to hear that someone things a better and more conservative brand of Calvinism exists.

     LikeLike

237. There are different ideas of worldview being batted around, and I think the difference leads to confusion.
     1. Worldview = people tend to have ideas that more or less hang together.
     2. Christian worldview as endeavoring to apply biblical ethics and faith extensively.
     3. Christian worldview includes epistemological reflection borne of Kant’s Copernican Revolution, an endeavor to “claim every square inch,” an emphasis on an intellectual antithesis between believers and nonbelievers, and a tendency to promulate “the” Christian position in matters cultural and academic.
     a. of the Evangelical/Baptisic type.
     b. of the Kuyperian/Reformed type.

     I’m not trying to pontificate here, but it’s hard to butt into conversations at this point. I’m sometimes seeing worldview defended as if it’s #1, but no one really denies that. Then a worldviewist on his high horse sometimes acts as if #2 is all the argument is about. But the argument is really about #3.

     LikeLike

238. Jon, and you are really prepared to say that believers do philosophy better than unbelievers? Does that include me? Or if I decline philosophy, I’m unregenerate? Careful. You may start sounding like Gilbert Tennent, the Danger of Unconverted Philosophers.

     For the record, aside from Wolterstorff and Aquinas, which Christian philosophers do philosophers study?

     LikeLike

239. Jon, have you missed Noe’s line of reasoning? If so, you’re welcome (sheesh, so many favors and so much love unrequited):

     http://www.opc.org/os.html?article_id=302&cur_iss=Y

     But my point was that, instead of earth, only Christians can do heaven categorically, absolutely, and unequivocally better than unbelievers–most notably 52 Lord’s Days a year (as opposed to the immodest 24/7/365 claims of neos). Even dim and under-tutored ones. The implications of that are staggering if you’d ever care to contemplate them. What do you think it means to say that God has chosen the foolish things to confound the wise?

     LikeLike

240. “Are you really ready to defend the statement that unbelievers can do philosophy as well as believers?”

     Jon, since you talk of doing philsophy the answer is “yes, absolutely.” If I was presented a paper with “correct” positions that is weak in argumentation and fails to understand what it argues against, I would have to give it a poor mark. On the other hand an “incorrect” paper that is rigorously analytical, well-argued, and understands what it argues against would get a high mark.

     “Epistemology: autonomous epistemologies, such as rationalism and empiricism, are equally true as revelationalism.”

     But Jon, in worldview epistemolgy the subject imposes order on what may be out there but can’t really be sure if it’s out there because he is so commited to his worldview. Are you a worldviewist or not?

     LikeLike

241. D. G. Hart: Jon, and you are really prepared to say that believers do philosophy better than unbelievers? Does that include me? Or if I decline philosophy, I’m unregenerate? Careful. You may start sounding like Gilbert Tennent, the Danger of Unconverted Philosophers.

     RS: Yes, but there is a danger from unconverted ministers. We are also specifically told by Paul to “See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ” (Col 2:8). So there may be some danger from unconverted philosphers.

     D.G. Hart: For the record, aside from Wolterstorff and Aquinas, which Christian philosophers do philosophers study?

     RS: Alvin Plantinga, Louis Pojman, Malebranche, Thomas Reid, Paschal, Kierkegaard, and Jonathan Edwards (who also wrote a great work on the Religous Affections).

     LikeLike

242. Sean and Zrim, did I ever say that Chistians do their disciplines “better” than non-Christians? This was the claim of Darryl’s original post (that neo-Cals claim this) and I think I accused him of being under the influence of a mind altering drug for saying so. I don’t think I’ve said such a thing and I don’t think that’s what the epistemological claim is. What I am saying is that because the believer has the fundamental orientation right (due to Revelation and Regeneration) and responds faithfully in thanksgiving, worship, and obedience, he/she is closer to the Truth in his/her thinking than the unbeliever. This is why I think Jon is fundamentally correct in saying what he said about metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics, despite the possibility that in a technical philosophical paper, he/she might committ errors. Many of you know that I am a theistic evolutionist (or an evolutionary creationist) and think that Young Earth Creationism and Intelligent Design are both flawed science. In terms of technical science Richard Dawkins has it much more together than Duane Gish or Bill Dembski. But, Gish and Dembski are closer to the Truth in their thinking about Creation because they acknowledge, based on their Christian faith, the Creator and Richard Dawkins is an idolator. Gish and Dembski’s starting point when thinking about the world is rooted in truths that come by revelation and regeneration. This is what we neo-Calvinists mean when we say “life is religion” and “the myth of neutrality” and “every square inch” under Christ’s Lordship. It has very little to do with “after a fashion” technicalities. Unbelievers, by virtue of common grace, (as indicated in the original Kuyper quote) are often very good at what they do, but even the grace- and image of God-endowed efforts may be “of good use” but “because they proceed not from an heart purified by faith; nor are done in a right manner, according to the Word; nor to a right end, the glory of God, they are therefore sinful, and cannot please God” (WCF, XVI, 7). I do not hesitate to make the religious/moral claim as part of my epistemological claim.

     LikeLike

243. John, for what it’s worth I got my program compiled in spite of my high horse spewing on Darryl’s blog today. Perhaps it was the result of all the prayers uttered on my behalf by Old Lifers who read my confession and prayed for my work.

     LikeLike

244. Darryl, indeed I avoided the use of the word “kingdom”. As I’ve said before I don’t have any qualms about calling the church the kingdom. The members of the church are the citizens of the kingdom. Christ rules as Kng over the church and over His citizens. So I have no issue with what WCF affirms.

     You, however, take that affirmation and say that the kingdom is limited to the church. I think otherwise. The kingdom is the realm over which Christ is King. That would be all of heaven and earth. That would be over members of the church and citizens of the kingdom as they serve their King in all of life, 24/7/365. Citizens of the kingdom (members of the church) acknowledge Christ’s kingly rule. Period. They are ultimately subject to him alone and they bear witness to his kingship to all. The earth is the Lord’s (not just the Christian people of the earth). Even rebel sinners are called to obey him as King, and they will bow the knee in faith or will be judged and condemned for their disobedience. Either way he is king over them.

     Of course, the church expresses the kingdom most purely. The church is governed by Christ’s revealed Word. But don’t forget where we are heading–“the kingdom of this world shall become the kingdom of our God and of His Christ and he shall reign forever and ever” and Christ teaches us to pray for that kingdom to come on earth as it is in heaven.

     LikeLike

245. Zrim, don’t forget to mention the response to Noe in Ordained Servant. We mustn’t give the impression that this is the majority position in the OPC. It will take a long time to undue the influence of Cornelius Van Til.

     http://www.opc.org/os.html?article_id=311&cur_iss=Y

     LikeLike

246. Terrry, first of all I’m a bit frosted at you for making me set up a separate category of worldview to accomodate your view over against what tend to come out of baptistic circles these days. I’ll even call yours a “higher” view. But I would appreciate clarification on something. You say

     ” In terms of technical science Richard Dawkins has it much more together than Duane Gish or Bill Dembski. But, Gish and Dembski are closer to the Truth in their thinking about Creation because they acknowledge, based on their Christian faith, the Creator and Richard Dawkins is an idolator.”

     Now, this strikes me as a very modest statement and not terribly worldviewish. Gish and Dembski have are closer to a Big Truth but have no advantage in their academic discipline. Kumbaya, but is that all you are arguing for? And why wouldn’t you say the Holy Spirit enables them that far?

     Richard, you say
     Alvin Plantinga, Louis Pojman, Malebranche, Thomas Reid, Paschal, Kierkegaard, and Jonathan Edwards (who also wrote a great work on the Religous Affections).

     I haven’t done a recent survey of undergraduate philsophy curricula, but the only one of those men likely to be included at any given institution is Kierkegaard, and he is the butt of worldview critiques such as Schaeffer’s. Certainly Plantinga has the skill set to be in The League (sorry, I’ve been distracted by the NBA draft), but I doubt there are many classes on Reformed Epistemology at State University.

     LikeLike

247. Richard, Edwards was a philosopher? Wow!

     BTW, I believe Paul was writing not a general missive to believers but to a specific church or set of congregations. In which case, not wanting philosophers to lead the church is smart instruction. Over at university, an unregenerate philosopher is a different matter (that is, unless you think believers should be presiding over all activities — the theonomist option).

     LikeLike

248. Terry, your version of the kingdom is standard neo-Calvinist fare. It also ignores the older Reformed distinction, exposited well by VanDrunen, of the redemptive and creational aspects of Christ’s rule. 2kers have no trouble saying Christ is king over all things. But then the my-kingdom-is-not-of-this-world needs to kick in. Which is why the Confession can say that Christ’s kingdom is the visible church and why older Calvinists never talked about kingdom work other than word, sacrament, and discipline.

     In my estimation this is the crucial debate between neo’s and 2kers. And it would help if neo’s could acknowledge how historically derived their construction of the kingdom is. When you’re trying to Christianize a nation, and in the Netherlands, you might actually want a cosmic rationale. Funny how that feeds the Religious Right.

     LikeLike

249. Mikelmann, if you had a Xian w-w, you wouldn’t waste your time on the NBA. (Which team do the folks in Iowa follow, Minnesota, OK, or Chicago? And why can’t Burlington get a franchise?)

     LikeLike

250. Richard, if there is no danger from unconverted ministers how can there be from unconverted philosophers? But to back up a bit, the Reformed confess that the state of the minister does not impact the efficacy of the Word and sacraments he administers. And so here is another glaring difference between the confessionalists and the epistemologists: the former look to the foolish things God has ordained, the latter to the wiser things the world esteems.

     And so it’s little wonder to me that the experientialists join up with the epistemologists here in pushing back on the confessionalists. Whether it’s the intellect or the affections, the sacraments and power of God are given lower esteem.

     LikeLike

251. Terry, I invoke Sean’s previous point about moving targets. From one side of the mouth, you want to say that we don’t do earth better. From the other, you claim “that because the believer has the fundamental orientation right (due to Revelation and Regeneration) and responds faithfully in thanksgiving, worship, and obedience, he/she is closer to the Truth in his/her thinking than the unbeliever.” It seems fairly clear that the implication of the latter is that believers do earth better than unbelievers. How can we be closer to truth and yet not be superior in our thinking?

     The necessary distinctions, again, are creation and redemption. Neos tend to be very sloppy here and give the impression that because we are closer to eternal truth we are superior in our temporal thinking. But my point remains about heaven and how our confession is always superior to the unbeliever’s. The sloppiness of neos makes it seem like they find this ho-hum.

     LikeLike

252. Terry says:

     “But why wouldn’t the work of the Spirit transform all aspects of our lives whatever our abilities and gifts. So there might be consequences of regeneration in the mind of the bioethicist that aren’t there for anyone who doesn’t really think about the questions a bioethicist might think about.”

     Sean; I’m sure there are other instances, and certainly if any of us talks enough we end up contradicting ourselves eventually, but this sounds like regeneration, as it’s utilized in a neo-cal w-w having implication for objective differentiation.

     LikeLike

253. Terry, for what its worth would you have begun to doubt your salvation if you did not get your work done on time and those at oldlife refused to pray and fellowship with you because of your neo-Cal views?

     LikeLike

254. DGH, I cut my teeth watching Jo Jo White sinking pull up jump shots and Dave Cowens doing belly flops to get loose balls. Now it’s Rajon Rondo calling out The Heat for crying to the refs and Kevin Garnett banging his head against the basket support. KG is Presbyterian, isn’t he?

     I once attended professional basketball in Des Moines. The point guard had a beer gut and the girls with pom poms danced like stripper wannabes.

     Burlington? There’s something creepy about those towns over by the river.

     LikeLike

255. MM,

     I was going to ask the same question as Darryl but he beat me to it. Who do the folks in Iowa follow in the NBA? I can’t picture you as the run-of-the-mill Iowainian either. Do many of the farmers in Iowa do yoga and read philosophy like you do? I’m thinkin they might think that creepy. Anyways, I think the Celtics did well in the draft- they got 2 good big men to help replace the ageing Garnett. It looks to me that they may rebuild and say goodbye to Pierce, Garnett and Allen.

     Darryl, I meant to ask you about a comment you made in regards to confessional documents in a post awhile back. You stated that they were living and breathing documents rather than static historical relics (those were not the exact words but I think you said something close to this- I could not find the post). Does that mean that you believe some statements in the confessions can be a bit misleading and confusing and need to be amended and updated due to better scriptural insight, newer theological controversies and changes in culture?

     LikeLike

256. JY, I was wondering if there is something about Lutheran soteriology that makes it difficult for Lutherans to understand the NBA…

     KG is back on a 3 year contract, which is a good thing because he became a 20/10 center in the playoffs, is still one of the most valuable defensive players in the game, and we need him to scare the bejeebers out of either of this year’s draft picks who have any thoughts about being lackadaisical about guarding the pick and roll. Pierce is on board for a couple years as well. I’d like to keep Ray if he’s content to come off the bench but if he leaves it won’t be apocalyptic.

     Anyway, I’m a transplant from the Northeast. It took me a loooong time to learn how to talk Midwestern.

     LikeLike

257. MM,

     That’s too bad on KG. We stole Duncan from you in the lottery 13 years ago and we were hoping to have the geriatric twin towers down here in the Air Force retirement village, errr San Antonio. Maybe we can swing a deal, have KG go ‘bounty’ on Lebron’s knee, and we’ll have Cap’n Jack break Durant in half and we can have a greybeard-off in the Finals next year. That, or KG and Timmy need to book a flight to Germany and get their blood spun and heated up and shot back into their knees. We’re also trying to grow him some knees on the backs of mice down here in the ‘lab’, see if we can get another 5 years out of him.

     LikeLike

258. Yeah, Sean, we brought in ML Carr as coach with specfic instructions to tank the season so we could get Duncan. Those were grim years. But you have a great franchise down there. I’ve gotten out of my Lebron loathing thanks to better devotionals, but Wade is a punk.

     LikeLike

259. John Y., the short answer is that the Confession means what the professing church says it means, or the way that the church uses the confession. So instead of looking at the Westminster Divines and their private correspondence, which is a historical task, we look at a different history — the way the OPC has adopted and based decisions on the Confession of Faith. So in the case of the length of the days of creation, we look to 1936 and beyond, not to the 1640s.

     LikeLike

260. Can we stop the NBA chatter? It’s a screwy league, with byzantine legal and financial rules, and a degraded brand of basketball (at least until the Sixers contend again).

     LikeLike

261. No worries Darryl. Apparently Collins and Thorn have a deal worked out with the devil; Rose, Noah, Pierce, Bradley, Allen………………….yeesh. And we all know what kind of bad mojo is going on in the stands.

     LikeLike

262. Darryl, perhaps you should be reminded of the other reference to the kingdom in the Westminster Standarsds. The exposition of the Lord’s Prayer in LC seems to go to the full blown neo-Cal definition of kingdom (all the earth) in addition to the church and her mission. It also includes rule over our hearts.

     LikeLike

263. DGH, keep your chin up – I thought the Sixers maximized whatever minimal talent they had this year. (Is that sufficiently backhanded?)

     LikeLike

264. Sean, why is there a contradiction? The sort of consequence of regeneration that I envision is at the level of Implications of one’s religiious commitments as in Jon’s list: existence of God (metaphysics), revelational epistemology, or ethics influenced by Biblical teachings. Becoming a Christian causes these to function in your thinking. This is similar to my example with Gish, Dembski, and Dawkins.

     LikeLike

265. John, not at all. My salvation rests on Christ alone despite all my foibles. It’s quite secure there.

     LikeLike

266. Zrim, redemption occurs in Creation. That’s why resurrection is so important. This old body will be made new. If you think I’m talking out of both sides of my mouth then you’re not getting my point. Regeneration/Revelation influences the fundamental religious root of our being and that influences our understanding and interaction with creation including ourselves. But it’s the religious ground primarily not the technical, superficial, “after a fashion” details.

     LikeLike

267. Mikelmann, that’s pretty much what I’m arguing for and I do think it comes from the Holy Spirit. But if you build on such foundations with academic rigor (good philosophy, good science, etc. — given also to unbelievers in creation, image of God, and common grace) you might in some disciplines actually get to a different place where it’s clear that the theorizing is influenced by one’s religious commitments. I don’t really think this happens much in my discipline (because the hard sciences are so superficial, i.e. “after a fashion”-like) but see its potential in principle elsewhere.

     LikeLike

268. O.k. Terry. So, as you frame it, all regenerative influence exists on the level of subjective consideration, i.e. our ambition is soli deo gloria? With no distinction in objective execution as it regards creational activity, outside, appparently, some potential ethical adjustments based on special revelation? I assume those influenced ethics as introduced to creational activities, have been thoroughly vetted for siniatic, church exclusive, privileged people, state, elect in Christ considerations? So, you wouldn’t hold to a ‘leavening’ effect of the ‘organic’ church in the common grace realm elevating it to it’s potentialities, beyond it’s preserving aspect? So subjectively we function even in creational tasks, including philosophy(education), as creatures bounded by our finiteness and with no distinction from the unregenerate in these tasks, besides our own innate gifting distinctions from other imago dei creatures but now with renewed or new found ambition(religious consecration)? I ask because I’m trying to make sure I understand your particular ‘flavor’ of neo-cal.

     LikeLike

269. Terry, now you’re couching redemption in human terms, as in bodies and their resurrection. 2k couldn’t agree more, but it wants you to stop there because that’s where the confessions, creeds, and catechisms (which flow from the Bible) stop and to cease making more out of a wider groaning creation than is warranted.

     But even if you could stop at the human level, what you say about the regeneration-revelation influences on the mind just seems like what the Pentecostals say about the body. They want to believe that we don’t have to live with the limitations of our created and fallen bodies, and the neo-Calvinists say the same about the mind. Regeneration somehow has immediate cash value on both faculties. I wish both of you were right, but my Reformed instincts tell me a lot over over-realizing is going on, as well as a fashioning of things from a merely human perspective.

     LikeLike

270. MM,

     Actually, I am a Lutheran who believes in particular atonement, grace that cannot be resisted and election like most Calvinists do (McCulley has convinced me of this). But, in my readings of various contemporary theologians, I think a lot of popular theologians are confused about these doctrines. I also have my doubts about baptismal regeneration. However, I like Lutheran churches better than Calvinist ones. Subtle self-righteousness does not run rampant in Lutheran churches, ie., I think the Lutheran doctrine of sanctification is more scripturally sound and the Calvinist doctrines of sanctification and perseverance of the saints (as some understand it) have their scriptural problems. So, maybe your right MM, Lutheran soteriology is causing me problems with an analysis of the Boston Celtics. I don’t blame it on that though and I am willing to bet you some good midwestern sawbucks that the Celtics will get rid of 2 out of the 3 old guys. I have my doubts they will keep Garnett around for 10 million just to scare the beejeebees out of the rookies. Besides he is a free agent and will probably go when the Celtics won’t match a ridiculous price some other team will be willing to give to him.

     LikeLike

271. I’m glad to hear that Terry. And it’s good to have a neo-Cal with a decent sense of humor who can fight sarcasm with sarcasm back. Plus you don’t get the sense that you’re going to pull the Howitzer out like you do with a lot of the theonomists.

     LikeLike

272. Sean. subjective-objective is language you introduced. I’m not sure I’m using those categories. For example, whether there is a God or not is not subjective, whether there is revelation or not is not subjective. Human worth as a divine image bearer is not subjective Creational law (natural law, laws of nature, etc.) is not subjective. Acknowledging those realities comes as a result of our conversion. So I’m not sure I’m just speaking of subjective response (motive, thanksgiving, worship, etc) exclusively although I readily admit to subjective elements in knowing those things as there is subjectivity in all knowing (“everyone has a worldview”).

     I do think it’s odd that you all think I have a peculiar brand of neo-Calvinism. My experience on this blog is that you all have twisted it beyond recognition as in Darryl’s opening post where he quoted a neo-Calvinist approvingly to show how messed up neo-Calvinists are or you look at liberal neo-Calvinists who don’t understand their own heritage and who have turned transformationalism into social gospelism. I’m not saying that I’m the only spokesperson for neo-Calvism. There is Baus, after all, but I get the impression you all don’t think that I’m quite mainstream.

     LikeLike

273. Terry,

     It’s ok. I think I understand how your distinguishing your points in your responses to Zrim and MM.

     ” I don’t really think this happens much in my discipline (because the hard sciences are so superficial, i.e. “after a fashion”-like) but see its potential in principle elsewhere.”
     You seem more inclined to find the ‘softer’ sciences more amenable to regenerative effects.

     LikeLike

274. Terry, I see nothing about the redemption of television or plumbing in WLC 191. It’s all about the church, with some help from the magistrate. But I’d expect a neo-Calvinist to see the cosmos in there.

     LikeLike

275. MM, coming from a Celtics fan, it’s a real put down.

     LikeLike

276. Terry, please acknowledge that of the interlocutors here, there is no Neo-Cal position. On the one hand, Jon says that believers will be better philosophers than non-believers. His version is partly why someone might quote Kuyper’s regard for the pagans positively. I don’t agree with Kuyper on the noetic effects of regeneration (and I doubt many Kuyperians agree with him on baptismal regeneration, but who’s counting). Then there is Baus who says there is no neutrality, even though you suggest that in some disciplines an overlap exists between believers and unbelievers. Of course, you’d never use the n-word. Still, the point stands that the neo-Cals are hardly on the same page. (Then there is also the gap between your Klineanism and Wolter’s eschatology sans consummation).

     LikeLike

277. Zrim: Richard, if there is no danger from unconverted ministers how can there be from unconverted philosophers?

     RS: There is a huge danger from unconverted ministers and from unconverted philosophers, though things can be gleaned from both. For what it is worth, I did say there is a danger from unconverted ministers in the former post.

     Zrim: But to back up a bit, the Reformed confess that the state of the minister does not impact the efficacy of the Word and sacraments he administers.

     RS: Which is quite inaccurate. According to Calvin the efficacy of the sacrament is in the preaching rather than in the sacrament itself. If the minister is not converted, then that minister is not preaching the truth and is not preaching with the illumination, power, or love of the Spirit.

     Zrim: And so here is another glaring difference between the confessionalists and the epistemologists: the former look to the foolish things God has ordained, the latter to the wiser things the world esteems.

     RS:Actually, it may be quite the opposite. One can have a false epistemology that leads them to a false view of the sacraments.

     Zrim: And so it’s little wonder to me that the experientialists join up with the epistemologists here in pushing back on the confessionalists. Whether it’s the intellect or the affections, the sacraments and power of God are given lower esteem.

     RS: The power of God is not given lower esteem, but perhaps some of us don’t put the stress on the sacraments because Scripture don’t put the stress that the hyper-confessionalists do. But again, epistemology is at work here again though it may be hidden. Who gives spiritual understanding? The confession or the Holy Spirit?

     LikeLike

278. Richard, “quite inaccurate”? WCF 27.3 says: “The grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments rightly used, is not conferred by any power in them; neither does the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that does administer it: but upon the work of the Spirit, and the word of institution, which contains, together with a precept authorizing the use thereof, a promise of benefit to worthy receivers.” Which also seems to answer whence spiritual edification–the Spirit. Sure sounds like Westminster saw no problem with an unconverted ministry.

     And “hyper-confessionalist” for stressing the sacraments over the intellect and the affections? But WCF and Belgic have no less than three chapters each on the sacraments, and nothing on religious epistemology or affections. And Calvin said he’d rather partake of the sacraments than understand them, and that at least weekly. Is that hyper-confessionalist?

     LikeLike

279. You’re right again MM- I just saw that the Celtics gave Garnett a new 3 yr. contract today. I had not heard that and I thought you were mistaken about a new contract. He got more than 10 million a year too (34 million for 3 years). That is hard to believe for a guy who works as hard as does and who has been in the league for 17 years.

     LikeLike

280. Darryl, LC Q&A 191 “and that he would be pleased to exercise the kingdom of his power in all the world.” Sounds like cosmos to me, especially after already talking about the church and our hearts.

     LC Q&A 45 talks about Christ as king and includes the phrase “and powerfully ordering all things for his own glory, and their good…” If Christ is king over all things in his Messianic office, why aren’t all things part of his kingdom.

     By the way, I read both Calvin and Henry on Colossians 1 and I don’t get where you see them just talking about people and angels. The “all things” of reconciliation seem to be the same “all things” of creation in the passage.

     LikeLike

281. Darryl, why would there be many neo-Cals here? And it’s not as if any of us here are the intellectual movers and shakers of the movement. Jon actually claimed not to be one and didn’t really like Wolters’ book. It’s hard to be a neo-Cal and dislike Wolters. (Both the incoming new President of Calvin College and the new Calvin Seminary professor of missions, Michael Goheen, pointed to Creation Regained as being instrumental to their understanding of Reformed theology and sang its praises at their synod interviews.)

     LikeLike

282. Zrim: Richard, “quite inaccurate”? WCF 27.3 says: “The grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments rightly used, is not conferred by any power in them; neither does the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that does administer it: but upon the work of the Spirit, and the word of institution, which contains, together with a precept authorizing the use thereof, a promise of benefit to worthy receivers.” Which also seems to answer whence spiritual edification–the Spirit. Sure sounds like Westminster saw no problem with an unconverted ministry.

     RS: I guess I have a hard time believing that you actually wrote that last sentence.
     Chapter XXV Of the Church

     III. Unto this catholic visible Church Christ has given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God, for the gathering and perfecting of the saints, in this life, to the end of the world: and does, by His own presence and Spirit, according to His promise, make them effectual thereunto.[7]

     RS: Christ has given three things to the Church. The ministry, the oracles, and the ordinances. The reason for this? For the gathering and perfecting fo the saints. It is His presence and the Spirit that makes them effectual. God does not dwell in unconverted men and His Spirit does not teach them spiritual things.

     IV. This catholic Church has been sometimes more, sometimes less visible.[8] And particular Churches, which are members thereof, are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the Gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them.[9]

     RS: The Church is pure to the degree that the Gospel is taught and embraced. An unconverted man cannot preach the Gospel in truth and love.

     VI. There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ.[13] Nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalts himself, in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God.[14]

     RS: We can certainly see that they were very much against this unconverted man as a minister.

     But even if Westminster did not have a problem with that, Scripture does. All you have to do is look at the qualifications for elders and deacons in Timothy and Titus. When the church at Phillipi wanted Paul to send them a minister, he said this (in chapter 2): “20 For I have no one else of kindred spirit who will genuinely be concerned for your welfare. 21 For they all seek after their own interests, not those of Christ Jesus.”

     Zimri: And “hyper-confessionalist” for stressing the sacraments over the intellect and the affections?

     RS: No, for stressing the sacraments and the confessions more than Scripture does.

     Zrim: But WCF and Belgic have no less than three chapters each on the sacraments, and nothing on religious epistemology or affections.

     RS: But Scripture mentions the Lord’s Supper when Jesus instituted it, then only twice more and that in the same book. It speaks a lot about religious affections and epistemology.

     Zrim: And Calvin said he’d rather partake of the sacraments than understand them, and that at least weekly. Is that hyper-confessionalist?

     RS: But he sure spent a fair amount of time striving to understand them. I am sure there is more to the context than the statement you are quoting might communicate. But as to doing the externals without understanding just because they are in a confession, then that could be hyper-confessionalism. However, I don’t think that described Calvin. He was too wedded to Scripture for that.

     I Cor 14:12 So also you, since you are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek to abound for the edification of the church.
     13 Therefore let one who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret.
     14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful.
     15 What is the outcome then? I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the mind also; I will sing with the spirit and I will sing with the mind also.

     LikeLike

283. It is this profound Christian permeation of every human activity, no matter how secular the world may regard it as being, which is brought about by the Christian school and the Christian school alone. I do not want to be guilty of exaggerations at this point. A Christian boy or girl can learn mathematics, for example, from a teacher who is not a Christian; and truth is truth however learned. But while truth is truth however learned, the bearing of truth, the meaning of truth, the purpose of truth (even in the sphere of mathematics) seem entirely different to the Christian from that which they seem to the non-Christian; and that is why a truly Christian education is possible only when Christian conviction underlies not a part, but all, of the curriculum of the school. True learning and true piety go hand in hand, and Christianity embraces the whole of life—those are great central convictions that underlie the Christian school.

     is this really from one of Darryl’s books? Sort of what I’ve been trying to say.

     LikeLike

284. Terry, the neo-Cal blinders you have on is astounding.

     Here is the context for the LC on Christ’s mediatorial kingship:

     Christ executeth the office of a king, in calling out of the world a people to himself, and giving them officers, laws, and censures, by which he visibly governs them; in bestowing saving grace upon his elect, rewarding their obedience, and correcting them for their sins, preserving and supporting them under all their temptations and sufferings, restraining and overcoming all their enemies, and powerfully ordering all things for his own glory, and their good; and also in taking vengeance on the rest, who know not God, and obey not the gospel.

     Powerfully ordering all things refers specifically to Christ’s redeemed peoples. Yes, it’s called providence and it includes ordering Saddam Hussein and Barack Obama. But it is not here some kind of cosmic salvation.

     And here is Calvin on Col. 1:20, particularly how “all things” applies to “both heaven and earth” (notice how long he goes on about angels and not technology or astronomy):

     If you are inclined to understand this as referring merely to rational creatures, it will mean, men and angels. There were, it is true, no absurdity in extending it to all without exception; but that I may not be under the necessity of philosophizing with too much subtlety, I prefer to understand it as referring to angels and men; and as to the latter, there is no difficulty as to their having need of a peace maker in the sight of God. As to angels, however, there is a question not easy of solution. For what occasion is there for reconciliation, where there is no discord or hatred? Many, influenced by this consideration, have explained the passage before us in this manner — that angels have been brought into agreement with men, and that by this means heavenly creatures have been restored to favor with earthly creatures. Another meaning, however, is conveyed by Paul’s words, that God hath reconciled to himself. That explanation, therefore, is forced.

     It remains, that we see what is the reconciliation of angels and men. I say that men have been reconciled to God, because they were previously alienated from him by sin, and because they would have had him as a Judge to their ruin, had not the grace of the Mediator interposed for appeasing his anger. Hence the nature of the peace making between God and men was this, that enmities have been abolished through Christ, and thus God becomes a Father instead of a Judge.

     Between God and angels the state of matters is very different, for there was there no revolt, no sin, and consequently no separation. It was, however, necessary that angels, also, should be made to be at peace with God, for, being creatures, they were not beyond the risk of falling, had they not been confirmed by the grace of Christ. This, however, is of no small importance for the perpetuity of peace with God, to have a fixed standing in righteousness, so as to have no longer any fear of fall or revolt. Farther, in that very obedience which they render to God, there is not such absolute perfection as to give satisfaction to God in every respect, and without the need of pardon. And this beyond all doubt is what is meant by that statement in Job 4:18, He will find iniquity in his angels. For if it is explained as referring to the devil, what mighty thing were it? But the Spirit declares there, that the greatest purity is vile, if it is brought into comparison with the righteousness of God. We must, therefore, conclude, that there is not on the part of angels so much of righteousness as would suffice for their being fully joined with God. They have, therefore, need of a peace maker, through whose grace they may wholly cleave to God. Hence it is with propriety that Paul declares, that the grace of Christ does not reside among mankind alone, and on the other hand makes it common also to angels. Nor is there any injustice done to angels, in sending them to a Mediator, that they may, through his kindness, have a well grounded peace with God.

     I don’t here too many neo-Cals talking about the redemption of angels when they talk about redeeming all things.

     Does regeneration extend to good reading skills?

     LikeLike

285. Richard, the point isn’t that converted men aren’t preferred. Everybody wants a Christian man preaching and administering. Nor is it that the sacraments work ex opere operato. The point is that God is the power in any preaching and administering. Even Paul had no qualms with those who preached correctly but with ill intentions. God works through orthodox means, not orthodox faculties. The irony of the spiritualists is that they don’t seem nearly spiritual enough, but actually fairly more human.

     LikeLike

286. Terry, I wonder: if it’s possible for Kuyper to not hide the fact that he disagreed with Calvin, the Confessions, and our Reformed theologians on the magistrate enforcing true religion (i.e. the revision of Belgic 36), is it not also possible for some 2kers to wonder about Machen’s all-of-lifery?

     LikeLike

287. Terry, yes, when all is lost trot out a few quotes from Machen on Christian schooling. Problem is, the neo-Cals don’t quote from Machen when it goes against them, like his defense of Communists to have schools (under the banner of civil liberty), or his evidentialist apologetic (that Van Til objected to at least in the form that Warfield used), or his statements about the work of ministers and the role of the church:

     Meanwhile, however, we are living in a drab and empty age. The law of God has been forgotten or despised, and dreary slavery is the result. Do you think that his is a happy or blessed age? Oh, no my friends. Amid all the noise and shouting and power and machinery, there are hungry hearts — hearts thirsting for the living water, hearts hungry for the bread that is real bread.

     That hunger you alone can still (graduates of Westminster). You can do so not by any riches of your own, but as humble ministers of the Lord Jesus Christ. . . . Remember this, at least — the things in which the world is now interested are the things that are seen; but the things that are seen are temporal, and the things that are not seen are eternal. You, as ministers of Christ, are called to deal with the unseen things. You are stewards of the mysteries of God. You alone can lead men, by the proclamation of God’s word, out of the crash and jazz and noise and rattle and smoke of this weary age into the green pastures and beside the still waters; you alone, as ministers of reconciliation, can give what the world with all its boasting and pride can never give — the infinite sweetness of the communion of the redeemed soul with the living God.

     If I ever heard a neo-Cal make such a distinction between the temporal and the eternal, and put the Christian school several pegs behind the ministry of the word by Reformed pastors, I’d not only drop my blog but I might also sign on. But what I hear instead is a blurring of these categories and a lot of preoccupation with the things that are seen.

     LikeLike

288. Mikelmann: Richard, you say, Alvin Plantinga, Louis Pojman, Malebranche, Thomas Reid, Paschal, Kierkegaard, and Jonathan Edwards (who also wrote a great work on the Religous Affections).

     I haven’t done a recent survey of undergraduate philsophy curricula, but the only one of those men likely to be included at any given institution is Kierkegaard, and he is the butt of worldview critiques such as Schaeffer’s. Certainly Plantinga has the skill set to be in The League (sorry, I’ve been distracted by the NBA draft), but I doubt there are many classes on Reformed Epistemology at State University.

     RS: Plantinga has written on far more than just epistemology. As the chair (perhaps former by now) of the department at Notre Dame and having written many books on various subjects, he is read. Pojman has published multiple books with the specific intent of being used as undergrad philsophy curricula. They continue to be published by those who only publish those things that sell or they think will sell. You may be correct about Malebranche, but some may read his stuff in relation to Descartes. Again, his works continue to be published. There have been a handful of people writing about Reid in the last few years, most notably Plantinga and Wolterstorff. I suppose Paschal may not be used all that much, but he is at least mentioned in a few settings. I did fail to mention Richard Swinburne and Augustine as well.

     D.G. Hart seemed surprised that I listed Edwards as a philosopher, though he was certainly among the greatest of theologians. Some of the men behind the Yale edition of Edwards’ works considered him to have the finest philosophical mind in the history of America. They considered him a bit tainted because he talked about God too much, but they still saw his brilliant mind and philosophical ability.

     LikeLike

289. Zrim: Richard, the point isn’t that converted men aren’t preferred. Everybody wants a Christian man preaching and administering. Nor is it that the sacraments work ex opere operato. The point is that God is the power in any preaching and administering.

     RS: But God uses instruments in preaching and the sacraments. There is a huge difference in the power of God that works in and through godly ministers and those who are not. There is a reason that godly men have been used by God through the years to bring the truth and the message of glory to His people. The godly men have the power of God in them and that power of God produces the godliness in them and as instruments of His power as He works in them the preached Word is truly powerful as it is of God.

     Zrim: Even Paul had no qualms with those who preached correctly but with ill intentions.

     RS: In one spot it may appear that way, but the intention was to cause him (Paul) personal problems. It was not that they were necessarily unconverted.

     Zrim: God works through orthodox means, not orthodox faculties.

     RS: Wow!!!!!!!! There are no orthodox means apart from orthodox men with enlightened faculties that are united to Christ. We are to have the mind of Christ, the affections of Christ, and our life is to be the life of Christ. Every person is to examine him or herself before they take the Supper or it may bring sickness and then death upon them. That includes the minister.

     Zrim: The irony of the spiritualists is that they don’t seem nearly spiritual enough, but actually fairly more human.

     RS: I guess I thought the irony from your last few posts is that you don’t see any need for anything but some person (converted or not) to read and/or preach a sermon (orthodox or not) and then hand out the sacraments (no orthodox way to do this?). As long as those two things are done, and in a confessional church, all things are okay. I call that human, way too human without enough of the Divine.

     LikeLike

290. Darryl, is your Calvin quote from The Institutes? I was reading from the NT Commentaries.

     LikeLike

291. Richard, you’re still missing it. The point is not to buttress human banality but to highlight the power of God.

     And are you just as shocked by Westminster when it says: “The grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments rightly used, is not conferred by any power in them; neither does the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that does administer it…” I wonder how you reconcile Westminster’s point here about sacramental efficacy and yours that it depends on “orthodox men with enlightened faculties that are united to Christ”?

     And when you say that in the words of institution there is “a lot about religious affections and epistemology,” I think about Paul’s letter to the Corinthians where he says he came not with eloquence or human wisdom but only Christ and him crucified, and then pits human wisdom against God’s power. I’m sure the experientialists and the epistemologists (and their cohorts) have clever ways of harmonizing two things Paul pits, but the plain reading is that there is the program of God and then there is everything else.

     LikeLike

292. And the power is in the Gospel. It is this which inspires Paul within; the continuing fact that his guilt continues to be washed away and his conscience can be continually cleansed. When someone starts banking on their progress in sanctification and the power that seems to derive from this progress, that person is no longer trusting in the Gospel. The power within waxes and wanes, the power in the Gospel does not.

     The believer’s sharing in Christ’s holiness cannot be interpreted as a lesser degree of holiness in the believer which gets progressively more pronounced and in greater degree with time.

     RS: Whether it is dangerous or not does not determine the truth of the
     matter. If I determine something is dynamite and therefore dangerous
     that does not make it stop being dynamite.
     Hebrews 12:10 “For they disciplined us for a short time as seemed best
     to them, but He disciplines us for our good, so that we may share His
     holiness.” My position is that when Christ is in a person and the
     Spirit makes them His temple, that person shares in His holiness
     rather than finding a righteousness of holiness of his own. Again, if
     our power and strength comes from another, it must come from Him who
     lives in us.

     Colossians 1:22 he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his
     death, in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach
     before him

     mark: but wait wait, not yet, not now, not by Christ’s death alone,
     that was only the first step, that death and resurrection alone would
     not reconcile anybody, let alone cause them to be presented holy and
     blameless, this verse does not have the word “soul” in it, so we need
     to move on to other important stuff

     23 if indeed you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not
     shifting from the hope of the gospel that you heard, which has been
     proclaimed in all creation[g] under heaven, and of which I, Paul,
     became a minister.

     mark: and to continue means to move on, I don’t deny that business
     about now and about reconciliation by Christ’s body of flesh or by
     Christ’s death, indeed I agree with all that, I am reformed, so now
     lets assume that and shift to talking about the soul, which of course
     is also part of the hope, indeed, if we read on enough we shall see
     that when it comes to being holy then we shall need to talk not only
     about Christ in us, but also about what Christ is causing us to be and
     to do, so that we know that by His presence He is making us holy but
     not quite yet, He in our souls is making us blameless but of course
     not yet perfectly….

     24 Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am
     filling up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his
     body, that is, the church, 25 of which I became a minister according
     to the stewardship from God that was given to me for you, to make the
     word of God fully known, 26 the mystery hidden for ages and
     generations but now revealed to his saints. 27 To them God chose to
     make known how great among the Gentiles are the riches of the glory of
     this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.

     mark: and of course that doesn’t mean Christ in you, we know from
     Edwards that it means Christ in your souls, and even Plato knew that
     our souls are not us, but something immaterial and invisible in us,
     and also remember that the hope is not merely Christ’s presence but
     also Christ’s presence as a means to an end, which is of course
     changing our souls, making us better than we were, and tomorrow better
     than we were yesterday, so of course we are not yet holy, not yet
     totally blameless, but nevertheless we can approach God with some
     assurance now not so much because of that death alone, that was only
     justification, but we can now approach God, or begin to, not because
     of a righteousness done already, but by means of a righteousness being
     done by us, because Christ is in us, and remember I am not talking
     about justification now, but don’t forget sanctification, and you
     can’t be really holy or truly worship God until in your soul God
     changes you so that you too can begin to fulfill the law and thus
     begin to approach, it’s not an either or because you can’t just be
     justified because now that your soul has been changed your work is not
     only accepted as not dead work but now accepted as some of the reason
     you are holy, not strictly of course, but in grace…..

     You have to read McMark’s comments knowing that he is being sarcastic with Richard’s responses.

     LikeLike

293. Richard wants to continue to try to take the good news out of the Gospel and give himself some of the credit for progress in holiness in his soul. Of course, he will not admit to this and continues to convince himself that it is the Holy Spirit who is doing this within him (he has admitted to infusion in sanctification though). I am wondering if he looks upon himself as one of those godly ones he described in his last post who carries around the power of God within himself. I continue to believe that this is a dangerous way to think- dynamite and all.

     LikeLike

294. Darryl, interesting that the catechism puts Providence and God’s ordering of Creation under “Thy Kingdom come”. I’m not so sure you “got me” on that one.

     “When all is lost”? If we’re talking about winners and losers, I kind of think I’m winning this argument 😉 The quote was no act of desperation. Just reinforcing the point. Glad to have Machen on board as a neo-Calvinist.

     If you’ve read the Skillen stuff, you would know that APJ advocates public funding for all sorts of worldviews (as did Kuyper). Only theonomists would protest the public support of Communist or Catholic or Islamic or Secular schools. Kuyperian pluralists have no problem with it and see it as consistent with each worldview being allowed to live out the implications of its position in a common society. In fact, one of the roles of a just state is to see to it that such freedoms for religion are guaranteed (see the current version of the Belgic Confession 36 “They should do this while completely refraining from every tendency toward exercising absolute authority, and while functioning in the sphere entrusted to them, with the means belonging to them”). Obviously, there would be limits since the promotion of pluralism is antithetical to Communism or Islam. Reformed theology has no problem with pluralism in this common grace, in between era. Don’t forget Kuyperianism is not theonomy.

     The vocation of Christians in Creation in this age is utterly dependent on the work of the church and its ordained gospel proclaimers. The keys of the kingdom belong to the church and her ordained officers. So, in order to even be a neo-Calvinist that exercises his or her vocation in Creation, you have to be a member of the church and under the authority of her officers and under the preaching of the Word.

     And, indeed, neo-Calvinists are not working for this fallen, sinful age. We’re working for that which is eternal–creation restored, renewed, and consummated. If you think neo-Calvinists are working for this passing, sinful, temporal age, you’re mistaken. Perhaps a more appropriate expression of two kingdom-ism is differentiating between the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of This World. In this age they exist side by side. The Kingdom of This World with its death, sin and rebellion will pass away. The Kingdom of God will endure.

     Neo-Calvinists can affirm the Machen line just as much as you can. So, I’d love to have you sign on. No need to drop your blog though.

     LikeLike

295. Darryl, I’m tracking with you now on Colossians. There was a translation issue that kept me from recognizing your Calvin quote.

     I do notice that Calvin is not opposed to the “cosmic” interpretation even if he himself does not go there.

     There were, it is true, no absurdity in extending it to all without exception; but that I may not be under the necessity of philosophizing with too much subtlety, I prefer to understand it as referring to angels and men;

     The “all things” also occurs in verse 17, making reference to Christ’s role in creation. Calvin refers to angels “but also of the whole world” and “all creatures in heaven and on earth.” This seems cosmic. Why wouldn’t the “all things” of creation be the same as the “all things” of reconciliation? (Universalism aside as most evangelical commentators note, including Calvin.)

     The Colossian heresy must have included an angelology that called into question the primacy of Christ. I have no argument with this being the chief concern as indicated by the terms throne, powers, principalities, and dominions. Paul is asserting that Christ is over all things, including these angelic powers. But in his zeal to include the highest invisible heavenly authorities, he included “all things.”

     LikeLike

296. John, I do think you should read the Westminster Confession’s chapter on sanctification (XIII) and good works (XVI). I don’t know if what you are arguing is confessional Lutheranism but I suggest that what you say is at odds with Reformed confessionalism. We are sanctified “really and personally”–“the dominion of the whole body of sin is destroyed, and the several lusts thereof are more and more weakened and mortified.” “This sanctification is throughout, in the whole man…–“the saints grow in grace, perfecting holiness in the fear of God” “good works…are the fruits and evidences of a true and lively faith”

     LikeLike

297. Terry, where has a neo-Calvinist ever said what Machen did to prospective ministers? In case you’re still following developments in the NL or the CRC, the neo-Calvinist vision went right where the Christian schools are going, taking every square inch and leaving the church behind (not to mention that Kuyper himself was no paragon of a communicant member in the last decade of his life when his church attendance dropped off).

     As for WLC, the second petition is talking about God’s people and his kingdom, and how he orders all things to protect them and for his glory. Again I say, reading should be an important part of an education, Christian or not.

     LikeLike

298. Terry, because Calvin explicitly refers to all beings with souls (angels and men), that’s why he guards against universalism. He was talking about all things as in plumbing, astronomy, or statecraft. Remember, reading.

     LikeLike

299. Darryl, …neo-Calvinist blinders…2K blinders…I guess that why we say that we all have a worldview that even influences our reading. When I read “kingdom of his power in all the world”, I see a lot more than the church. Indeed, it’s for His people–no argument that WLC 191 is saying that. My point is that the catechism is using the word “kingdom” much more expansively that just as a reference to the church.

     LikeLike

300. Zrim: Richard, you’re still missing it. The point is not to buttress human banality but to highlight the power of God.

     RS: No, not missing it but trying to get you to see that God’s power works in and through human beings. For example, Colossians 1:29.

     Zrim: And are you just as shocked by Westminster when it says: “The grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments rightly used, is not conferred by any power in them; neither does the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that does administer it…” I wonder how you reconcile Westminster’s point here about sacramental efficacy and yours that it depends on “orthodox men with enlightened faculties that are united to Christ”?

     RS: It is because I agree with Calvin that the power is in the Word preached when the sacrament is given. The sacraments have no power other than that they are accompanied by preaching. God speaks through men who are set apart for Him rather than those who are not. God uses men who are full of His Spirit rather than those who are full of self.

     Zrim: And when you say that in the words of institution there is “a lot about religious affections and epistemology,” I think about Paul’s letter to the Corinthians where he says he came not with eloquence or human wisdom but only Christ and him crucified, and then pits human wisdom against God’s power.

     RS: You might want to read what I have previously written in this and then the passage in I Corinthians 2 again. We are to preach Christ crucified, yes, but according to Paul it was a demonstration of the Spirit and of power. He then goes on to say that he did speak a message of wisdom to the mature, but it was a hidden wisdom that the rulers of the world could not understand. In other words, there is a Christian epistemology but it cannot be separated from the work of the Holy Spirit.

     Zrim: I’m sure the experientialists and the epistemologists (and their cohorts) have clever ways of harmonizing two things Paul pits, but the plain reading is that there is the program of God and then there is everything else.

     RS: But only if you limit your plain reading to less than the biblical parameters the text itself gives us. I did not mention anything about human wisdom previously, but you just assume that was what I meant. No, the way that Christians come to know God’s Word is the work of the Holy Spirit in them and true preaching (according to the text you quoted from) is a demonstration of the Spirit and of power. Now you can continue to think of experientialists as you please, but the Spirit does reveal great truths to the whole person and one who beholds the beauty and glory of God will have some inner feeling about the matter. A person that the Spirit works love and joy in will have some feeling of joy as well. By the way, the word “experience” means to learn by practice. In other words, all Christianity should be experiential in that sense. We learn by practice and one thing we practice is the joy that the Spirit works in His people.

     LikeLike

301. John Yeazel: Richard wants to continue to try to take the good news out of the Gospel and give himself some of the credit for progress in holiness in his soul.

     RS: Sheer and utter nonsense. By the way, it certainly appears that in this post you are judging motives and so on. The glory is all of God’s and of course holiness in the soul is by grace rather than works and so holiness is all to the glory of God as well. God uses holy vessels rather than unholy ones, but He is the Potter and we are the clay.

     John Yeazel: Of course, he will not admit to this and continues to convince himself that it is the Holy Spirit who is doing this within him (he has admitted to infusion in sanctification though).

     RS: I don’t need to convince myself. Remember, however, the believer has the Spirit Himself infused into his or her soul and the Spirit works His fruit in the believer. That is the kind of infusion I am speaking of and that fits very well with what I am saying here. God uses holy ministers for His purposes rather than unholy ones.

     John Yeazel: I am wondering if he looks upon himself as one of those godly ones he described in his last post who carries around the power of God within himself. I continue to believe that this is a dangerous way to think- dynamite and all.

     RS: God is the One who chooses and God is the One who decides in these things. All who truly believe have Christ in them and all that don’t have Christ in them don’t have Christ. You can continue to think of that as dangerous, but it is the good news of the Gospel.

     Romans 8:9 However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him.

     LikeLike

302. John Yeazel: And the power is in the Gospel. It is this which inspires Paul within; the continuing fact that his guilt continues to be washed away and his conscience can be continually cleansed. When someone starts banking on their progress in sanctification and the power that seems to derive from this progress, that person is no longer trusting in the Gospel. The power within waxes and wanes, the power in the Gospel does not.

     RS: You might want to check your Bible again. The Gospel is the power of God for salvation (Rom 1:16). A person that trusts in Christ alone is trusting in Christ for all things and all moments. But again, the power of the Gospel is not in and of itself disconnected with the power of God who speaks through His chosen instruments. By the way, you might want to check Calvin’s view of preaching if you don’t like what I say. He said that a minister who is preaching by the Spirit is speaking the words of God.

     John Yeazel: The believer’s sharing in Christ’s holiness cannot be interpreted as a lesser degree of holiness in the believer which gets progressively more pronounced and in greater degree with time.

     RS: Having a greater degree of the HOLY Spirit is by definition to be holier than before.

     John Yeazel: You have to read McMark’s comments knowing that he is being sarcastic with Richard’s responses.

     RS: Yes, Colossians 1:27 and context says that the very mystery of the Gospel is that Christ dwells in the believer. Mark is sarcastic and denies that. You believe McMark and I believe the Bible.

     LikeLike

303. Terry, I think there are some confusing statements in the Westminster confession about sanctification and the mortification of sin which have their source in some Puritan theologians. What I am questioning is how much subjective introspection should someone spend time on in order to determine if their body of sin is slowly being destroyed and their lusts are being more and more weakened and mortified. There are times in our experience where these lusts and our sin wax and wane. Are we to determine our progress in growth in grace by our subjective experience or by our trust in the work of Christ when everything inside of us is screaming you really are not that sanctified? Should we expect these times that our sin and lusts seem to be in remission to grow in greater lengths of time as we progress in sanctification? I find that to be confusing and whether it is even worth my time to give much reflection to it. How then does someone not compare his mortification with someone elses?

     Plus there is the whole issue of infusion and synergism in sanctification which seems to have creeped into some of the confessional statements. How does one go about making themselves more sanctified if they have their doubts about how far they have progressed in sanctification? Is sanctification an either/or or is it something we have to put effort towards? What I hear most Calvinists saying is that it is something you have to work at and put effort in. How does this not lead to pietism then? I could go on put will stop with that. I have only touched the surface.

     LikeLike

304. John, in Reformed theology infusion and synergism are not bad words when it comes to sanctification. Justification, yes. But not sanctification.

     Now I’m fully agreed that we should flee to Christ when seeking assurance of our salvation, but the Confession does say that our good works “strengthen our assurance” (XVI, 2). Interestingly, the WCF says in XVIII,3 that “assurance doth not so belong to the essence of faith” and in XVIII,4 that “true believers may have the assurance of their salvation divers ways shaken, diminished, and intermitted”. Bob Godfrey used to see this as a critical difference between the Westminster Standards and the Heidelberg Catechism which defines faith in terms of assurance.

     LikeLike

305. Here is an interesting quote that I ran across again in my reading of Horton’s book COVENANT AND SALVATION. Bruce McCormack, a Barthian theologian, says this:

     “I think it is accurate to say that there are no hotter topics in Protestant theology today, than the themes of theosis, union with Christ, the de Lubacian axiom ‘the Eucharist makes the church,’ etc……In the process, the churches are slowly coming under the influence of a concept of ’participation’ in Christ that owes a great deal to the ancient Greek ontologies of pure being…..In truth, forensicism (rightly understood!) provides the basis for an alternative theological ontology to the one presupposed in Roman and Eastern soteriology. Where this is not seen, the result has almost always been the abondonment of the Reformation doctrine of justification on the mistaken assumption that the charge of a ‘legal fiction’ has a weight, which in truth, it does not.”

     So, what worries me is when the emphasis shifts from our forensic standing in Christ to “Greek ontologies of pure being” which infusion and Holy Spirit type union with Christ seems to imply. This is why I am attracted to McMark’s emphasis on our union with Christ being a legal and forensic union (justification). After our legal and forensic union, which occurs when God places us into the atonement of Christ and transfers Christ’s righteousness to us, thus declaring us righteous (the imputation) and causing our ability to hear the Gospel; the Holy Spirit then immediately regenerates and faith is given as gift which unites us to Christ through faith. Legal imputation being the basis for all of this happening simultaneously.

     So, I am not denying the work of the Holy Spirit in a elect person but I am putting more priority on the legal and forensic. It is this which preserves us in the faith and regeneration and sanctification by the Holy Spirit makes sure we continue to believe it. The basis is then always the imputation rather than how much progress we seem to be making in the mortification of our sin.

     LikeLike

306. Terry, I am not so sure that infusion and synergism are “not bad words” in sanctification. That would take a lot of explaining which I do not have much more time to do tonight. However, this is a constant theme which always pops it head up at old life from time to time. I certainly have been working on it for sometime now and need more clarity, theological and scriptural support.

     LikeLike

307. John, here is one passage to chew on. Remember, Paul is praying for believers when he prays that God would grant them 1) to be strengthened with power through His Spirit in the inner man 2) so that Christ would dwell in their hearts through faith. 3) In this work of the Spirit and indwelling of Christ this meant that they would be rooted and grounded in love. Remember, the fruit of the Spirit is love. 4) It is this inner work that enabled them to know the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge and would fill them with the fulness of God. 5) In someway this is connected with (v. 20) God doing more than we can even think or imagine, but He does this according to the power
     that works within us. In all of that inworking it is all to His glory in the Church and in Christ.

     Ephesians 3:14 For this reason I bow my knees before the Father, 15 from whom every family in heaven and on earth derives its name, 16 that He would grant you, according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with power through His Spirit in the inner man, 17 so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith; and that you, being rooted and grounded in love, 18 may be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, 19 and to know the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled up to all the fullness of God. 20 Now to Him who is able to do far more abundantly beyond all that we ask or think, according to the power that works within us, 21 to Him be the glory in the church and in Christ Jesus to all generations forever and ever. Amen.

     LikeLike

308. Richard, there is no disagreement that the Word has priority to the sacraments, nor that God speaks through men who are set apart for him rather than those who are not. Instead of priority, the dispute is the matter of efficacy. You’re saying that the spiritual condition of those set apart has bearing on the efficacy of the Word and sacraments. I am siding with WCF and saying no, it doesn’t: efficacy depends solely on the power of the Spirit (and the word of institution). Your semi-revivalism is a form of “Christ plus something else.” But Reformation Christianity is the sola tradition and says sola christus, or in this case sola espiritu santo.

     LikeLike

309. Wesley’s response to James Hervey’s Theron and Aspasio argues that Hervey’s doctrine of imputation of Christ’s righteousness will produce antinomianism. The gift of righteousness for Wesley was “the righteousness which God gives God works in us.”

     Tom. Nettles, “John Wesley’s Contention with Calvinism: Interactions Then and Now,” in The Grace of God and The Bondage of the Will, II:297ff.

     “For Wesley it was not imputation but impartation of righteousness that was important. This is very reminiscent of the debate between Protestantism and Roman Catholicism; the debate was over infused righteousness.The influential Methodist Richard Watson argued that imputation of Christ’s righteousness “as to be accounted as our own, has no warrant in the Word of God.”

     “The idea of a transfer of righteousness from Christ to man ( imputed righteousness) is the exact antithesis of the biblical concept of holiness. It relieves man of the necessity of any real heart change….”

     LikeLike

310. Zrim,

     Here’s a link to return your love:

     http://reformedapologist.blogspot.com/2012/04/truth-goodness-and-beauty-in-light-of.html

     Okay, now can you please respond to my specific questions (ie, how is rationalism equally valid as Biblical revelationism?)

     LikeLike

311. Darryl,

     To make the logical leap that because metaphysical supernaturalism is utterly superior to materialism, therefore you are unregenerate if you are poor at philosophy, just doesn’t follow.

     LikeLike

312. Zrim: Richard, there is no disagreement that the Word has priority to the sacraments, nor that God speaks through men who are set apart for him rather than those who are not. Instead of priority, the dispute is the matter of efficacy. You’re saying that the spiritual condition of those set apart has bearing on the efficacy of the Word and sacraments. I am siding with WCF and saying no, it doesn’t: efficacy depends solely on the power of the Spirit (and the word of institution).

     RS: I don’t think you are on the side of the WCF, not am I asserting what you think I am asserting. Let me try to explain by using an analogy from another teaching of Scripture. John 16:27 “for the Father Himself loves you, because you have loved Me and have believed that I came forth from the Father.” I would argue that the surface reading of this verse would lead people to think that the Father loves people because they love Christ and believe that He came from the Father, but that would lead us to God’s love being earned in some way or at least contradicting I John 4:7-8. Instead of that, however, we should understand that when we see a person that loves Christ, we can know that God loves that person because He has given them a love for Christ.

     The analogy is true with preachers and preaching. God uses holy men, but He Himself must make them holy. They are not holy and therefore He uses them, but instead He has decided to use them so He makes them where He can use them by making them holy. He makes His mouthpiece holy so that the mouthpiece can proclaim the Gospel. This is no system of works in the slightest, but simply a recognition that a thrice holy God will make those He wants to use to be holy.

     Zrim: Your semi-revivalism is a form of “Christ plus something else.” But Reformation Christianity is the sola tradition and says sola christus, or in this case sola espiritu santo.

     RS: Not in the slightest. It is nothing like anything plus Christ, but instead is Christ alone. It is just that I recognize that when God wants to use a man, He breaks that man. Notice how He worked with the prophets and then the apostles to prepare them. For example, when He wanted to use Isaiah He gave him a sight of His glory and broke him. Notice what was said about Paul by the Lord when He was telling Ananias to go to Paul (then Saul). Acts 9:16, “for I will show him how much he must suffer for My name’s sake.” Why did Paul have to suffer? Because that is God’s prescribed method of teaching people obedience. After all, that is also how Jesus learned (yes, learned) obedience. Hebrews 5:8 “Although He was a Son, He learned obedience from the things which He suffered.”

     Jesus also grew in wisdom and stature, but He learned obedience by suffering. So men of all times who were used of God have had to learn through the hard things and trials (being made holy in practice) because that is the method of God. It is not a system of works to get God to use you, but it is the method that God uses for those He has decided He will use.

     LikeLike

313. mark mcculley: Wesley’s response to James Hervey’s Theron and Aspasio argues that Hervey’s doctrine of imputation of Christ’s righteousness will produce antinomianism. The gift of righteousness for Wesley was “the righteousness which God gives God works in us.”

     Tom. Nettles, “John Wesley’s Contention with Calvinism: Interactions Then and Now,” in The Grace of God and The Bondage of the Will, II:297ff.

     “For Wesley it was not imputation but impartation of righteousness that was important. This is very reminiscent of the debate between Protestantism and Roman Catholicism; the debate was over infused righteousness.The influential Methodist Richard Watson argued that imputation of Christ’s righteousness “as to be accounted as our own, has no warrant in the Word of God.”

     “The idea of a transfer of righteousness from Christ to man ( imputed righteousness) is the exact antithesis of the biblical concept of holiness. It relieves man of the necessity of any real heart change….”

     RS: Indeed the biblical teaching of justifiction has no concept of the infusion of righteousness from Christ to sinners, but that is a far different thing than what happens in sanctification. It is not that a person becomes holy apart from anything he does in and of himself, but his righteousness and holiness (after salvation) while also by grace, is also being made a partaker and sharer of the holiness of God. This is not what Wesley said, though one could argue the context of that as well. Notice the verses below that speak of this. We are partakers and sharers of grace, of Christ, holiness, and of the divine nature. Again, we are said to share and partake of these things. This contributes nothing to justification and it earns no merit. But it is something that happens in us and through us. After all, Christ Himself is our life and we are temples of the living God.

     Philippians 1:7 For it is only right for me to feel this way about you all, because I have you in my heart, since both in my imprisonment and in the defense and confirmation of the gospel, you all are partakers of grace with me.

     Hebrews 3:1 Therefore, holy brethren, partakers of a heavenly calling, consider Jesus, the Apostle and High Priest of our confession;

     Hebrews 3:14 For we have become partakers of Christ, if we hold fast the beginning of our assurance firm until the end,

     Hebrews 12:10 For they disciplined us for a short time as seemed best to them, but He disciplines us for our good, so that we may share His holiness.

     2 Peter 1:4 For by these He has granted to us His precious and magnificent promises, so that by them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world by lust.

     LikeLike

314. Terry,

     I didn’t mean to crack to hard on Wolter’s, the book just didn’t jump out at me as particularly groundbreaking. I might not have been reading very closely. A lot of things you say here resonate with me, especially regarding epistemology. However, there are a lot of trajectories that neo-cals follow that scare me, or at least concern me. For example, the instance I wrote of earlier about redeeming Freud instead of throwing him out. The CCO is heavily neo-Cal and many of them go a very politically liberal direction – big government, earth worship (environmentalism), and even some Marxism.

     I lean much more towards the theonomic camp, but don’t feel like I’ve put in enough research to take a firm position yet. I listened to the Christ and Culture podcast (put on by ‘Christ the Center, from WTS P) on law and gospel. The four contributors were Douglas Wilson, Nelson Kloosterman, Bill Dennison, and Darryl Hart. I found the most rapport with Wilson, and no offense, but the least with Hart. Nothing against him, but I just didn’t agree with his views.

     I also read “Five View on Law and Gospel”. Not surprisingly, I found the most rapport with Bahnsen, but I also liked Kaiser. Has anyone else here read that book and who did they agree with most? I’m curious if DGH would take the modified Lutheran view proposed by Moo.

     LikeLike

315. Richard,

     I am not saying that the Holy Spirit does not work in the inner man. I am saying that it is not the common experience that this “felt” presence of the Holy Spirit is constantly there. If the Spirit both convicts and comforts by Law and Gospel then we cannot expect Holy Spirit goosebumps 24/7/365. Our constant source of assurance is the imputation which both justifies and sanctifies permanently. Since we remain simul iestus et peccator in this life this can be our only source of assurance not our progress in holiness.

     Chew on this short essay by AW Pink: http://markmcculley.wordpress.com/2011/09/26/sanctification-is-not-more-and-more-by-aw-pink/

     LikeLike

316. Terry, you have missed the context again, it is the kingdom of grace that WLC 191 is talking about, in which case, the power of his kingdom refers to where Christ’s rules in hearts. His power is everywhere whether or not redemption happens. Or do you think we need to remind him to maintain his providential control over all things?

     LikeLike

317. Jon, fine. But I’m not sure what you’re actually saying. First it’s you need to be regenerate to be wise. Then it’s the pagans who established the categories for philosophical wisdom. Then I hear from Terry that believers and non-believers share lots of things in the knowledge world. Then you tell me that you can’t do “true” philosophy unless you’re regenerate.

     That’s a lot of worry about matters the Bible doesn’t reveal (or by good and necessary implication the church has never confessed).

     LikeLike

318. Jon-Ron, a return volley which suggests that “In principle, believer and unbeliever disagree over 1+1=2” isn’t the sort of favor I had in mind. Let me be more blunt: can you concede that a believer can choose secular schooling for covenant children for principled reasons, or is that always and ever subject to spiritual scrutiny to greater or lesser degrees?

     Also, Ron says: Does the unbeliever have “half an orange” (Francis Schaeffer) or does he have an entire, rotten orange (Reformed view of the effects of the fall)? It is precisely because he only has the latter that believers often add to, rearrange and try to improve upon any secular attempt to communicate truth, goodness and beauty. This is why it is often said that “we must watch this play, or read that literary work, from a distinctly Christian perspective of redemption etc.” But after the story has been critiqued through the lens of Scripture, does it really resemble truth, goodness or beauty? No, because the story itself needs to be redeemed from faulty notions and presuppositions. When the story is examined from a Biblical perspective, it should include the observation that what was depicted as good was actually a counterfeit good (all things considered), or a “counterfeit atonement” as was recently pointed out in my hearing.

     But Calvin says: If we regard the Spirit of God as the sole fountain of truth, we shall neither reject the truth itself, nor despise it wherever it shall appear, unless we wish to dishonor the Spirit of God. For by holding the gifts of the Spirit in slight esteem, we contemn and reproach the Spirit himself. What then? Shall we deny that the truth shone upon the ancient jurists who established civic order and discipline with such great equity? Shall we say that the philosophers were blind in their fine observation and artful description of nature? Shall we say that those men were devoid of understanding who conceived the art of disputation and taught us to speak reasonably? Shall we say that they are insane who developed medicine, devoting their labor to our benefit? What shall we say of the mathematical sciences? Shall we consider them the ravings of madmen? No, we cannot read the writings of the ancients on these subjects without great admiration. We marvel at them because we are compelled to recognize how preeminent they are. But shall we count anything praiseworthy or noble without recognizing at the same time that it comes from God? Let us be ashamed of such ingratitude, into which not even the pagan poets fell, for they confessed that the gods had invented philosophy, laws, and all useful arts. Those men whom Scripture [I Cor. 2:14] calls “natural men” were, indeed, sharp and penetrating in their investigation of inferior things. Let us, accordingly, learn by their example how many gifts the Lord left to human nature even after it was despoiled of its true good.

     LikeLike

319. I should think it plain by these two quotes just how far afield the neo-Calvinists are from Calvin.

     LikeLike

320. Richard, all pious platitudes from one clearly more influenced by revivalism than Reformation. But I’d like to know just what you think WCF 27.3 means when it says plainly that: “The grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments rightly used, is not conferred by any power in them; neither does the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that does administer it: but upon the work of the Spirit, and the word of institution, which contains, together with a precept authorizing the use thereof, a promise of benefit to worthy receivers.”

     LikeLike

321. Richard, there is nothing whatsoever about men having to be “broken” for God to work through them.

     LikeLike

322. Zrim,

     I never meant to say that YOU public school your kids for unprincipled reasons. I’m sure you have principles, I just disagree with them. However, of broad evangelicals, at least 90%+ public school their kids for UNprincipled reasons, which puts you in odd company. But you could reply that I’m bedfellows with the religious right and I don’t have much of a comeback for that, other than we get to some of the same conclusions for different reasons.

     I do believe that the covenant family is the basis for discipling their children, but HOW we educate our kids flows directly from this. I don’t doubt that your kid’s chemistry teacher can do a great job explaining the periodic table, but you’ll never stop his autonomous worldview from seeping through at every level. I hope the 2k proponents rethink this particular issue carefully.

     LikeLike

323. Zrim: Richard, all pious platitudes from one clearly more influenced by revivalism than Reformation.

     RS: But of course I would insist that there is no true reformation without true revival and no true revival apart from true reformation. The period of the Reformation was also a period of revival.

     Zrim: But I’d like to know just what you think WCF 27.3 means when it says plainly that: “The grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments rightly used, is not conferred by any power in them; neither does the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that does administer it: but upon the work of the Spirit, and the word of institution, which contains, together with a precept authorizing the use thereof, a promise of benefit to worthy receivers.”

     RS: But once again, of course it all DEPENDS on the work of the Spirit rather than the person that administers it. However, that is not the same thing as saying that God does not work in the person preaching the Word and in some the godliness He works in them correlates with the grace He works in the listeners. But look at the last part of what you quoted from the WCF. “A promise of benefit to worthy receivers.” Look at that in context of the whole. It says that God gives grace in the sacrament, but now He gives it to worthy recipients. Does that mean that Westminster is teaching that people can make themselves worthy recipients and therefore receive grace? So according to your stated view (putting two things together), it does not matter whether the minister is converted or not, but those receiving the Supper must be worthy. Hmmm

     LikeLike

324. Zrim: Richard, there is nothing whatsoever about men having to be “broken” for God to work through them.

     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.

     Isaiah 66:2 “For My hand made all these things, Thus all these things came into being,” declares the LORD. “But to this one I will look, To him who is humble and contrite of spirit, and who trembles at My word.

     Psalm 51:17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; A broken and a contrite heart, O God, You will not despise.

     Psalm 34:18 The LORD is near to the brokenhearted And saves those who are crushed in spirit.

     2 Kings 22:19 because your heart was tender and you humbled yourself before the LORD when you heard what I spoke against this place and against its inhabitants that they should become a desolation and a curse, and you have torn your clothes and wept before Me, I truly have heard you,” declares the LORD.

     Luke 18:11 “The Pharisee stood and was praying this to himself: ‘God, I thank You that I am not like other people: swindlers, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. 12 ‘I fast twice a week; I pay tithes of all that I get.’ 13 “But the tax collector, standing some distance away, was even unwilling to lift up his eyes to heaven, but was beating his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, the sinner!’ 14 “I tell you, this man went to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted.

     LikeLike

325. John Yeazel: Richard, I am not saying that the Holy Spirit does not work in the inner man. I am saying that it is not the common experience that this “felt” presence of the Holy Spirit is constantly there. If the Spirit both convicts and comforts by Law and Gospel then we cannot expect Holy Spirit goosebumps 24/7/365.

     RS: I would agree with you on what you have written. It seems that you think that I limit the work of the Spirit to feelings as such, but that is not correct. The work of the Spirit is the work of the Holy Spirit. He convicts of sin, or righteousness, and of the judgment to come (John 16). These things are not feelings only, but He instructs the mind and the conscience.

     John Yeazel: Our constant source of assurance is the imputation which both justifies and sanctifies permanently. Since we remain simul iestus et peccator in this life this can be our only source of assurance not our progress in holiness.

     RS: Yet this (source of assurance) is not totally in line with Scripture. Yes, I would go to I John and show you the places where it is taught that this is how you know. Many times it does have to do with something other than the specific work of Christ in history. But those works of Christ in history work out in the hearts and lives of His people as He is their life and what He did in history has to be applied to those alive at the time. Progress in holiness is simply Christian maturity and the objective work of Christ becoming more and more part of that person by the life of Christ in that person.

     John Yeazel: Chew on this short essay by AW Pink:

     RS: This is a quote from that work: “Third, it is that work of God’s Spirit which, by His quickening operation, sets them apart from those who are dead in sins, conveying to them a holy life or nature, etc.” I would like to point out that the word “conveying” has a lot in common with “infusion” in this context. While I really like Pink, I would tend to be somewhere in between him and Westminster on this point. Of course he is correct in saying that it is Christ alone that makes us stand in perfect holiness before God in our justification. However, it is also the work of Christ by His Spirit that makes us grow in our sanctification. Maybe Westminster and the 1689 could have put things a little better or with more thoroughness at this point, they do recognize that apart from holiness no one will see the Lord. Unless a person is growing in sanctification, what evidence does that person have of eternal life (Christ Himself) in him? Can King Jesus remain unknown and hidden in part of what He rules over in His kingdom? No, King Jesus came to kill sin and He does so in His people. Where King Jesus is there will be death to sin. No, that does not mean a person is perfect at any point, in any thing or things, but it does mean that eternal life in a soul will grow.

     LikeLike

326. Come on Darryl, God doesn’t need to be reminded of anything. Is that what we’re doing when we pray?

     I understand that most of the explanation of “Thy kingdom come” has to do with the church and its missionary expansion. I don’t even have a problem with that as that’s how the broader kingdom in the neo-Calvinist sense fundamentally comes. It’s through the work of believers obeying their Lord in all of life. But you have to be a believer and so the expansion of the church is critical to the neo-Calvinist task. But the phrase “kingdom of his power in all the world” is not referring to the work of the church but to his all-powerful operations in all Creation including the work of the civil magistrate, other societal entities, individual persons, beasts, droughts, famine, disease (and their opposites). In other words this phrase includes a more expansive notion of the kingdom that we will come.

     It’s helpful to think in terms of the next petition as well. “on earth as it is in heaven” simply means without opposition (no back talk according to one translation ofthe Heidelberg). Thus the prayer itself sees God’s will (and we’re not talking about his decretal will here) being more and more accomplished as the prayer is answered I the course of the time between the first and second advent.

     LikeLike

327. Richard (and John), see WCF, XIII,1 the last phrase.

     LikeLike

328. Terry, why introduce a new thought into a sentence — not a paragraph, mind you, but a sentence, which is what the answer to 191 is. But your selective reading also leaves off the last phrase that modifies your favorite — “and that he would be pleased so to exercise the kingdom of his power in all the world, as may best conduce to these ends.” These ends refers to what went before in the answer. So whatever the kingdom of his power means, it is in the context of establishing and extending Christ’s church, which according to 25.2 is the “kingdom of Christ.”

     I get it that you want a bigger kingdom. But this is really the difference between neo- and paleo-Calvinists. And the neo’s have given life to evangelicals who aren’t especially careful on distinctions, not that neo-Calvinism has worked out all that well for the CRC or the former GKN where an expanded kingdom — much like it was for liberal Protestants — is a recipe for a social as opposed to a personal gospel.

     LikeLike

329. Richard, you really need to give up the Reformation-as-Revival line. Your buddy Jonathan Edwards was not particularly careful to follow in the paths of the Reformers but you think that all that Edwards did was good. In which case, Reformation is not nearly as important to you as Revival. That’s fine. Just don’t act like the neo-Cals and cherry pick.

     LikeLike

330. Along with the book of Hebrews Richard, you might want to chew on Phillipians chapter 3 too. This one really got to me last week after I read it.

     http://markmcculley.wordpress.com/2011/05/23/the-belly-problem-philippians-3/

     LikeLike

331. Hebrews 10:14–“For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified..”

     The second “being sanctified” in this verse is still not “progressive”. As the elect are “being justified” one by one (one is imputed with Christ’s righteousness, then another, and so on), so also they are (at the same time) “being sanctified”, set apart, placed into Christ and His holiness.

     Of course not all uses of the word “sanctified” in the Bible refer to this either/or perfection by the death of Christ. For example, either sinners are born from above or they are not. But even in this meaning there is no such thing as “part way” born again or “more than you” born again. Either God by His Spirit causes a sinner to believe the truth OR that sinner continues to love unrighteousness. To not believe the truth is to love unrighteousness.

     II Thess 2:10-13 “with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11 Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they believe what is false, 12 in order that all will be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness. 13 But we ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the firstfruits to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth.”

     Again, no infusion. Even if you have a confession which says that “sanctification” sometimes means “infusion”, that should not prove to you that “sanctification” means that in this verse. Nor does it mean a “snyergism” in which humans do 100% and God does 100%. Nor does it mean that the law-grace antithesis has now been overcome by the noetic effects of regeneration.

     LikeLike

332. WCF, chapter 13. ” the dominion of the whole body of sin is destroyed,c and the several lusts thereof are more and more weakened and mortified,d and they more and more quickened and strengthened in all saving graces,e to the practice of true holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord.f”

     c Rom. 6:6,14.

     Is the dominion of sin eliminated by the work of the Spirit or because we are not under the law? What does Romans 6:14 say? How was the dominion of sin over Christ eliminated? Was it by gradual infusions or by His death? How do those who were “free from righteousness” become “free from sin” in Romans 6?

     d Gal. 5:24 ; Rom. 8:13.

     When Galatians 5:24 teaches that “those who belong to Christ HAVE crucified the flesh”, should the living confession interpret the meaning as “those who more and more crucify the flesh, as they are enabled by infusions by the Spirit”? When Romans 8:13 instructs us “by the Spirit to put to death the deeds of the body”, does that mean to eliminate any idea that our doing (or not doing) will either justify or sanctify us, or does it mean “stop your sinning or prove that you were never justified”? See Robert Haldane’s commentary on Romans 8.

     e Col. 1:11; Eph. 3:16-19.

     Should we read Colossians (the Father has qualified you) to read “is qualifying you by giving you the Spirit to start qualifying you” to share in the inheritance? And lest we misunderstand “He has delivered you”, should we read “because the Spirit will be delivering you”? And “transferred” us as “is more and more beginning to get us ready to one day be transferred”? The problem with having the wrong references for what the Confession says is also that we tend to miss out on what those references actually are saying.

     Ephesians 4:17 Now this I say and testify in the Lord, that you must no longer walk as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their minds. 18 They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart.

     f 2 Cor. 7:1; Heb. 12:14.

     It would be helpful to exegete the entire chapter of Hebrews 12. Can it be proven that the holiness without which we cannot see the Lord is that “more and more” variety of which the Confession speaks? Or is our hope Christ’s holiness plus also an incremental holiness? And if Christ’s holiness is not enough for present access to God, just how much additional holiness will the Spirit need to give us?

     I don’t presume that my asking these questions answers them. Do the Scripture references given for the confessional statements have the same authority as the propositions themselves? If so, maybe we can figure out what the Bible references mean by reading back to see what the Confessions say.

     But just because chapter 13 does not say that “fullness is infusion”, of course that doesn’t mean that Edwards was wrong.

     LikeLike

333. Jon, thanks. I think. Not to be ungrateful for the effort, but you still seem to talk about employing secular education the way Fundamentalists talk about consuming beer. My Fundies can concede that my beer drinking isn’t the function of some form of personal or spiritual disorder, but it is for the 90% of those who do, which puts me in dubious company, which always seems to take away with one hand what was given with the other. You talk about “autonomous worldview” seepage with the same worry that Fundies talk about the residual nefarious effects of alcohol. But I thought Jesus said it’s what comes out of the body (and mind) that is wicked, not what goes in.

     I’m not sure how you can speak for the principles of 90% of such a broad group though. Neither do I see what is to be gained by impugning those principles. Christian liberty includes staying silent.

     LikeLike

334. Richard, if WCF meant to say that “God works in the person preaching the Word and in some the godliness he works in them correlates with the grace he works in the listeners” then saying “The grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments rightly used, is not conferred by any power in them; neither does the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that does administer it,” and not taking any opportunity to correlate the grace within the administer and the recipients for efficacy, sure is an odd way to do it.

     But my point isn’t that the state of the recipient doesn’t matter for efficacy, because it does. My point is that the state of the administrator doesn’t. And what is the point of all this in terms of the subject at hand? Again, it’s to say that confessionalism wants to extol the power of God in the things he has ordained, and this is in direct contrast to the experientialists and the epistemologists who want to esteem things in men.

     LikeLike

335. D. G. Hart: Richard, you really need to give up the Reformation-as-Revival line.

     RS: Why do I need to do that and on what basis should I do that?

     D.G. Hart: Your buddy Jonathan Edwards was not particularly careful to follow in the paths of the Reformers but you think that all that Edwards did was good.

     RS: But he was careful to follow in the paths of Scripture which the Reformers thought was even more important.

     D.G. Hart: In which case, Reformation is not nearly as important to you as Revival.

     RS: It is hard to understate the importance of the Reformation, but the Reformation was not a time when perfect and complete truth was restored on the earth. The Scriptures were brought back to the front of the line during the Reformation. If we are to be faithful to the Reformation, instead of blindly following each jot and tittle that the Reformers taught we must be faithful to Scripture.

     D.G. Hart: That’s fine. Just don’t act like the neo-Cals and cherry pick.

     RS: Hmmm, I though that was a common to all in the human predicament. Edwards taught that the heart of sin was self-love. That being true, we all want to be right when discussing/arguing with others rather than having discussions as a means of discovering the truth or growing deeper in the truth.

     LikeLike

336. John Yeazel: Along with the book of Hebrews Richard, you might want to chew on Phillipians chapter 3 too. This one really got to me last week after I read it.

     http://markmcculley.wordpress.com/2011/05/23/the-belly-problem-philippians-3/

     RS: However, Jesus said several times that if you love Him you will obey His commandments.
     Titus 2:11 For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men, 12 instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age,

     RS: Notice that the grace of God itself instructs us to deny ungodliness and to life righteously and godly in the present age.

     Titus 2:13 looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus, 14 who gave Himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed, and to purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds. 15 These things speak and exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one disregard you.

     RS: The text is quite clear on what Christ gave Himself for: 1) to redeem us from every lawless deed and 2) to purif Himself a people for His own possession, zealours for good deeds. The text then goes on to tell Titus that he was to speak these things. Christ died to save sinners, yes, but also to redeem them from lawless deeds and purify them. When people are growing in holiness, they are not against the Gospel of grace alone, but instead it is being done in them what Christ died to accomplish.

     LikeLike

337. Richard, if the Reformation was about being biblical, then Wesley, Arminius, and Billy Graham are all in line with the Reformers. You see, some of us actually believe that the Reformers were on to biblical truths when they didn’t go gaga over affections and simply tried to reform the church and restore a faithful ministry of word and sacrament.

     LikeLike

338. Zrim: Richard, if WCF meant to say that “God works in the person preaching the Word and in some the godliness he works in them correlates with the grace he works in the listeners” then saying “The grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments rightly used, is not conferred by any power in them; neither does the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that does administer it,” and not taking any opportunity to correlate the grace within the administer and the recipients for efficacy, sure is an odd way to do it.

     RS: You might also consider that they were writing against Roman Catholicism and the Anglicans at the same time. It is not that they did not believe that ministers should be converted or be pursuing holiness, but they were fighting against elements of Roman Catholicism and Anglicanism that took the ministry beyond what it should be.

     Zrim: But my point isn’t that the state of the recipient doesn’t matter for efficacy, because it does. My point is that the state of the administrator doesn’t.

     RS: But remember that the the administrator also takes the sacrament as well. The state of the administrator matters because of the preaching that goes along with the sacrament. The promise of God is that ths pure in heart will see Him, but on the other hand those who are defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure (Titus 1:15).

     Zrim: And what is the point of all this in terms of the subject at hand? Again, it’s to say that confessionalism wants to extol the power of God in the things he has ordained, and this is in direct contrast to the experientialists and the epistemologists who want to esteem things in men.

     RS: You are separating things that should remain together. I cannot speak for all experientialists, and indeed many of those are as you say, but there should be no real separation between the power of God and the things in men. All that is holy and good in any man is there because of the power of God. When confessionalism extols the power of God and yet denies the experience of that in man, they are not extolling the power of God as they ought. If God is not sovereign in power over the hearts of men, then what is He sovereign over?

     LikeLike

339. D. G. Hart: Richard, if the Reformation was about being biblical, then Wesley, Arminius, and Billy Graham are all in line with the Reformers.

     RS: Allow me to heartedly and emphatically (with great affection I might add) disagree with that statement. Arminius, Wesley, and Billy Graham (in descending from the truth order) were not biblical and were not in line with the Reformers.

     D,G, Hart: You see, some of us actually believe that the Reformers were on to biblical truths when they didn’t go gaga over affections and simply tried to reform the church and restore a faithful ministry of word and sacrament.

     RS: So what is truth without love? What is a faithful ministry that is not like Paul? II Cor 1: 24 “Not that we lord it over your faith, but are workers with you for your joy.” What in the world was Luther the earthly one if not a man of powerful intellect and affections in his drive for truth and love? The affections are part of the truth that Luther discovered. I don’t know how anyone can read Luther and not see the power of his affections at least bubbling a bit. But what does Lady Ga Ga have to do with this? I know you 2K guys who focus on Word and Sacrament will listen to things that some of us think are over the line, but her?

     LikeLike

340. McMark: Again, no infusion. Even if you have a confession which says that “sanctification” sometimes means “infusion”, that should not prove to you that “sanctification” means that in this verse. Nor does it mean a “snyergism” in which humans do 100% and God does 100%. Nor does it mean that the law-grace antithesis has now been overcome by the noetic effects of regeneration.

     RS: If Christ dwells in His people and believers are the temple of the Holy Spirit and of the living God, then they dwell in His people for a reason. If there is such a thing as fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5) and sharing in the divine nature (II Peter 1:4), then in the realm of sanctification or life after justification God infuses something in His people. This is not synergism in the sense you are using it either.

     Romans 3:31 Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law.

     RS: After a person is justified by grace alone through faith alone, that person establishes the Law and wants to live in accordance with the holiness of God that is manifested by the Law. In fact, that is the work of the Holy Spirit in the person.

     Romans 8: 7 because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so,
     8 and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
     9 However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him.
     10 If Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, yet the spirit is alive because of righteousness.
     11 But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you.
     12 So then, brethren, we are under obligation, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh–
     13 for if you are living according to the flesh, you must die; but if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live.
     14 For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.

     LikeLike

341. Zrim,

     I’m not sure I can go much further than that. I also don’t know if I agree with the analogy.

     Public education, at a prior point in history, could be considered to fall under Christian liberty. However, we now live in a day when a dad gets arrested for trying to speak to the principle of a school that insists on teaching his son about the normalcy of homosexuality at the age of 6 WITHOUT parental consent. (http://www.wnd.com/2005/04/30070/) How can a Christian under good conscience allow their child to go through that?

     I am sure there are still many parts of America where the public schools are not as corrupt and you could legitemately make a case for Christian liberty.

     But let me ask a different question: What about stealing? Is it okay to engage in a system that is based upon legalized theft? What do you think about your single or childless neighbors having to pay for your childrens’ education? I don’t think breaking the 8th commandment falls under liberty. I think Christian parents need to think long and hard about this point.

     All that aside I will make a strong statement: I don’t think there’s another government institution that is responsible for as much evil and the decay in our country as the socialist school system. I’m sure many people will scoff at this, but I’m open to being proven wrong.

     LikeLike

342. What has established and fulfilled the law in Romans 3:31, our living or Christ’s death as the good news of the gospel? If both, why isn’t Christ’s death by law enough? If our living perfectly fulfills the law, then why did Christ need to die? If Christ’s death does not satisfy the law, Christ died to NO purpose. Galatians 2:21. Why would anybody think that our imperfect living establishes or fulfills the law?

     LikeLike

343. mark mcculley: What has established and fulfilled the law in Romans 3:31, our living or Christ’s death as the good news of the gospel? If both, why isn’t Christ’s death by law enough? If our living perfectly fulfills the law, then why did Christ need to die? If Christ’s death does not satisfy the law, Christ died to NO purpose. Galatians 2:21. Why would anybody think that our imperfect living establishes or fulfills the law?

     Galatians 5:13 For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not turn your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. 14 For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, “YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.”

     Romans 13:8 Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.

     RS: Of course the death of Christ is enough to fulfill the demands of perfect justice for the broken law. However, God saves His people for a purpose. What are people saved from? They are saved from hell, the bondage of the devil, and the slavery of sin. We are saved for freedom and part of that freedom is now by the Spirit we are free to keep the Law of love. But of course no human can love unless that human being has been freed from the curse of keeping the law by the power of self and the love of self. Remember, we serve a resurrected Savior who Himself is the life of His people, even the eternal life of His people. When those on this earth pass into heaven, is there a purpose for them to keep the law there? Of course there is. Heaven will be a world of perfect love and in doing that the Law will be perfectly fulfilled. But the source and origin of true love is always God Himself.

     LikeLike

344. Bruce Mccormack, p109, What’s at stake in current debates over Justification?

     “Since the gift of the Holy Spirit is itself a consequence of adoption (Romans 8:15) and not the condition of adoption, a legal metaphor is used to describe the objective side of the act in which God turns toward the individual in his grace without respect for the subjective consequences of that turning IN US. Union with Christ, biblically considered, refers to an union of wills. I do not participate in the historical humanity of Christ (a thought which would require an unity on the level of “substance” in terms of a Platonic realism which holds that universals are more real than particulars).

     mccormack: “At first glance, the image of the vine and the branches (John 15) might be seen to connote an organic connection between Christ and the believer. Some in the early church thought of the union as an “ontological person in whom being is mixed with non-being”. On that view, why would the Holy Spirit still be needed—once the Spirit had joined our humanity to Christ’s, the life that is in Christ would flow directly.

     mccormack: “But the vine-branches analogy is only for describing a legal and ethical relation. The flow of life-giving nutrients from the vine to the branches takes place naturally, automatically; it does not require
     an act of will on the side of either the vine or the branch. But in the case of the relation of Christ and the believer, we are dealing with a willed relation. As John 15:3 says, “You are ALREADY CLEAN
     BECAUSE OF THE WORD I HAVE SPOKEN TO YOU.”

     mccormack: “For much of theological history, the work of the Spirit has been thought of along the lines of a kind of divine surgery. The will, on this view, is thought of as something quasi-substantial, a “thing”
     that can be operated on by God to effect an “healing”. But what we call “will” is in truth the mind. It is not something special “in us” as a distinct power of “faculty”. Given that this is so, it is a real
     question what there might be “in us” upon which God might operate.

     mccormack: “We would be better off thinking of the work of the Holy Spirit in terms of an encounter of divine person with human person whose point of entry is the mind. (Romans 12:2, Eph 4:22-24, Col 3:10).
     Sanctification of the mind results in the “divine image” which consists of true knowledge of God….though we make a huge mistake if we think the knowledge of God is so special that it bears nothing in common with what everywhere else passes for cognitive knowledge. The Holy Spirit is very concerned with what people think (Phil 4:8, Col 3:2). The power of the Father’s declarative word is the Holy Spirit’s illumination of the human mind.”

     LikeLike

345. mark mcculley:
     Bruce Mccormack, p109, What’s at stake in current debates over Justification?
     “Since the gift of the Holy Spirit is itself a consequence of adoption (Romans 8:15) and not the condition of adoption, a legal metaphor is used to describe the objective side of the act in which God turns toward the individual in his grace without respect for the subjective consequences of that turning IN US. Union with Christ, biblically considered, refers to an union of wills. I do not participate in the historical humanity of Christ (a thought which would require an unity on the level of “substance” in terms of a Platonic realism which holds that universals are more real than particulars).

     RS: So is marriage to a person simply a union of wills? The gift of the Holy Spirit was purchased at the cross by Jesus Christ (Galatians 3:13-14) and the Holy Spirit is the one who works regeneration in those for whom Christ purchased salvation. But back to the union part, it is a red herring to say that we cannot participate in the historical humanity of Christ in context of union with Christ. Christ represented all His people in His historical humanity, but remember He was God in human flesh. In fact, the asencion of Christ tells us that He is stil in bodily form. Christ and His people are considered one. As the human body of the Son suffered and died, so Acts 20:28 tells us this: “Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.” The hypostatic union of the divine nature and of the human nature of Christ was such that the blood which Christ shed was considered the blood of God. That was more than a union of will. Now believers are one with Christ and we are His bride. We are one to the degree that it is His live in us and when the Father beholds us He beholds His Son.

     LikeLike

346. mark mcculley: Bruce Mccormack, p109, What’s at stake in current debates over Justification?

     mccormack: “At first glance, the image of the vine and the branches (John 15) might be seen to connote an organic connection between Christ and the believer. Some in the early church thought of the union as an “ontological person in whom being is mixed with non-being”. On that view, why would the Holy Spirit still be needed—once the Spirit had joined our humanity to Christ’s, the life that is in Christ would flow directly.

     mccormack: “But the vine-branches analogy is only for describing a legal and ethical relation. The flow of life-giving nutrients from the vine to the branches takes place naturally, automatically; it does not require an act of will on the side of either the vine or the branch. But in the case of the relation of Christ and the believer, we are dealing with a willed relation. As John 15:3 says, “You are ALREADY CLEAN BECAUSE OF THE WORD I HAVE SPOKEN TO YOU.”

     RS: But the text does go on to say that we can do nothing apart from Him and any fruit that we bear has to come from Him to be true fruit. We are to abide in Him and He in us or we cannot bear any fruit at all. This is more than a union of wills. How does one abide in Christ and that for those who were already clean in a positional way?
     John 15:10 “If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love; just as I have kept My Father’s commandments and abide in His love.

     LikeLike

347. mark mcculley: Bruce Mccormack, p109, What’s at stake in current debates over Justification?

     mccormack: “For much of theological history, the work of the Spirit has been thought of along the lines of a kind of divine surgery. The will, on this view, is thought of as something quasi-substantial, a “thing”that can be operated on by God to effect an “healing”. But what we call “will” is in truth the mind. It is not something special “in us” as a distinct power of “faculty”. Given that this is so, it is a real question what there might be “in us” upon which God might operate.

     RS: Thus begins the denial of what Scripture so clearly teaches and is at the very heart of Christianity. It is not so much what there might be in us, but a Whom is in us. This is part of Christ’s teaching in John 16, His prayer in John 17, and then said by Paul to be at the very heart of the Gospel in Ephesians 1-3 and Colossians 1. It is also the very heart of I John.

     I have given just a few verses from Ephesians 1. Remember also that God is omnipresent and is everywhere. I am not sure why people think that they have to posit a legal standing alone and not a real indwelling by Christ. He is everywhere anyway and when people are cleansed of their sin (like the OT temple) He dwells in them in power, love, and glory by grace. I didn’t give any verses on it, but remember He is said to be in us in many places as well. He is more than just in us legally, but in reality.

     Ephesians 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ,

     Ephesians 1:4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love

     Ephesians 1:6 to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved.

     Ephesians 1:7 In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace

     Ephesians 1:10 with a view to an administration suitable to the fullness of the times, that is, the summing up of all things in Christ, things in the heavens and things on the earth. In Him

     Ephesians 1:13 In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation– having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise,

     mccormack: “We would be better off thinking of the work of the Holy Spirit in terms of an encounter of divine person with human person whose point of entry is the mind. (Romans 12:2, Eph 4:22-24, Col 3:10).

     RS: Why does this make us better off than what the Bible teaches which is that we are temples of the living God? Was the human body of Jesus a tabernacle of the glory of God or did His divine nature just have an encounter with His divine nature who had a point of entry in His mind?

     mccormack: Sanctification of the mind results in the “divine image” which consists of true knowledge of God….though we make a huge mistake if we think the knowledge of God is so special that it bears nothing in common with what everywhere else passes for cognitive knowledge.

     RS: But we must also remember that knowing God is eternal life and Jesus Christ Himself is said to be eternal life. We must also remember that only those who are born of God and know God (I John 4:7-8) actually love. So there is something about knowing God that is far more than cognitive knowledge. Adam knew Eve and she conceived. There was more than cognitive knowledge involved in that knowing.

     mccormack:The Holy Spirit is very concerned with what people think (Phil 4:8, Col 3:2). The power of the Father’s declarative word is the Holy Spirit’s illumination of the human mind.”

     RS: The Holy Spirit is also concerned about working His spiritual fruit in people and that requires more than just illumination. The Holy Spirit who is God and as such is a God of love works the fruit of that triune love in the hearts of His people. That is more than a mere illumination. That is to be a partaker of the love of God.

     LikeLike

348. Richard, Luther showed lots of emotion. I wouldn’t call it love. I also wouldn’t classify it as affection.

     You’re making this up, right?

     LikeLike

349. Jon, one step forward, three steps back. Yeow, now we public schoolers are likely guilty of breaking the eighth and Xian liberty hinges on horror stories and sensationalism. I know you don’t buy the analogy, but that’s like my Fundies saying my drinking beer contributes to the drunkenness of the chemically pathological. I’m sure I could cite plenty of sensationalistic stories about home schools or Xian schools (or any school) to suggest how misguided those choices can be, or I could blow hard about how public schools should be thoroughly secularized and Xian kids should be in them, but that would be pretty uncharitable, disingenuous and unbecoming. Hint hint.

     LikeLike

350. So we are “united” to Christ LIKE the human nature is united to divine nature in Christ’s person? Where does the Confession say that? Where does the Bible say that? In what way would the union of two natures be LIKE the union of two persons?

     Nobody was talking about how the two natures of Christ unite. But what other people were talking about never stopped RS yet….

     McCormack: Sanctification of the mind results in the “divine image” which consists of true knowledge of God….The Holy Spirit is very concerned with what people think (Phil 4:8, Col 3:2). The power of the Father’s declarative word is the Holy Spirit’s illumination of the human mind.”

     LikeLike

351. D. G. Hart: Richard, Luther showed lots of emotion. I wouldn’t call it love. I also wouldn’t classify it as affection. You’re making this up, right?

     RS: You call what you want as emotion, but all true love has some affection. I am not making this up at all. Luther was a man of great affection. He was not an academic who believed that the less feeling the better. Luther was not lukewarm and so was not about to be spit out by Jesus, but instead by grace he was a man of great warmth and even fire.

     LikeLike

352. mark mcculley: So we are “united” to Christ LIKE the human nature is united to divine nature in Christ’s person? Where does the Confession say that? Where does the Bible say that? In what way would the union of two natures be LIKE the union of two persons?

     Nobody was talking about how the two natures of Christ unite. But what other people were talking about never stopped RS yet….

     RS: Perhaps you would note that we are human beings with human natures and we must be united to the Divine if we are to be saved. I would think that the unity of the two natures in the one Divine Person would certainly give some insight. Others have sure seemed to note how these things are related.

     McCormack: Sanctification of the mind results in the “divine image” which consists of true knowledge of God….The Holy Spirit is very concerned with what people think (Phil 4:8, Col 3:2). The power of the Father’s declarative word is the Holy Spirit’s illumination of the human mind.”

     RS: I have given several verses below. Over and over again we are told that we are the temple and the dwelling place of God. In the OT there was the tabernacle and the Temple. In the Gospels Christ was where God tabernacled. Now, the Church (the body of Christ) is the dwelling place of God and where He shines forth His glory. As in the OT tabernacle there had to be a sacrifice with blood on the mercy seat and the goat had to be led away for God to come and fill His place with glory (see Exodus 40), so now souls have to have their sins propitiated (mercy seat) by the blood of the Lamb of God and be declared just because of the imputed righteousness of Christ so that God may come in to dwell in His temple. God does not dwell in the outer places, but in the inner places which had to be washed and cleaned. He resides in glory in His dwelling place. As such, the believer is the temple of the living God. It is not just something that happens in someones mind, but it really happens.

     I Cor 2:10 For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God.
     11 For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God.
     12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God,
     13 which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words.
     14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.
     15 But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one.
     16 For WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD, THAT HE WILL INSTRUCT HIM? But we have the mind of Christ.

     1 Corinthians 3:16 Do you not know that you are a temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?

     1 Corinthians 6:19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own?

     2 Corinthians 6:16 Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; just as God said, “I WILL DWELL IN THEM AND WALK AMONG THEM; AND I WILL BE THEIR GOD, AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE.

     Romans 8:9 However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him.

     Romans 8:11 But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you.

     Ephesians 3:17 so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith; and that you, being rooted and grounded in love,

     2 Timothy 1:14 Guard, through the Holy Spirit who dwells in us, the treasure which has been entrusted to you.

     1 John 4:12 No one has seen God at any time; if we love one another, God abides in us, and His love is perfected in us.

     1 John 4:15 Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God.

     LikeLike

353. mark mcculley: Bruce Mccormack, p109, What’s at stake in current debates over Justification?
     mccormack: “At first glance, the image of the vine and the branches (John 15) might be seen to connote an organic connection between Christ and the believer. Some in the early church thought of the union as an “ontological person in whom being is mixed with non-being”. On that view, why would the Holy Spirit still be needed—once the Spirit had joined our humanity to Christ’s, the life that is in Christ would flow directly.

     RS: Mark, would you agree with the Bible on what true religion/Christianity is?
     James 1:26 If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless. 27 Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.

     Notice that James does not mention justification at this point, but he speaks of true religion in the sight of our god and Father. Since justification by grace alone through faith alone is the Gospel, which I think James goes on to address in chapter 2, the practice of true religion is at least connected with the truth of justification. Three main points of true religion is given in the text: 1) A man’s religion is worthless if he does not bridle his tongue. 2) Visititing orphans and widows in their distress. 3) Keeping oneself unstained by the world.

     True justification is to be legally declared just or righteous by God on the basis of the life, cross, resurrection, and the imputed righteousness of Christ alone. But according to James there is a true religion that follows that or flows from that. As James says in chapter 2, “what good is it, my brothers, if someone says that he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?” A few verses later on he goes on: “17 Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself.
     18 But someone may well say, “You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works.”
     19 You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder.
     20 But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless?”

     RS: A soul that is justified is a soul that will love holiness and pursue it. It does not justify one and it adds nothing to the work of Christ, but it demonstrates that the work of Christ has taken place in that soul.

     LikeLike

354. Zrim,

     Why would you allow the secular humanist worldview to dominate public schools? It is antithetical to the Christian worldview. I am used to debating this with atheists. It’s weird to have the same debate with a Reformed Christian. That’s why 2k always leaves me scratching my head. . . .

     LikeLike

355. Zrim;

     “I’m sure I could cite plenty of sensationalistic stories about home schools or Xian schools (or any school) to suggest how misguided those choices can be”

     Sean; How about just the offense given from a fashion perspective; I got the vision forum homeschoolers down the road and the unofficial/official uniforms are boys in knickers with knee socks and patent leather shoes, there’s probably a brass buckle somewhere on the shoe, and women in floor-length khaki skirts, and blouses with lace bibs. Apparently, the female’s uniform doubles as the work out attire, just add tennis shoes(white ones). I’m offended daily.

     LikeLike

356. RS keeps talking about what’s in his “soul”. But none of them there verses in his post above ever talk about “souls”. I guess he needs a different Bible translation, where the words “in” or “indwell” always add the word “soul”.

     Genesis 2:7 “then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature. ”

     Now that’s certainly not going to work. That would give us the impression that living souls are persons, and we know that a “soul” is more than that.

     Hint: when we say “more than that”, what we mean is “not that”.

     More than imputation….

     More than sanctification by the blood of Christ….

     More then either being born by the Spirit or not…..

     “More than that” means “I don’t deny that BUT some other thing is more real”.

     And sometimes “fuller gospel” is false gospel.

     The ancient Roman Catholic church has more—not only impartation but also infusion….

     LikeLike

357. Jon, how can I disallow something over which I have no control? But you say “secular” and “humanist” as if those are naughty words, contra old school Protestantism. And debating this topic with Reformed Christians is as head scratching for me as debating with Fundies about substance use and worldly amusement. Legalism, whether soft or hard, sure is confusing.

     Sean, my oldest will have a dress code in her new college prep public charter next year. She’s daily offended by this, but maybe I should tell her just how bad it could be: blue collared tops and khaki bottom sure beat Pollyanna polyesters.

     LikeLike

358. c Rom. 6:6,14.

     Is the dominion of sin eliminated by the work of the Spirit or because we are not under the law? Or both? What does Romans 6:14 say? How was the dominion of sin over Christ eliminated? Was it by gradual infusions or by His death? How did Christ “die to sin” and become “free from sin” in Romans 6?

     10 For the death Christ died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God. 11 So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God IN Christ Jesus.

     12 Let not sin therefore reign IN YOUR MORTAL BODY, to make you obey its passions. 13 Do not present your members to sin as instruments for unrighteousness, but present yourselves to God as those who HAVE BEEN BROUGHT FROM DEATH TO LIFE, and your members to God as instruments for righteousness. 14 For sin will have no dominion over you, since you ARE NOT under law but under grace. 15 What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! 16 Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness?

     17 But thanks be to God, that you who WERE ONCE slaves of sin HAVE BECOME obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, 18 and, HAVING BEEN set free from sin, HAVE BECOME slaves of righteousness.

     LikeLike

359. Zrim,

     I share your daughter’s sensibilities on the issue, but at least she can look forward to a day of ‘graduating’ from such attire, the girls uniform apparently carries on into adulthood. I think the boys are probably beaten into sensibility shortly after leaving the house, and immediately start growing beards(if capable) and flaunting their ‘freedom’ in Christ(Taxes! I don’t pay no stinkin’ taxes) as they plot to inherit what the unregenerate have ‘illegitimately’ acquired.

     LikeLike

360. The Vision Forum girl’s uniform carries on into adulthood, is how that’s meant.

     LikeLike

361. Jon, also, here’s some more love and favor for you: you’re expressing the larger balance of the P&R world’s views, even many 2kers who may eschew worldviewism when it comes to just about any other facet of creation, but when it comes to education all of a sudden turn into neo-Calvinists.

     LikeLike

362. Sean, all I know is that the dress code will save me money. Remember, in addition to being lazy, I’m also cheap.

     LikeLike

363. Zrim,

     Also, with all due respect, you have atheistic educational principles. You kinda suck. The blog’s startin’ to spin real fast…cuz of ….cuz of all your atheism..ism.

     LikeLike

364. mark mcculley: RS keeps talking about what’s in his “soul”. But none of them there verses in his post above ever talk about “souls”. I guess he needs a different Bible translation, where the words “in” or “indwell” always add the word “soul”.

     RS: But of course that is a common word for referring to man as a whole (both material and immaterial) or sometimes just the immaterial.

     McMark: Genesis 2:7 “then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature. ”

     RS: You might want to look at that again. In the KJV it is “man became a living soul.” The word is nephesh which means soul or living being, but of course human beings as living souls are living beings.

     McMark: Now that’s certainly not going to work. That would give us the impression that living souls are persons, and we know that a “soul” is more than that.

     RS: In terms of human beings, it is hard to be a person and not have a soul and it is hard to have a soul and not be a person.

     McMark: Hint: when we say “more than that”, what we mean is “not that”.

     More than imputation….

     RS: But the Gospel is more than imputation, though it certainly includes that.

     McMark: More than sanctification by the blood of Christ….

     RS: Sanctification certainly includes that, but it has to do with more than those words.

     McMark: More then either being born by the Spirit or not…..

     RS: Of course the Gospel includes that, but it is certainly more than that.

     McMark: “More than that” means “I don’t deny that BUT some other thing is more real”.

     And sometimes “fuller gospel” is false gospel.

     RS: And sometimes lesser gospel is a false gospel as well. We must let the Bible speak as to the wholeness of the Gospel rather than theologians that want to have a gospel that fits their systems. This is not an attempt to knock on all theologians or systematic theologies, but simply to note that one can try to condense the biblical teaching of the Gospel down more than that Bible does.

     McMark: The ancient Roman Catholic church has more—not only impartation but also infusion…

     RS: Indeed, but Roman Catholicism places infusion as part of justification. Reformed theologians of the past have placed infusion in sanctification. The differences are huge, like the difference between a false gospel and the true Gospel.

     LikeLike

365. sean,

     I’m surprised Darryl allows trolls in here. Do you have anything useful to add?

     I am amazed that you are mocking sisters in Christ who are just trying to be modest. Yes, I think some homeschooler’s clothes can be outdated, but I respect what they are trying to do. It’s infinitely better than the utterly immodest dress that is so popular today. But here I am dignifying your vitriol with a reply. All you do is mock and sneer. Shame on you.

     LikeLike

366. Zrim,

     I do admire that you are taking a very unpopular position, and holding to it on principle. I don’t know what else you want me to do though. I can’t make myself agree with your principles. Yes, you may be the 5% that is in public schools for principled reasons, but it doesn’t mean I have to agree with those reasons. Call it legalism, but I can’t think of a single good reason to put one’s kids in the government schools (unless it’s a single mom who has no other options. Even then, she should ask her church for help.)

     LikeLike

367. Jon, thanks. The point of Christian liberty is not to agree on matters indifferent. It’s to allow another his convictions or principles that lead him to zig when you zag without suggesting anything uncharitable or impious. I have to say, though, when worldviewism is as embraced as it is, that liberty on education is a matter indifferent seems virtually impossible. Again, I know you don’t care for the analogy, but when personal holiness is the starting point, it seems impossible to think of substance use and worldly amusement as a matter indifferent. I know neither P&R nor Fundamentalists care for the suggestion of legalism, but so long as either worldview and personal holiness are in overdrive, I don’t see any way to avoid the ditches.

     LikeLike

368. The verses RS cited referenced us as temples and our bodies, but not something in us called “souls”. But that doesn’t keep him from claiming that “souls” are our immaterial stuff.

     As for nephesh….

     Genesis 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving nephesh/soul that has life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
     1:21 And God created great whales, and every living nephesh/soul that moves, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
     1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living nephesh/soul after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
     1:30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to everything that creeps upon the earth, in which there is living nephesh/soul, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
     2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living nephesh/soul
     2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them: and whatever Adam called every living nephesh/soul, that was the name of it.
     9:5 And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man’s brother will I require the nephesh/soul of man.
     9:10 And with every living nephesh/soul that is with you, of the fowl, of the cattle, and of every beast of the earth with you; from all that go out of the ark, to every beast of the earth.
     9:12 And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living nephesh/soul that is with you, for perpetual generations:
     9:15 And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living nephesh/soul of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh.
     9:16 And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living nephesh/soul of all flesh that is upon the earth.
     14:21 And the king of Sodom said to Abram, Give me the nephesh/souls, and take the goods to yourself.
     17:14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that nephesh/ soul shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.

     LikeLike

369. Jon,

     Get a sense of humor. I live half a mile away from where the Phillip’s sect congregates. I’ve talked to Doug a few times, he’s committed( to something), but fairly unlearned historically and theologically and more a political animal than a preacher much less a theologian. Their (vision forum) objective seems more to become a costumed, quaint, renaissance-fair type group harkening back to some mix of the Louis L’amour west mixed with French ideas of chivalry ( yes, an odd cocktail I know), couched in Christianese language that they claim has some grounding in ‘how God intended things to be.’ Don’t get upset with me for noticing their oddity, I assume they do it to draw just such a reaction (think Amish) and consider it a distinctive of their practice. I certainly don’t deride the younger girls or boys for that matter, but after having to deal with the residual effects of this group in our own church and these same children apostatizing from the sect, thinking this was the christian faith, I’m less than sympathetic to what their parents think they are accomplishing.

     As regards your particularities, I gave you reasoned responses which you presumably found less than adequate, which is fine, and Zrim and others are more than adequate to the task of answering your inquiries and more capable of doing so.

     LikeLike

370. Is there no difference between us “in Him” and Him “in us”? We do not need to deny one to affirm the other, and we certainly don’t need to give the priority to the “in us”. But RS seems to think that “in Him” means the same thing as the “in us”.

     When RS claims that “He is more than just in us legally but in reality”, by good and necessary inference, he is claiming that the legal is not real, and that the real is something other than the legal. RS is also ignoring the fact that some sinners are by election “in Christ”, and by legal imputation (transfer and declaration) “in Christ”. RS flips this, interchanges the words, makes it “in us legally”.and then says there’s another “in us” which is not simply “more” real, but “but real”! In the meanwhile, he has forgotten the “in Christ”

     Ephesians 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ,

     Ephesians 1:4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love

     Ephesians 1:6 to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved.

     Ephesians 1:7 IN HIM we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace

     Ephesians 1:10 with a view to an administration suitable to the fullness of the times, that is, the summing up of all things in Christ, things in the heavens and things on the earth IN HIM

     Ephesians 1:13 IN HIM, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation– having also believed, you were sealed IN HIM with the Holy Spirit of promise,

     LikeLike

371. mark mcculley: The verses RS cited referenced us as temples and our bodies, but not something in us called “souls”. But that doesn’t keep him from claiming that “souls” are our immaterial stuff.

     RS: Remember that I said that the Bible used it as referring to both material and immaterial. At least listen to Jesus and Paul though you won’t listen to me.

     Matthew 10:28 “Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.” Note that there is a body and the soul. Human beings can kill the body, but they cannot kill the soul. But only God can destroy both.

     Matthew 12:18 “BEHOLD, MY SERVANT WHOM I HAVE CHOSEN; MY BELOVED IN WHOM MY SOUL is WELL-PLEASED; I WILL PUT MY SPIRIT UPON HIM, AND HE SHALL PROCLAIM JUSTICE TO THE GENTILES.

     RS: God does not have a body like men, but here His soul is well-pleased.

     Matthew 16:26 “For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul?

     Matthew 22:37 And He said to him, “‘YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.’

     Matthew 26:38 Then He said to them, “My soul is deeply grieved, to the point of death; remain here and keep watch with Me.”

     Acts 2:27 BECAUSE YOU WILL NOT ABANDON MY SOUL TO HADES, NOR ALLOW YOUR HOLY ONE TO UNDERGO DECAY.

     1 Corinthians 15:45 So also it is written, “The first MAN, Adam, BECAME A LIVING SOUL.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.

     Acts 4:32 And the congregation of those who believed were of one heart and soul; and not one of them claimed that anything belonging to him was his own, but all things were common property to them.

     1 Thessalonians 5:23 Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you entirely; and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved complete, without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

     LikeLike

372. mark mcculley: Is there no difference between us “in Him” and Him “in us”? We do not need to deny one to affirm the other, and we certainly don’t need to give the priority to the “in us”. But RS seems to think that “in Him” means the same thing as the “in us”.

     RS: Yes, there is a distinction. However, all that are in Christ also have Him in them. There is a mutual in-being. For there to be one there is the other.

     McMark: When RS claims that “He is more than just in us legally but in reality”, by good and necessary inference, he is claiming that the legal is not real, and that the real is something other than the legal.

     RS: Your inference is not good and it is certainly not necessary. The word “just” can also mean “not only” as opposed to a sneering diminishing of something. The legal is real, but it is not the only real. Sinners must be declared legally just for Christ to dwell in them as His temple.

     McMark: RS is also ignoring the fact that some sinners are by election “in Christ”, and by legal imputation (transfer and declaration) “in Christ”. RS flips this, interchanges the words, makes it “in us legally”.and then says there’s another “in us” which is not simply “more” real, but “but real”! In the meanwhile, he has forgotten the “in Christ”

     RS: No, overly critical sir who sees things that are not there, I have not forgetten in Christ at all. I am simply arguing for the actual and real indwelling of Christ along with an actual and real legal declaration of sinners as righteous and the actual and real location of sinners in Christ. It appears that you want everything to be either physical or a very mystical legal in which no difference is made to the sinner.

     LikeLike

373. Here is something else for you to chew on Richard- I found this while reading Horton’s book COVENANT AND SALVATION this morning. It is in the chapter on Radical Orthodoxy p. 158 in a footnote:

     “The Cambridge Platonists sharply rejected Reformed orthodoxy, and although Edwards represents the closest thing to a synthesis of Platonism/idealism and Reformed theology, it has been subjected to criticism within the tradition at those very points. The Protestant scholastics displayed various influences: Aristotelian-Thomist, Platonist, Ramist and a few Scotists. However, these influences do not seem to have played any significant role in their systems and certainly failed to provoke any serious debates. In any case the proscription of any magisterial role given to philosophy (adopted by all of these theologians) cautioned against anything more than an ad hoc appropriation of such terminology. Edwards, however, does seem to be an exception, giving more space to philosophical speculation in theology- and with conclusions that are more explicitly Platonic than the tradition would affirm. For example, he writes, ‘Matter….is truly nothing at all, strictly and in itself considered. The nearer in nature beings are to God, so much the more properly are they beings, and more substantial; and that spirits are as much more properly beings, and more substantial than bodies.”

     This tells me that Edwards believed that the new nature the Christian has is something that changes and grows closer to God as The Trinity works on the soul. Horton is arguing in his whole series that this is different than God declaring, transfering and communicating to his elect through Law and Gospel. Does the “new nature” change and grow within us? I think this is hard to prove scripturally but perhaps someone has more insight than me on this.

     LikeLike

374. It has also been argued at this site that the “new creation” talked about in 2Cor. chapter 5 is more a collective word than individual. New creation means being justified by God through imputation and then being placed in the redeemed community. But Richard has already rejected that interpretation of the passage.

     LikeLike

375. Sean,

     I recently watched a really good video against feminism. I noticed that all the anti-feminists (who were mostly home school moms also) were dressed in the old fashioned apparel you speak of. But I chose not to comment on it because I know their greater purpose in what they are trying to accomplish and so I don’t focus on their external appearance. That is called wisdom. Wisdom is also not chiming in with a smart allecky comment every chance you get, but really taking the time to answer questions with sincerity. I try to imagine if I would say the same thing to someone on a blog as I would if they were a fellow church member in person. This helps me when I am tempted to go overboard. Of course, I still fail sometimes.

     LikeLike

376. Matthew 10:28 “Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.”

     rs: “Note that there is a body and the soul. Human beings can kill the body, but they cannot kill the soul. But only God can destroy both.”

     mark: You don’t believe in the inherent immortality of the “soul”? Good for you! I don’t either. But this verse still does not prove what you keep saying, that inside us there is some immaterial (union with the divine?) stuff and that the word for this is “soul”. As Genesis 2:7 teaches that the body plus God’s breath is “living soul”, so you have not proven that the body is not a necessary factor in the souls who will be “destroyed” by God in the second death. Even if other humans kill the bodies of the non-elect, those non-elect persons can and will be raised by God for the purpose of destruction.

     I hope you can see that this in no way proves that we should define “soul” as non-material. Do you mean to teach that God does not destroy the bodies of the non-elect but only their non-material stuff?

     LikeLike

377. Again from Horton:

     “Radical Orthodoxy easily risks conflating creation and redemption, election and providence. In this view, the generic “en-gracing” of creation that is synomonous with ontological participation (methathexis) differs from salvific reconciliation only in degree. Grace is viewed as a substance rather than as God’s favor shown to those who are at fault. However, in our account creation and redemption are alike the result of Trinitarian speech-acts. I agree with Milbank’s insistence that covenant and participation are not themselves incommensurable concepts. However, I remain unconvinced that a covenantal account of participation can be assimilated into the metaphysics of Platonism/Neoplatonism.”

     If I am interpreting this right than Edwards is on the fringes of Reformed theology if in the Reformed camp at all. His ideas of participation in Christ are at odds with Reformed theology.

     LikeLike

378. McMark: RS is also ignoring the fact that some sinners are by election “in Christ”, and by legal imputation (transfer and declaration) “in Christ”. RS flips this, interchanges the words, makes it “in us legally”.and then says there’s another “in us” which is not simply “more” real, but “but real”! In the meanwhile, he has forgotten the “in Christ”

     RS: No, overly critical sir who sees things that are not there,

     mark: I don’t just copy and paste verses. I attempt to read and understand what is said. When you write “in us legally”, I would like to know what that means and what Bible verse says something like that. If indeed you are not confusing the “in us” with the “in Christ”, what does “in us legally” mean, and how is it that you think you keep your legal from being “mystical” but I can’t? Does your “legal” have some “supplement” (also real) which removes the scandal from the idea of God being just and yet justifying the ungodly?

     Instead of suggesting that you are being overcritical of those who judge to be overcritical, I would remind you that the Reformation difference comes down to being accepted into God’s holy presence by the alien righteousness of Jesus Christ, and your attempt to point to what’s in the sinner is a diversion from that Reformation gospel.

     RS:It appears that you want everything to be either physical or a very mystical legal in which no difference is made to the sinner.

     mark: I make no apology for agreeing with Genesis 2:7 that the body is necessary along with God’s breath/life for a “living soul”. I believe in both the bodily resurrection of those who have been justified and in the “destruction” of those who have not been justified.

     As for this “legal” of mine, which “makes no difference to the sinner”, well, there is this little matter of the assurance of the forgiveness of sin, joy in no condemnation before God, and no possibility of destruction at the judgment. I claim that this “difference” is considerable.

     If we are not yet made perfect by the blood of Christ, all our works are dead works and an abomination to God. We can do nothing acceptable to God without assurance that what we do is not what makes us acceptable to God.

     Hebrews 10:14–For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified..

     The second “being sanctified” is still not “progressive”. As the elect are “being justified” one by one (one is imputed with Christ’s righteousness, then another, and so on), so also they are (at the same
     time) “being sanctified”, set apart, placed into Christ, either are or are not…..

     OBrien’s commentary on Hebrews 10:14, p357—
     “Some have taken the present passive participle as a remark about the ongoing process of sanctification for the believer. (Attridge). But the notion of being made holy in Hebrews has to do with a definitive consecration to God through the effective cleansing from sin (Heb 2:11; 9:13-14;10:10, 29;13:12) that qualifies them for fellowship with God. It is better, therefore, to regard the participle as timeless, and thus a general designation of believers as sanctified. This is consistent with the stress on sanctification as something that has already been effected by the blood of Christ.”

     LikeLike

379. Darryl, I wrote Al Wolters to inquire as to his views on the question of mere restoration vs. consummation. Here is his reply (posted with his permission):

     The questions you raise are good ones. My position on these matters is that God will restore creation to the consummated state that he had always had in mind for it. This does not rule out various kinds of development in humankind and creation as a whole. That is why I make such a point of distinguishing between “restoration” (good) and “repristination” (bad), and try to illustrate this with the example of a child who contracts a debilitating disease in infancy, to which a cure is not found until he is a teenager (Creation Regained, Second Edition, pp. 45-46, 77-78). The teenager will lack certain things that he had as an infant (e.g. baby teeth), and will have certain things which he lacked as an infant (e.g. the beginnings of a beard). Consequently his restoration to health will exclude baby teeth and include beardedness, but it will not bring anything beyond what the child was meant to have from the beginning.

     My guide in all these matters is Herman Bavinck, and his fundamental theme that “grace restores nature.” As he writes in his Reformed Dogmatics (English translation 3.577): “Yet grace does not give us any more than what, if Adam had not fallen, would have been acquired by him in the way of obedience. The covenant of grace differs from the covenant of works in method, not in its ultimate goal. It is the same treasure that was promised in the covenant of works and is granted in the covenant of grace. Grace restores nature and takes it to its highest pinnacle, but it does not add to it any new and heterogeneous constituents.” For more on this read my translation of Jan Veenhof’s excellent discussion “Nature and Grace in Herman Bavinck,” Pro Rege 34 (2006) 10-31, also printed as a separate brochure (Sioux Center: Dordt Press, 2006).

     This is how I had always understood it, but your and DVD’s questions made me want to check it out. The restoration is not “back to the garden” but “back” to the eschatologically confirmed state now attained as a result of Christ’s fulfilling the covenant that Adam failed to fulfill. I picked up the Bavink volume when it first came out in English–I’ll have to check out the details now.

     LikeLike

380. John Yeazel
     Posted July 3, 2012 at 8:07 am | Permalink
     Here is something else for you to chew on Richard- I found this while reading Horton’s book COVENANT AND SALVATION this morning. It is in the chapter on Radical Orthodoxy p. 158 in a footnote:

     “The Cambridge Platonists sharply rejected Reformed orthodoxy, and although Edwards represents the closest thing to a synthesis of Platonism/idealism and Reformed theology, it has been subjected to criticism within the tradition at those very points. The Protestant scholastics displayed various influences: Aristotelian-Thomist, Platonist, Ramist and a few Scotists. However, these influences do not seem to have played any significant role in their systems and certainly failed to provoke any serious debates. In any case the proscription of any magisterial role given to philosophy (adopted by all of these theologians) cautioned against anything more than an ad hoc appropriation of such terminology. Edwards, however, does seem to be an exception, giving more space to philosophical speculation in theology- and with conclusions that are more explicitly Platonic than the tradition would affirm. For example, he writes, ‘Matter….is truly nothing at all, strictly and in itself considered. The nearer in nature beings are to God, so much the more properly are they beings, and more substantial; and that spirits are as much more properly beings, and more substantial than bodies.”

     This tells me that Edwards believed that the new nature the Christian has is something that changes and grows closer to God as The Trinity works on the soul. Horton is arguing in his whole series that this is different than God declaring, transfering and communicating to his elect through Law and Gospel. Does the “new nature” change and grow within us? I think this is hard to prove scripturally but perhaps someone has more insight than me on this.

     RS: Horton has an axe to grind against Edwards, so unless he can convince me by Scripture or evident reason… It is interesting how Perry Miller thought Edwards followed John Locke and Horton things he followed Plato. Perry Miller, however, was utterly fascinated and in awe with the brilliance of Edwards and wished he had not been so enslaved to the Bible, yet Horton things Edwards had too much philosophy. I guess I will just continue to read Edwards and believe that he was a slave to the Bible even when he did philosophy. After all, if we are not to be deceived and captured by bad philosophy, we might as well read some from a man who was enslaved to the Bible.

     LikeLike

381. John Yeazel: It has also been argued at this site that the “new creation” talked about in 2Cor. chapter 5 is more a collective word than individual. New creation means being justified by God through imputation and then being placed in the redeemed community. But Richard has already rejected that interpretation of the passage

     RS: You are right again. I have rejected that interpretation because it does not fit the context. Indeed God justifies sinners and indeed they are to be part of a redeemed community, but that is not what the totality of what it means to be a new creature. The langage is singular rather than plural in verses 16-17. This new creature is new because (at least partially) the old things have passed away and new things have come. This is why we don’t recognize people according to the flesh any longer.

     II Cor 5:13 For if we are beside ourselves, it is for God; if we are of sound mind, it is for you.
     14 For the love of Christ controls us, having concluded this, that one died for all, therefore all died;
     15 and He died for all, so that they who live might no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died and rose again on their behalf.
     16 Therefore from now on we recognize no one [singular] according to the flesh; even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him in this way no longer.
     17 Therefore if anyone [singular] is in Christ, he is a new creature [singular]; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come.

     LikeLike

382. Matthew 10:28 “Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.”

     McMark: I hope you can see that this in no way proves that we should define “soul” as non-material. Do you mean to teach that God does not destroy the bodies of the non-elect but only their non-material stuff?

     RS: “Prove” is a rather hard thing to do, but I do consider it as very strong evidence, not to mention the many other verses that I gave you. I think we would have to come to a mutual understandig of what it means to destroy in this passage as well as a few other things. I think that the idea is something like God will give all a new body at the end of time. Some receive a body fitted to receive glory and others receive a body fitted for suffering. A body fitted for suffering and as the house of the soul (so to speak) will be destroyed, that is, like the second death which is an eternity of dying or an eternity of conscious torment.

     LikeLike

383. John Yeazel: Again from Horton: “Radical Orthodoxy easily risks conflating creation and redemption, election and providence. In this view, the generic “en-gracing” of creation that is synomonous with ontological participation (methathexis) differs from salvific reconciliation only in degree. Grace is viewed as a substance rather than as God’s favor shown to those who are at fault. However, in our account creation and redemption are alike the result of Trinitarian speech-acts. I agree with Milbank’s insistence that covenant and participation are not themselves incommensurable concepts. However, I remain unconvinced that a covenantal account of participation can be assimilated into the metaphysics of Platonism/Neoplatonism.”

     John Yeazel: If I am interpreting this right than Edwards is on the fringes of Reformed theology if in the Reformed camp at all. His ideas of participation in Christ are at odds with Reformed theology.

     RS: You can interpret Horton as you please and will not get much response, but be careful about interpreting Edwards as you please based on what Horton says. You might also remember that Horton is on the Continental side of theology and by no means speaks for all of Reformed theology. Edward may be at odds with what Horton believes, but that is not the same thing as putting him at odds with the Reformed theology that came from the English Puritans and some Dutch Puritans as well.

     LikeLike

384. McMark: Instead of suggesting that you are being overcritical of those who judge to be overcritical, I would remind you that the Reformation difference comes down to being accepted into God’s holy presence by the alien righteousness of Jesus Christ, and your attempt to point to what’s in the sinner is a diversion from that Reformation gospel.

     RS: My attempt to point to what happens in the sinner is not a diversion from the Gospel of Jesus Christ and His grace. Allow me to quote from Calvin on Ephesians 3:17. “He explains the nature of the strength of the inward man. For since the Father placed in Christ the fulness of all gifts, so he who has Christ dwelling in him can want nothing…Paul well defines those who are endowed with the spiritual power of God as those in whom Christ dwells. Also, he points out that part which is the true seat of Christ, our hearts, to show that it is not enough for Him to be on our tongues or flutter in our brains.”

     “He dwells, he says, by faith. He also expresses the method by which so great a benefit is obtained. A remarkable praise of faith, that through it the Son of God is made our own, and has His dwelling with us…The substance of it is that Christ is not be be viewed from afar by faith but to be received by the embrace of our minds, so that He may dwell in us, and so it is that we are filled with the Spirit of God.”

     RS: I hope you can see that what is in a sinner is not a diversion from the Reformation Gospel, but instead Calvin teaches this. I might in reading the whole context that the above quote came from makes that point even more clear. I hope John Yeazel reads this and also sees that Calvin and Edwards were at the very least not that far apart about participating in Christ. Nevertheless, the Bible does clearly teach this.

     LikeLike

385. McMark: As for this “legal” of mine, which “makes no difference to the sinner”, well, there is this little matter of the assurance of the forgiveness of sin, joy in no condemnation before God, and no possibility of destruction at the judgment. I claim that this “difference” is considerable.

     RS: But apart from Christ in you there is no way to have assurance of sin and apart from the fruit of the Spirit who works in sinners there is no joy. Many heathens could have great joy based on what is in their own minds and what they believe to be true. Jesus told a parable about those who received the word with great joy, and we can safely make the deduction that they believed they were really saved. But if there is no new creation and no indwelling of Christ, then how can one really believe that he is saved if there are no signs of the work of God in him?

     McMark: If we are not yet made perfect by the blood of Christ, all our works are dead works and an abomination to God. We can do nothing acceptable to God without assurance that what we do is not what makes us acceptable to God.

     RS: But again, how is one to have that assurance? Assurance cannot be a belief based on my belief, but instead it is to be a real and true faith in Christ alone. How does one know that he has Christ other than his own belief of some propositional facts if one does not look to see the evidence of Christ in him? II Cor 13:5

     LikeLike

386. McMark: The second “being sanctified” is still not “progressive”. As the elect are “being justified” one by one (one is imputed with Christ’s righteousness, then another, and so on), so also they are (at the same time) “being sanctified”, set apart, placed into Christ, either are or are not…..

     RS: It sounds like you are asserting that there is no progressive growth in the believer. But the Bible does speak of growth and a maturing process in the believer.

     1 Corinthians 2:6 Yet we do speak wisdom among those who are mature; a wisdom, however, not of this age nor of the rulers of this age, who are passing away;

     1 Corinthians 14:20 Brethren, do not be children in your thinking; yet in evil be infants, but in your thinking be mature.

     Ephesians 4:13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ.15 but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, even Christ,

     Hebrews 5:14 But solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to discern good and evil.

     1 Peter 2:2 like newborn babies, long for the pure milk of the word, so that by it you may grow in respect to salvation,

     2 Peter 3:18 but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory, both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.

     LikeLike

387. Craig Blomberg on II Cor 5:17;
     Paul regularly looks forward not just to individuals becoming new creatures but to the arrival of a new creation (see esp. Rom. 8:19-23). How, then, would Paul have expected his audience to understand his meaning at the end of verse 17?—presumably by his language in the first part of the verse. The Greek does not actually supply a subject and verb before “new creation/creature,” which is unusual for Paul if he is saying simply that anyone who is in Christ is a new creation. It is more likely that he is getting his readers’ attention by a staccato-like construction that makes them realize that he is talking about more than just the expected results of conversion—personal transformation—but about the arrival, even if only in part, of a whole new creation. Thus the Holman Christian Standard Bible writes, “there is a new creation,” as does the New Revised Standard Version and the New Century Version. Clearer still is the updated NIV: “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here!”

     The KJV, the NKJV, the old American Standard Version, and the New American Standard Bible all put “he is” in italics to show that they were adding something that corresponded to nothing in the Greek.

     Aside from the singular vs plural question, the context of II Cor 5 is forensic reconciliation by Christ’s atonement, God not imputing sin. But of course RS has determined apriori that any “creation” must not be legal imputation but must be some other real thing, like, for example, regeneration.

     RS: The word “just” can also mean “not only” as opposed to a sneering diminishing of something.

     mark: would that be something like a “sola” but without any antithesis? As in by faith alone, but never in antithesis to faith which is not alone?

     LikeLike

388. II Corinthians 13:5 “Examine yourselves, to see whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Or do you not realize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?—unless indeed you fail to meet the test!”

     rs: How does one know that he has Christ other than his own belief of some propositional facts if one does not look to see the evidence of Christ in him?

     mark: I take it that RS is not denying that the gospel consists of propositional fact and meaning, information and news about Jesus Christ and His death and resurrection. So if RS is not denying that assurance is of the essence of agreement and trust in propositions, what is this other evidence inside us which RS wants to test?

     I am not denying a test or a need for examination. I myself had a false faith and assurance for a long time. I am asking what the test is. RS seems to assume that the test is some kind of “practical syllogism” in which God’s work for the elect is held hostage to future confirmations of God’s work inside the elect. If the elect have come to believe the gospel, is not that effectual call evidence enough?

     If we must work to show that we believe, how much must we work? if we must decrease our sin, how much we stop our sinning before we know that our other sins are forgiven? To quote Augustine from his exposition of Psalm 32, the beginning of wisdom is to know oneself as a sinner.

     That David fellow, he must have been self-deceived, not only about sin but about being already a justified saint!

     LikeLike

389. McMark: The second “being sanctified” in Hebrews 10:14 is still not “progressive”. As the elect are “being justified” one by one (one is imputed with Christ’s righteousness, then another, and so on), so also they are (at the same time) “being sanctified”, set apart, placed into Christ, either are or are not…..

     RS: It sounds like you are asserting that there is no progressive growth in the believer. But the Bible does speak of growth and a maturing process in the believer.

     mark: well, maybe you need to read what I wrote. It sounds to me like I am trying to figure out what Hebrews 10:14 is saying. I never denied growth. I simply denied that the word “sanctification” in most Bible contexts means “progress”. I denied that Hebrews 10:14 is talking about growth. I denied that growth is sanctification.

     I paid attention to a specific text, Hebrews 10, which talks about being perfected, holy, qualified for access by Christ’s death. I would move on to Hebrews 11 and 12, but I think it would be a waste of time. You assume growth means “sanctification”. I agree that it does in the Confessional language and in the common language of most professing Christians. But with scholars like O Brian (and David Petersen, Possessed by God) I point to the actual use of the word “sanctification” in the Bible where it doesn’t mean “growth”.

     That doesn’t mean I deny growth. Some Christians grow faster or more than others.
     Justification doesn’t mean growth. On that we all agree.
     Therefore, some protestants say, “sanctification” does mean growth. With that I disagree.

     We are either holy or not, acceptable with access to God, or not.

     And God commands us to be holy. We who are sinners are commanded not to sin.

     I always meant to ask you, RS, how are you doing on your test? Do you find enough evidence in yourself to be pretty sure that you have believed the gospel? If your sinning would happen to go on the increase tomorrow, what would that do to your faith that you have faith?

     LikeLike

390. mark mcculley: Craig Blomberg on II Cor 5:17;
     Paul regularly looks forward not just to individuals becoming new creatures but to the arrival of a new creation (see esp. Rom. 8:19-23). How, then, would Paul have expected his audience to understand his meaning at the end of verse 17?—presumably by his language in the first part of the verse. The Greek does not actually supply a subject and verb before “new creation/creature,” which is unusual for Paul if he is saying simply that anyone who is in Christ is a new creation. It is more likely that he is getting his readers’ attention by a staccato-like construction that makes them realize that he is talking about more than just the expected results of conversion—personal transformation—but about the arrival, even if only in part, of a whole new creation. Thus the Holman Christian Standard Bible writes, “there is a new creation,” as does the New Revised Standard Version and the New Century Version. Clearer still is the updated NIV: “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here!”

     The KJV, the NKJV, the old American Standard Version, and the New American Standard Bible all put “he is” in italics to show that they were adding something that corresponded to nothing in the Greek.

     Aside from the singular vs plural question, the context of II Cor 5 is forensic reconciliation by Christ’s atonement, God not imputing sin. But of course RS has determined apriori that any “creation” must not be legal imputation but must be some other real thing, like, for example, regeneration.

     RS: A priori? Of course not. The new birth means that the person is a new creature. But if you want to speak of a priori, then where do you find imputation taught being given to individuals (following your pluralistic thinking versus singular) in that passage of Scripture apart from a person being a new creature? If the new creature is by being part of a group, then wouldn’t the imputation also be part of a group? Nevertheless, regardless of how one translates the phrase (new creature), it is still singular.” If anyone is in Christ”, it is that one that is in Christ. Blomberg may be trying to prove something rather than dealing with the text at hand.

     Calvin: “If any man desires to obtain a place in Christ, that is, in His Kingdom of His Church, let him be a new creature.” “Let us therefore bear in mind this warning that all who have not been renewed by the Spirit of God should be nothing in the Church, whatever claims to distinction they may otherwise possess.” Since the kingdom of Christ is spiritual, this conversion must take place chiefly in the spirit and so Paul is right to begin with this. Paul is therefore making a most elegant and fitting illusion to this prophecy and adapting it to extol regeneration.”

     Charles Hodge: “If the revelation of Christ, the apprehension of his glory and love, had wrought such a change in him, the same illumination must produce a like change in others. He therefore says, If any may be in Christ he is a new creature. …To be in Christ is the common scriptural pharase to express the saving connection or union between him and his people. They are in him by covenant, as all men were in Adam; they are in him as members of his body, through the indwelling of his Spirit; and they are in him by faith, which lays hold of and appropriates him as the life and portion of the soul. Romans 8:1, 9; Gal 5, 6 etc. This union is transforming. It imparts a new life. It effects a new creation. This expression indicates no only the greatness and radical nature of the change effected, but also its divine origin. It is a divine work, i.e. one due to the mighty power of God. It is therefore called a creation, the commencement of a new state of being, Eph 1:19.In Gal 6:15; Rom 8,9, and elsewhere, the same effects are ascribed to union with Christ. If we are united to him so as to be intersted in the merits of his death, we must also be partakers of his life. This is the foundation on which the apostle builds his whole doctrine of sanctification as developed in the sixth and seventh chapter of his epistel to the Romans.”

     LikeLike

391. mark: I take it that RS is not denying that the gospel consists of propositional fact and meaning, information and news about Jesus Christ and His death and resurrection. So if RS is not denying that assurance is of the essence of agreement and trust in propositions, what is this other evidence inside us which RS wants to test?

     RS: The whole book of I John is written for that purpose. 1 John 5:13 “These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life.”

     1 John 2:3 By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments .4 The one who says, “I have come to know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him; 5 but whoever keeps His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected. By this we know that we are in Him:

     1 John 3:14 We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brethren. He who does not love abides in death.

     1 John 3:24 The one who keeps His commandments abides in Him, and He in him. We know by this that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He has given us.

     1 John 4:2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God;

     1 John 4:8 The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love.

     1 John 4:13 By this we know that we abide in Him and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit.

     1 John 4:16 We have come to know and have believed the love which God has for us. God is love, and the one who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him.

     1 John 5:18 We know that no one who is born of God sins; but He who was born of God keeps him, and the evil one does not touch him.

     1 John 5:20 And we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us understanding so that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.

     McMark: I am not denying a test or a need for examination. I myself had a false faith and assurance for a long time. I am asking what the test is. RS seems to assume that the test is some kind of “practical syllogism” in which God’s work for the elect is held hostage to future confirmations of God’s work inside the elect. If the elect have come to believe the gospel, is not that effectual call evidence enough?

     RS: Just read I John over and over.

     McMark: If we must work to show that we believe, how much must we work? if we must decrease our sin, how much we stop our sinning before we know that our other sins are forgiven? To quote Augustine from his exposition of Psalm 32, the beginning of wisdom is to know oneself as a sinner.

     RS: Read I John over and over.

     McMark: That David fellow, he must have been self-deceived, not only about sin but about being already a justified saint!

     RS: No claim to perfection here, but still less sin and more love than before. Read I John over and over.

     LikeLike

392. McMark: I always meant to ask you, RS, how are you doing on your test? Do you find enough evidence in yourself to be pretty sure that you have believed the gospel?

     RS: I do find enough evidence that Christ lives in me. After all, what does it mean to believe if faith does not receive Christ Himself? If you think that faith is something other than receiving Christ or receiving grace, then you end up believing in your belief or having faith in your faith. Romans 4:16 is quite clear that the reason it is by faith is in order that it may be by grace. The doctrine of justification by faith alone is meant to safeguard the teaching that justification is by grace alone. When the focus becomes our faith, the focus is wrong. The focus must always be on Christ and His grace or faith is no longer faith and is a work.

     McMark: If your sinning would happen to go on the increase tomorrow, what would that do to your faith that you have faith?

     RS: Those who have Christ persevere to the end because Christ is a persevering Savior. However, one can lose assurance which is a gift by grace and sustained at the mere pleasure of God. We cannot earn or obtain assurance by our works.

     LikeLike

393. Terry, thanks for this. I’m not sure everyone would agree with Bavinck on grace and nature. But be that as it may, I’m not sure how any of us go “back” to anything after the fall or after the resurrection. Nature even with grace only goes so far. Lazarus, after his resurrection, still died. The water that the Samaritan woman gave Jesus was not the same as his living water. There has to be a way to say that grace goes beyond nature.

     LikeLike

394. Who wound Richard up?

     LikeLike

395. II Cor 5: 4 For while we are still in this tent, we groan, being burdened—not that we would be unclothed, but that we would be further clothed, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life.

     mark: The hope is not for a non-material infusion in us, but to be immortal persons with new resurrected bodies

     v10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil

     mark: RS claims that I apriori read forensic categories, but the context of I Cor 5 is the judgment of God. This is why we need to be ambassadors of reconciliation. Because every person not justified before death will have to appear before the judgment, to receive forensic consequences, our vocation and duty as Christians is to tell people how God does not impute sins to some sinners because God has imputed those sins to Christ. This is what the chapter is about, not about some Christians being better or more grown up than other Christians. It’s about persuading others to fear God enough to know that the only satisfaction God accepts is Christ’s death.

     11 Therefore, knowing the fear of the Lord, we persuade others. But what we are is known to God, and I hope it is known also to your conscience. 12 We are not commending ourselves to you again but giving you cause to boast about us, so that you may be able to answer those who boast about outward appearance and not about what is in the heart. 13 For if we are beside ourselves, it is for God; if we are in our right mind, it is for you. 14 For the love of Christ controls us, because we have concluded this: that one has died for all, therefore all have died; 15 and he died for all, that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised.

     mark: Again, I do not deny Christ’s indwelling by His Holy Spirit, but that is not what this chapter is about. Even though verse 14 does not use the word “imputation”, how is it that it can be said that the all have died for whom Christ died? Because of legal identification with Christ’s death. Christ was substitute for the elect, and in time the elect are legally counted into Christ’s death.

     16 From now on, therefore, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh, we regard him thus no longer. 17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, new creation.

     mark: I am not denying that individuals are elected or justified or regenerated. I am denying that the “whole new creation” is an individual. For anyone imputed with Christ’s righteousness, there is new creation. This is a relatively common observation, and could be made even by those who would claim regeneration has the priority. Nor do I deny that regeneration is the immediate effect of God’s imputation. Indeed, I insist on it, since God’s legal declarations are effective, performative.

     My main point is that the ambassadors, already justified before God, have been legally identified with Christ’s death. Christ’s presence in us, which is not the topic of this chapter, is a result of being legally united with Christ’s historical forensic work. Reconciliation by imputed righteousness is what it means to be “in Christ”. The last verse of chapter five ends with “become the righteousness” and that is parallel to Christ’s being “made sin”. Christ was not made sin by infusion or corruption, but only by imputation. Christ legally bore both the guilt and the punishment of His people. So the context is all about forensic realities, about being linked to redemptive history.

     “The old has passed away; behold, the new has come. 18 All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; 19 that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. 20 Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. 21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that IN HIM we would become the righteousness of God.”

     LikeLike

396. II Corinthians 5:10—“For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each of us will receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or bad.”

     Since the judgment for all whom God loves (the elect) has already happened at the cross, there will no future side-judgment for Christians where extra goodies and rewards are passed out.

     Why then is this text, II Corinthians 5, which is talking to Christians, bringing up the judgment? Christians are being told in this text that they are “ambassadors”. Some of those who are still “in their sins” are the elect, who even though God loves them, are right now ignorant of the gospel. Their ignorance and their legal fears are evidence that these elect have not yet been justified by God.

     And since the ambassadors to whom Paul is talking don’t know which of the lost are elect or not, they are to present the good news to all sinners, and to command all sinners to “ be reconciled”. The ambassadors don’t say: some of you have already received the reconciliation but just don’t know it.

     The reconciliation is received passively (by imputation) and that has not yet happened for those who are still living in legalism. Paul brings up “the fear of God” (verse:11) because the ambassadors need to remember that there are lost people around them who have not yet been justified who need to be commanded to be reconciled.

     We do NOT say—well if Christ died for them, then they are already reconciled and justified. They are NOT. Nor do we say: well, anyway, it’s sure to happen. God works in history. God imputes in time Christ’s death in time. And God uses the gospel as that which is heard by the elect as they are justified. So we “make it our aim to please Him.” (verse 9)

     LikeLike

397. Zrim,

     I just re-read Noe’s article and it made me think of a question: He says there is no such thing as Christian-anything, except Sunday worship. But you have also said that in doing theology it makes no difference if the subject is Christian or not (Noe makes the same point that a good philosopher could come to better conclusions about the incarnation than a dumb Christian). So what would be the difference in what believers and unbelievers do on Sunday? Wouldn’t they be objectively equal according to your reasoning? What changes on Sunday?

     LikeLike

398. I claim “perfection” by Christ’s blood, but RS tells me if I read I John long enough I will see that the proper evidence is “less sin and more love”. His hope is that he is less sinful and more loving than other humans. Mine is not. Nor does I John teach any such thing.

     I John 4: 7 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. 8 Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love. 9 In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we would live through him. 10 In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

     mark: My hope is not my more love and less sin, but Christ’s love. And this love is named in I John as His propitiation for our sins. To the extent we sin less, we have less need of propitiation. To paraphrase Romans 6, that does not mean that we need to sin more to get more propitiation. Rather, there is only one propitiation for the elect alone, and either sinners are identified with Christ’s death or they are not. Those now identified with Christ’s death are now saints, and they are not more or less holy depending on them sinning more or less.

     I John 4 goes on to explain why sin does not have dominion over the saints. The reason is not they sin less now than they used to. Rather, the reason sin does not control us that we no longer fear God’s punishment for our sins. We tell those outside of Christ to fear God’s punishment for the same sins we commit.

     I John 4: 17 By this is love perfected with us, so that we may have confidence for the day of judgment, because as he is so also are we in this world. 18 There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not been perfected in love.

     I John 4:17 is not talking about our love becoming more perfected, but about God’s love for us (the propitiation) giving us confidence for the day of judgment. BECAUSE AS HE IS SO ALSO ARE WE IN THE WORLD

     Legal justification is the ONLY (sola, with antithesis) way the elect can be as Christ is in the world. God’s love for the elect results in legal union with Christ and His propitiatory death.

     I John 3 is about the difference between a Nicodemus and a prodigal publican, about the difference between a sincere and religious Cain and a sincere and religious Abel. Think of the context. This is not about Abel having better insides than another person! The religion of Cain is nothing but evil deeds.

     The reason Cain hated Abel was that Cain wanted to glory in/ rejoice in (Phil 3:3) the deeds done in himself. Cain refused to put to death (not count) those deeds (Rom 8:13) but instead wanted to worship a god who would accept Cain’s credit for producing “less sin and more love” in Cain’s life.

     To pass over from death to life is to be put into the new creation and be given a new legal state in which one’s confidence is not in what God does in you but rather in what God has done in Christ outside you. Only in this way can we be in the world as Christ was in the world.

     The Cains of this world are ready for a self-examination and contrast with other sinners in terms of their sin and love. They are Pharisees who contrast well with alcoholics and other such sinners. But these Cains “do not practice righteousness” (I John 3;10). These Cains will not come to the light of the gospel, because they love their present darkness in which they flatter themselves about their love and their sin. The light of the true gospel (God forgives sinners by Christ’s death) keeps telling these Cains that their deeds are evil. They are self-deceived, both about their love and their sin. All their deeds, even moral and religious deeds, are nothing but more sins.

     John 3:19–.”And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil.”

     LikeLike

399. Terry, here is DVD (LG2K):

     Because Jesus has fulfilled the first Adam’s commission, those who belong to Christ by faith are no longer given that commission. Christians already possess eternal life and claim an everlasting inheritance. God does not call them to engage in cultural labors so as to earn their place in the world to come. We are not little Adams. Instead, God gives us a share in the world to come as a gift of free grace in Christ and then calls us to live obediently in this world as a grateful response. Our cultural activities do not in any sense usher in the new creation. The new creation has been earned and attained once and for all by Christ, the last Adam. Cultural activity remains important for Christians, but it will come to an abrupt end, along with this present world as a whole, when Christ returns and cataclysmically ushers in the new heaven and new earth.

     In a word, redemption is not so much creation re-gained, but re-creation gained, which seems different from “God will restore creation to the consummated state that he had always had in mind for it.” You say that the point isn’t “back to the garden,” but that’s what “what he always had in mind” seems to imply. In other words, redemption is something that both lies ahead and, more to the point, is something that actually super-abounds what God originally had in mind.

     This is where neo-Calvinism and 2k diverge: in terms of cultural activity, 2k understands that Adam’s fall had the effect of making our cultural activity useless in terms of holy and eternal purposes. Neo-Calvinism doesn’t seem so sure that the fall had such drastic consequences and that somehow Christ’s work has restored our pre-fall situation in such a way as to extend the kingdom of God.

     LikeLike

400. D. G. Hart: Who wound Richard up?

     RS: Mark did. It is all his fault, but he was aided by John Yeazel.

     LikeLike

401. Carl Hoch Jr: “The background of the “new creation language is Isaiah 43:16-21, Isaiah 65:17, and Isaiah 66:22…Should “he is” be supplied in II Cor 5:17a? No–if any person is in Christ, new creation. To insert “he is” in 5:17 wrongly narrows the scope of the new creation to an individual.” , p161, The Significance of Newness for Biblical Theology: All Things New, Baker, 1995

     LikeLike

402. Jon, on the Lord’s Day believers meet with God and are lifted into heaven. Unbelievers stay in this world. And since wheat and chaff grow up together, one can’t tell objectively who’s being lifted and who’s staying grounded except for God and those being lifted.

     LikeLike

403. AW Pink: The glorious Gospel of God reveals to us a perfect Savour. It exhibits One who has not only made complete satisfaction to the righteous Ruler and Judge, providing for His people a perfect righteousness before Him, but whose sacrifice has also fitted us to worship and serve a holy God acceptably, and to approach the Father with full confidence and love.

     If the conscience be still defiled, if the eye of God rests upon us as unclean, then confidence before Him is impossible, for we feel utterly unfit for His ineffable presence. “Now where remission of sins is, no more offering for sin. Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the Holiest by the blood of Jesus” (Heb. 10:18, 19).

     The same sacrifice which has procured the remission of our sins, provides the right for us to draw nigh unto God in acceptable worship. “By His own blood He entered in once into the Holy Place, having obtained eternal redemption for us” (Heb. 9:13).

     The Christian is regarded not only as guiltless, but also as spotless and holy. We who believe the gospel are assured of the same welcome by God now as His beloved Son received when He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high. God views us in Christ His “Holy One”.

     LikeLike

404. Darryl, wrt going back to something, I agree. That’s why I put “back” in quotes. The main point is that Al Wolters acknowledges that the coming kingdom is not just a continuity of the present Creation order but includes the eschatological reward that was to be Adam’s had he obeyed the covenant of works and now gained for us by Christ. No doubt, this won’t change your mind on the neo-Calvinist project, but I hope it clarifies that neo-Calvinists don’t necessarily deny that the future kingdom includes the eschatological reward.

     LikeLike

405. Zrim, that DVD quote is one of the most disturbing in the whole book. Neo-Calvinists agree that our cultural activities are grateful response. We aren’t re-doing what Adam didn’t do, Christ did that. But as Christ followers we obediently live in Creation and work for his will to be done on earth as it is in heaven. The critical question as we have noted before and will apparently have to disagree about is whether there will be be continuity. Neo-Cals say “yes”. (“The Lord does not forsake the work of his hands” Creation Regained, p. 40.) 2K’s say “no”. What God had in mind is “back to the garden” plus eschatological reward. Don’t forget the “plus eschatological reward”. You’re putting words in my mouth if you stop with “back to the garden” because that’s not what I’m saying.

     We don’t minimize the effects of the Fall on Creation, but we do acknowledge that Christ’s work reversed/will reverse those effects. Eschaton was inaugurated with Christ’s coming, his death, his resurrection, his giving of the spirit. The mustard tree continues to grow, the leaven continues to spread and will do so until the Lord returns. We won’t “usher in the new creation”–only the Lord does that. But what we do in obedience to him is not “useless in terms of holy and eternal purposes”.

     LikeLike

406. Mark, John, Richard, I wonder if you all are familiar with John Murray’s notion of “definitive sanctification”. This seems to me to be what Mark and John are talking about. Although the Westminster Confession doesn’t use Murray’s language, I think it makes the same point in the chapter on effectual calling. At the point in time of effectual calling, believers have their minds enlightened, they receive a heart of flesh, and their wills are renewed. They are definitively taken out of the kingdom of darkness and brought into the kingdom of light. It’s not imputation (i.e. in Christ and outside of us), rather it happens in them.

     This is distinct from “progressive sanctification” which is the subject of Chapter XIII. After receiving a new heart in effectual calling they “are further sanctified, really and personally, through the virtue of Christ’s death and resurrection, by his Word and Spirit dwelling in them”. The “really” language is the language of the Westminster Confession and I think is in contrast with the “imputation” of justification (not at all suggesting that imputed righteousness isn’t real–but whereas our imputed righteousness is “in another”, our “real and personal” righteousness is “in ourselves”). Mark and John may not like the language of the Confession and they may think that the New Testament doesn’t use the word “sanctification” in the sense of “progressive sanctification” but that’s the historical teaching of the Reformed confessions. We see the same thing in Article 24 of the Belgic Confession.

     The dispute with Rome is not whether or not there is “progressive sanctification” or a work of the Holy Spirit in us, but rather is that work in us part of our justification? Rome says yes. We say no. Only Christ’s righteousness “outside of us”, an alien righteousness, makes us right with God.

     LikeLike

407. Terry, grace completes nature suggests the continuity for which you argue. You say this includes “plus eschatological reward.” But lacking in the formulation — as Zrim suggests — is the fall and sin. So what could “plus eschatological reward” ever mean after the introduction of sin? We are not going back to the garden. We are going forward to what Adam would have inherited. And somehow Christ just wipes away all of the complications? Or are we helping to wipe away the disparity between a creation fallen and the “plus eschatological reward”?

     I’m with Zrim. The neo-Cals haven’t considered carefully the consequences of the fall and how it disrupted “plus eschatological reward” making necessary the incarnation, cross, resurrection, ascension, and second coming. That’s a lot of humiliation for the second person of the Trinity just so we can domineer the earth and turn it into paradise, so something just short of it, so that Christ’ return will get us past the finish line.

     LikeLike

408. John Murray–“While regeneration is an all-important factor in definitive sanctification, it would not be proper to subsume the latter under the topic ‘regeneration’. The reason is that what is most characteristic in definitive sanctification, namely, death to sin by union with Christ in his death and newness of life by union with him in his resurrection, cannot properly be referred to regeneration by the Spirit. There is multiformity to that which occurs at the inception of the Christian life, and each facet must be accorded its own particularity.”

     mark: I would explain this as a reference to imputation and legal identification with Christ’s death to sin and to the law’s punishment. It is not the Holy Spirit who makes the imputation.

     Murray: “Calling, for example, as the action of the Father, must not be defined in terms of what is specifically the action of the Holy Spirit, namely, regeneration. Definitive sanctification, likewise, must be allowed its own individuality.”

     mark: I would agree with Mike Horton (and many earlier Reformed theologians) that regeneration and calling are two sides, two aspects of one event. Where there is regeneration, there is effectual call. No time-lag between, and no regeneration apart from the gospel, the Word.

     Murray: We impoverish our conception of definitive grace when we fail to appreciate the distinctiveness of each aspect, or indulge in over-simplification.

     Collected Writings of John Murray, Vol. 2, p. 285

     LikeLike

409. John Fesko recently published a stand-alone essay on “definitive sanctification” and John Murray’s use of that concept to subvert the law-gospel antithesis in the order of salvation. In short, there are those who say that once one is “united” to Christ, and they feel exonerated by God’s law. Or to say it differently the way they would, there is no more law and gospel but only “covenant”, and those in “covenant” may not end up with life but if they sin less and love more they should feel safe, and no longer threatened by any law-gospel antithesis.

     On second thought, I should let Fesko speak for himself. He’s a very good scholar with his very own Calvin and Hodge quotations. See his new book After Calvin.

     Click to access inhaltundleseprobe_978-3-525-57022-7.pdf

     LikeLike

410. https://oldlife.org/2011/03/desiring-god-enough/

     I am wondering if the volume on Edwards is now published. Or if Hart’s chapter has been completed.

     It seems that most Reformed folks today are more concerned about antinomianism than they are about assurance of justification based on legal union with Christ’s death. Those highly influenced by a Edwards type theology put the spotlight on their own future “experimental sanctification”. The federal visionists attempt to put this more objectively, by putting the emphasis on “covenantal obedience and curses”. But our only hope is to rely on the promise of the gospel to those who do not love enough and who sin too much.

     LikeLike

411. Perhaps the following quotation from Calvin would teach us not to find the proof of our election in our own lives.

     Instittues. 3:2.29 –
     Free promise we make the foundation of faith, because in it faith properly consists. For though it holds that God is always true, whether in ordering or forbidding, promising or threatening; though it obediently receive his commands, observe his prohibitions, and give heed to his threatening; yet it properly begins with promise, continues with it, and ends with it. It seeks life in God, life which is not found in commands or the denunciations of punishment, but in the promise of mercy.

     And this promise must be gratuitous; for a conditional promise, which throws us back upon our works, promises life only in so far as we find it existing in ourselves. Therefore, if we would not have faith to waver and tremble, we must support it with the promise of salvation, which is offered by the Lord spontaneously and freely, from a regard to our misery rather than our worth. Hence the Apostle bears this testimony to the Gospel, that it is the word of faith, (Rom. 10: 8.) This he concedes not either to the precepts or the promises of the Law, since there is nothing which can establish our faith, but that free embassy by which God reconciles the world to himself.

     LikeLike

412. Dan Fuller in The Unity of the Bible (1992). p181: “In commenting on Genesis 2:17 -do not eat from that tree–Calvin said, `These words are so far from establishing faith that they do nothing but shake it.’

     Dan Fuller: I argue, however, that there is much reason for regarding these words as well suited to strengthen Adam and Eve’s faith…In Calvin’s thinking, the promise made in Genesis 2:17 could never encourage faith, for its conditionality could encourage only meritorious works. `FAITH SEEKS LIFE THAT IS NOT FOUND IN COMMANDMENTS’ Consequently, the gospel by which we are saved is an unconditional covenant of grace, made such by Christ having merited it for us by his perfect fulfillment of the covenant of works.

     Dan Fuller responds to Calvin: “I have yet to find anywhere in Scripture a gospel promise that is unconditional.” Fuller (p313): “Paul would have disagreed strongly with Calvin, who saw obedience and works as only accompanying genuine faith…The concern in James 2:14-26 was to urge a faith that saves a person, not simply to tell a person how they could demonstrate their saving faith…Calvin should have taught that justification depends on a persevering faith, since he regarded Abraham as already justified before Genesis 15:6.”

     And then Daniel Fuller quotes Jonathan Edwards: “We are really saved by perseverance…The perseverance which belongs to faith is a fundamental ground of the congruity that faith gives to salvation…”

     LikeLike

413. McMark: The Cains of this world are ready for a self-examination and contrast with other sinners in terms of their sin and love. They are Pharisees who contrast well with alcoholics and other such sinners. But these Cains “do not practice righteousness” (I John 3;10). These Cains will not come to the light of the gospel, because they love their present darkness in which they flatter themselves about their love and their sin. The light of the true gospel (God forgives sinners by Christ’s death) keeps telling these Cains that their deeds are evil. They are self-deceived, both about their love and their sin. All their deeds, even moral and religious deeds, are nothing but more sins.

     RS: Mark, you are taking all those verse out of context and denying the reality of what is being said. It is not that those who believe that they are new creations in Christ and that Christ dwells in them are new Cains as such, but instead that is the only way that God’s glory shines through man and strips man of his self-righteousness. It is more than the fact that man has a new legal standing, but man is a new creature. Read I John again. See below for one instance.

     I John 3:10 By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother.

     RS: The text does not say that the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious because of a new legal standing, but because of where they practice righteousness or not or loves his brother or not. That is what is says and that is what it means. Of course things like that can be faked and people can be deceived, but still the text says what it says.

     11 For this is the message which you have heard from the beginning, that we should love one another; 12 not as Cain, who was of the evil one and slew his brother. And for what reason did he slay him? Because his deeds were evil, and his brother’s were righteous.
     13 Do not be surprised, brethren, if the world hates you.
     14 We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brethren. He who does not love abides in death.

     RS: How does a person know that he has passed out of death into life? Because that person loves the brethren. Again, it is not because the person has a new legal standing, but because the person loves the brethren. The one that does not love abides in death. It is seen that one abides in death because one does not love, not because one does not have a new legal standing. I John 4:7-16 shows us why this is true. The one that loves is born of God and knows God and has the love of God abiding in him.

     15 Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer; and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.

     RS: So those who hate true Christians are murderers and no murderer has eternal life abiding in him. Where does eternal life (eternal life is Christ Himself, I John 5:20) abide? In the person. So one that has eternal life loves the brethren, but those who hate are considered murderers. The Cains of this world don’t love their righteous brothers. It is more than a legal standing alone, but the distinction has to do with eternal life dwelling in a person. Just like Jesus said in John 13:35: “By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love one another.”

     16 We know love by this, that He laid down His life for us; and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren. 17 But whoever has the world’s goods, and sees his brother in need and closes his heart against him, how does the love of God abide in him?

     RS: Again, where does the love of God abide? It abides in people. A person that sees a brother in need and does nothing, the love of God does not dwell in that person. The implication, however, is that for those who have the love of God abiding in them they will not close their hearts against the brother.

     18 Little children, let us not love with word or with tongue, but in deed and truth.

     RS: How are we to love if the love of God abides in us? In deed and truth. But again, if the love of God dwells in a person, that will be seen by deeds and truth.

     19 We will know by this that we are of the truth, and will assure our heart before Him
     20 in whatever our heart condemns us; for God is greater than our heart and knows all things.
     21 Beloved, if our heart does not condemn us, we have confidence before God;
     22 and whatever we ask we receive from Him, because we keep His commandments and do the things that are pleasing in His sight.
     23 This is His commandment, that we believe in the name of His Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, just as He commanded us.
     24 The one who keeps His commandments abides in Him, and He in him. We know by this that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He has given us.

     RS: How do you know that God abides in us? By the Spirit whom He has given us. How is it seen that this is true? Those that He abides in believe in Christ and love one another just as He commanded them, So the one who really keeps His commandments abide in Him and He in them. Indeed they have a new legal standing, but that is the point of this passage. Remember that the book was written so that people could know if they had eternal life or not (I John 5:13). The text above shows us one way to know that. If eternal life truly abides in a person, that person loves the brethren and does not hate the. The text is clear and hermeneutical gymnastics will not muddy it up.

     LikeLike

414. mark mcculley: Carl Hoch Jr: “The background of the “new creation language is Isaiah 43:16-21, Isaiah 65:17, and Isaiah 66:22…Should “he is” be supplied in II Cor 5:17a? No–if any person is in Christ, new creation. To insert “he is” in 5:17 wrongly narrows the scope of the new creation to an individual.” , p161, The Significance of Newness for Biblical Theology: All Things New, Baker, 1995

     RS: I would just like to refer you back to the quotes I gave from Calvin and Hodge who differ from Hoch on this.

     II Cor 5:16 Therefore from now on we recognize no one according to the flesh; even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him in this way no longer.

     RS: Is verse 16 talking about recongnizing or not recognizing single people according to the flesh or a group? Does it speak of having known Christ as a single person according to the flesh or Him as plural? So far the immediate context is talking about single (versus plural) people.

     17 Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come.

     RS: The anyone is singular. This shows that the one being a new creatures is also singular. To insist that to insert “he is” in the text wrongly narrows the scope is to insist that basic grammar means anything. One, it is singular. Two, it is in the middle of a phrase. If any one (singular) is in Christ, then they are all new creatures? That makes no grammatical sense or theological sense.

     Galatians 6:15 For neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation.

     LikeLike

415. McMark: The same sacrifice which has procured the remission of our sins, provides the right for us to draw nigh unto God in acceptable worship. “By His own blood He entered in once into the Holy Place, having obtained eternal redemption for us” (Heb. 9:13).

     The Christian is regarded not only as guiltless, but also as spotless and holy. We who believe the gospel are assured of the same welcome by God now as His beloved Son received when He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high. God views us in Christ His “Holy One”.

     RS: Of course the only sacrifice is that of Christ, but the believer is to strive for holy obedience by the power of God in him or her.

     Hebrews 6:1 Therefore leaving the elementary teaching about the Christ, let us press on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God,
     2 of instruction about washings and laying on of hands, and the resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment.
     3 And this we will do, if God permits.
     4 For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit,
     5 and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come,
     6 and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame.
     7 For ground that drinks the rain which often falls on it and brings forth vegetation useful to those for whose sake it is also tilled, receives a blessing from God;
     8 but if it yields thorns and thistles, it is worthless and close to being cursed, and it ends up being burned.
     9 But, beloved, we are convinced of better things concerning you, and things that accompany salvation, though we are speaking in this way.
     10 For God is not unjust so as to forget your work and the love which you have shown toward His name, in having ministered and in still ministering to the saints.
     11 And we desire that each one of you show the same diligence so as to realize the full assurance of hope until the end,
     12 so that you will not be sluggish, but imitators of those who through faith and patience inherit the promises.

     LikeLike

416. Terry, correct on continuity. For 2k, what makes it into the eschaton is the imago Dei and what God is doing to sanctify right now within his justified church alone—agreed that God doesn’t forsake the works of his own hands. For neo-Calvinism it’s that plus what they do with their own hands. Maybe another sola is in order in light of neo-Calvinism.

     Which leads to the point that what 2k suspects of neo-Calvinism, when it says things like “what we do in obedience to him is not useless in terms of holy and eternal purposes,” it is an example of drawing a straight line from Adam to ourselves which nothing more than a function of moralism. It circumvents Christ and seems to be a culturalist variant of law-gospel confusion. And if the previous excerpt is one of the most disturbing, this will likely qualify as the topper:

     Those who hold a traditional Protestant view of justification consistently should not find a redemptive transformationist position attractive. As some of the Reformers grasped, a two-kingdoms doctrine is a proper companion to a Protestant doctrine of justification.

     LikeLike

417. mark mcculley: I am wondering if the volume on Edwards is now published. Or if Hart’s chapter has been completed.

     It seems that most Reformed folks today are more concerned about antinomianism than they are about assurance of justification based on legal union with Christ’s death. Those highly influenced by a Edwards type theology put the spotlight on their own future “experimental sanctification”. The federal visionists attempt to put this more objectively, by putting the emphasis on “covenantal obedience and curses”. But our only hope is to rely on the promise of the gospel to those who do not love enough and who sin too much.

     RS: Remember, Jesus came to save His people from sin. That includes the power of sin in this life as well. That includes the power of self-love so that they could not live in love for God. Part of the atonement was so that He could rescue them from sin and make them zealous for good deeds. If you are going to love the atonement of Christ, then love all that He did and purchased for His people to the glory of God.

     LikeLike

418. mark mcculley: Perhaps the following quotation from Calvin would teach us not to find the proof of our election in our own lives.

     Instittues. 3:2.29 –
     Free promise we make the foundation of faith, because in it faith properly consists. For though it holds that God is always true, whether in ordering or forbidding, promising or threatening; though it obediently receive his commands, observe his prohibitions, and give heed to his threatening; yet it properly begins with promise, continues with it, and ends with it. It seeks life in God, life which is not found in commands or the denunciations of punishment, but in the promise of mercy.

     And this promise must be gratuitous; for a conditional promise, which throws us back upon our works, promises life only in so far as we find it existing in ourselves. Therefore, if we would not have faith to waver and tremble, we must support it with the promise of salvation, which is offered by the Lord spontaneously and freely, from a regard to our misery rather than our worth. Hence the Apostle bears this testimony to the Gospel, that it is the word of faith, (Rom. 10: 8.) This he concedes not either to the precepts or the promises of the Law, since there is nothing which can establish our faith, but that free embassy by which God reconciles the world to himself.

     RS: I don’t think that Calvin would argue with Peter. Works do not save a person, but without them there is no faith. Seems like James talked about that one as Paul did as well. As Peters says in verse 7, the “proof of your faith.” Salvation is not conditional on our works, but if one is saved from the bondage of the devil and of sin, then one is free to obey. That obedience of love to Christ in obedience to His command is a sign of a new heart as I John declares.

     I Peter 1: 6 In this you greatly rejoice, even though now for a little while, if necessary, you have been distressed by various trials,
     7 so that the proof of your faith, being more precious than gold which is perishable, even though tested by fire, may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ;
     8 and though you have not seen Him, you love Him, and though you do not see Him now, but believe in Him, you greatly rejoice with joy inexpressible and full of glory,
     9 obtaining as the outcome of your faith the salvation of your souls.

     LikeLike

419. McMark, the OUP book on Edwards is supposed to be in the mail.

     LikeLike

420. mark mcculley: Dan Fuller in The Unity of the Bible (1992). p181: “In commenting on Genesis 2:17 -do not eat from that tree–Calvin said, `These words are so far from establishing faith that they do nothing but shake it.’

     Dan Fuller: I argue, however, that there is much reason for regarding these words as well suited to strengthen Adam and Eve’s faith…In Calvin’s thinking, the promise made in Genesis 2:17 could never encourage faith, for its conditionality could encourage only meritorious works. `FAITH SEEKS LIFE THAT IS NOT FOUND IN COMMANDMENTS’ Consequently, the gospel by which we are saved is an unconditional covenant of grace, made such by Christ having merited it for us by his perfect fulfillment of the covenant of works.

     Dan Fuller responds to Calvin: “I have yet to find anywhere in Scripture a gospel promise that is unconditional.” Fuller (p313): “Paul would have disagreed strongly with Calvin, who saw obedience and works as only accompanying genuine faith…The concern in James 2:14-26 was to urge a faith that saves a person, not simply to tell a person how they could demonstrate their saving faith…Calvin should have taught that justification depends on a persevering faith, since he regarded Abraham as already justified before Genesis 15:6.”

     And then Daniel Fuller quotes Jonathan Edwards: “We are really saved by perseverance…The perseverance which belongs to faith is a fundamental ground of the congruity that faith gives to salvation…”

     RS: But I see no context is brought into play here. I can take the words of any person and make that person say anything I want if I take them out of context. And as such we have Daniel Fuller quoting Edwards but no context. Then there is no context of Edwards. But as it happens I have read Edwards saying something like that and know that he is not saying what it appears that he is saying. However, despite our dogmatics we need to take I Peter 1:9 into account: “obtaining as the outcome of your faith the salvation of your souls.” It is interesting to note that the verse just before 1:9 (verse 8 to be sure) is the verse Edwards started his great work (which D.G. Hart says leaves him cold and does not like) on The Relgious Affections. Could it be that the eternal mind of God who views all things in one eternal view could have in mind our perseverance which is itself what He works in us? That is the context of what Edwards is dealing with. I might add that Daniel Fuller is not really a safe guide to Edwards as he may not be the safest guide to justification either.

     I Peter 1: 6 In this you greatly rejoice, even though now for a little while, if necessary, you have been distressed by various trials,
     7 so that the proof of your faith, being more precious than gold which is perishable, even though tested by fire, may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ;
     8 and though you have not seen Him, you love Him, and though you do not see Him now, but believe in Him, you greatly rejoice with joy inexpressible and full of glory,
     9 obtaining as the outcome of your faith the salvation of your souls.

     LikeLike

421. McMark, well done those quotes from Calvin, especially for a recovering anabaptist.

     LikeLike

422. Terry M. Gray: Mark, John, Richard, I wonder if you all are familiar with John Murray’s notion of “definitive sanctification”. This seems to me to be what Mark and John are talking about. Although the Westminster Confession doesn’t use Murray’s language, I think it makes the same point in the chapter on effectual calling. At the point in time of effectual calling, believers have their minds enlightened, they receive a heart of flesh, and their wills are renewed. They are definitively taken out of the kingdom of darkness and brought into the kingdom of light. It’s not imputation (i.e. in Christ and outside of us), rather it happens in them.

     This is distinct from “progressive sanctification” which is the subject of Chapter XIII. After receiving a new heart in effectual calling they “are further sanctified, really and personally, through the virtue of Christ’s death and resurrection, by his Word and Spirit dwelling in them”. The “really” language is the language of the Westminster Confession and I think is in contrast with the “imputation” of justification (not at all suggesting that imputed righteousness isn’t real–but whereas our imputed righteousness is “in another”, our “real and personal” righteousness is “in ourselves”). Mark and John may not like the language of the Confession and they may think that the New Testament doesn’t use the word “sanctification” in the sense of “progressive sanctification” but that’s the historical teaching of the Reformed confessions. We see the same thing in Article 24 of the Belgic Confession.

     The dispute with Rome is not whether or not there is “progressive sanctification” or a work of the Holy Spirit in us, but rather is that work in us part of our justification? Rome says yes. We say no. Only Christ’s righteousness “outside of us”, an alien righteousness, makes us right with God.

     RS: Thanks for your comments. I had neglected the Belgic Confession which is so good.

     LikeLike

423. Looks quite good. Crisp is an excellent scholar. Even though I do disagree with him some on the imputation of guilt, he has a good understanding of the issues and writes with fairness about both sides of arguments. Historians should be able to do that better than the rest of us.

     After Jonathan Edwards
     The Courses of the New England Theology
     Edited by Oliver D. Crisp and Douglas A. Sweeney

     Jul 2012, In Stock

     Introduction – Oliver D. Crisp and Douglas A. Sweeney
     Part One: New Light in the New World
     Chapter One: Jonathan Edwards, The New Divinity, and Cosmopolitan Calvinism – Mark Valeri
     Chapter Two: Jonathan Edwards on Education and his Educational Legacy – Kenneth P. Minkema
     Chapter Three: After Edwards: Original Sin and Freedom of the Will – Allen Guelzo
     Chapter Four: We Can If We Will: Regeneration and Benevolence – James P. Byrd
     Chapter Five: The Moral Government of God: Jonathan Edwards and Joseph Bellamy on the Atonement – Oliver Crisp
     Chapter Six: A Different Kind of Calvinism?: Edwardseanism Compared with Older Forms of Reformed Thought – Paul Helm

     Part Two: Carrying the Torch
     Chapter Seven: Samuel Hopkins and Hopkinsianism – Peter Jauhiainen
     Chapter Eight: Nathanael Emmons and the Decline of Edwardsean Theology – Gerald R. McDermott
     Chapter Nine: Edwards in the Second Great Awakening: The New Divinity Contributions of Edwards and Asahel Nettleton – David W. Kling
     Chapter Ten: Taylorites and Tylerites – Douglas A. Sweeney
     Chapter Eleven: Edwards Amasa Park: The Last Edwardsean – Charles Phillips

     Part Three: Edwardsean Light Refracted
     Chapter Twelve: The New England Theology in New England Congregationalism – Charles Hambrick-Stowe
     Chapter Thirteen: Jonathan Edwards, Edwardsean Theologies, and the Presbyterians – Mark Noll
     Chapter Fourteen: Great Admirers of the Transatlantic Divinity: Some Chapters in the Story of Baptist Edwardseanism – Michael A. G. Haykin
     Chapter Fifteen: ”A German Professor Dropping into the American Forests”: British, French, and German Views of Jonathan Edwards, 1758-1957 – Michael J. McClymond
     Chapter Sixteen: An Edwardsean Lost and Found: The Legacy of Jonathan Edwards in Asia – Anri Morimoto
     Chapter Seventeen: Before the Young, Restless, and Reformed: Edwards’s Appeal to Post World War II Evangelicals – D. G. Hart

     Postscript – Douglas A. Sweeney and Oliver D. Crisp

     LikeLike

424. McMark: And then Daniel Fuller quotes Jonathan Edwards: “We are really saved by perseverance…The perseverance which belongs to faith is a fundamental ground of the congruity that faith gives to salvation…”

     RS: Mark, read the Scriptures below and understand that these verse have to be dealt with as well. The person that endures to the end is the only one who will be saved. It is not unbiblical to think of God as having a person’s perseverance in mind when He declares a person just because He has ordained that perseverance and the whole of salvation from all eternity. This is not a denial that a person is declared just on the basis of Christ alone, but it shows that perhaps more is going on than we may realize.

     Matthew 24:13 “But the one who endures to the end, he will be saved.

     Matthew 10:22 “You will be hated by all because of My name, but it is the one who has endured to the end who will be saved.

     Rom 2:5 But because of your stubborness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, 6 who will render to each person according to his deeds: 7 to those who by perseverance in doing good seek glory and honor and immortality, eternal life.

     Rev 2:10 BE faithful until death, and I will give you the crown of life.

     Rom 8:30 and those whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.

     LikeLike

425. RS: “It is not unbiblical to think of God as having a person’s perseverance in mind when He declares a person just because He has ordained that perseverance and the whole of salvation from all eternity.”

     mark: Well, I see you have gotten past a denial that Edwards said it. As for whether it’s biblical, it either is or isn’t. The verdict already given could have been declared on the basis of how “grace” enables us to live in the future. That is what the Roman Catholic tradition teaches, and NT Wright reminds us that the best way to get back to union with so many other “Christians” is to simply agree with what Roman Catholics teach about the gospel.

     Let me quote one such professing Christian: “The person who has received righteousness by infusion knows that he still possesses concupiscence, that in comparison to the saints and angels (and God Himself) he is an unrighteous, unworthy sinner, and that he has a long, long way to go
     in growing in sanctification. He knows that he sins venially at least seven times a day. The distinction between mortal and venial sin explains why mortal sin is incompatible with being in a state of grace and righteousness, while venial sin is compatible with being in a state of grace and
     righteousness. And so the person who is receiving in sanctification Christ’s righteousness by infusion is, at the same time, truly righteous (because he has agape in his soul — see Romans 5:5), and yet still in continual need of conversion and repentance in turning away from
     venial sin, and asking daily for the forgiveness of such sins. The sanctifying grace and
     agape merited for us by Christ on the cross are infused into our souls; we have the spirit of the law in our hearts, even while concupiscence remains in our lower passions and appetites, and even
     when we commit venial sins. Agape is in the will. Therefore righteousness in its essence
     is in the will, while concupiscence is not in the will, but in the lower appetites. Just because a person has disorder in his lower appetites, it does not follow that he is not righteous before God,
     because as long as he has agape in the will (i.e. he loves God with the supernatural love by which God loves Himself), he is truly a friend of God, even if he has disordered lower appetites which he resists with his will.. That is why if we have agape in our soul, we are truly righteous, even though we still have concupiscence. We grow in our participation in agape, from a state of friendship with God, to a state of deeper friendship with God.” (end of quotation from Called to Communion blog)

     mcmark: Now, for sure that’s not how the Reformed confessions would say it, even though there is “grace” in it from beginning to end, with lots of other stuff going on as well. I guess we will have to wait for your say so, however, RS, to see if it’s biblical.

     RS: “This is not a denial that a person is declared just on the basis of Christ alone, but it shows that perhaps more is going on than we may realize.”

     LikeLike

426. Zrim,

     When I read your comment: “2k understands that Adam’s fall had the effect of making our cultural activity useless in terms of holy and eternal purposes,” I thought it sounded an aweful lot like dispensationalism.

     Also, you said: “Which leads to the point that what 2k suspects of neo-Calvinism, when it says things like “what we do in obedience to him is not useless in terms of holy and eternal purposes,” it is an example of drawing a straight line from Adam to ourselves which nothing more than a function of moralism. ” Why is obedience always equated to moralism or legalism with you? Terry is not saying that obedience SAVES us, he is saying we are saved UNTO obedience.

     The two mandates that were given to us pre-fall: subdue the earth and have dominion over it, are still in effect. Christ has secured our ability to both subdue (e.g., extract precious resources out of the ground) but also exercise dominion (i.e., tend and care for the creation that God put us as stewards over). Your sharp eschatalogical break seems to cut short the original pre-fall mandates.

     When I study Horton’s two covenants theology, I am also reminded of dispensationalism. I am sure I am stating the obvious here, as I am much slower to reach conclusions than the others here, but it seems apparent that this whole debate is driven by eschatology. On the one extreme are the post-mils who are mostly theonomists because they see great continuity between this age and the age to come (I find myself mostly in this camp) and on the other extreme are the 2k’ers who see a sharp break (under-realized eschatology? pseudo-dispensationalism?). Perhaps the neo-cals are somewhere in the middle. I don’t know, I am still trying to sort this all out.

     I guess my question for the 2k’ers is why do you see so much continuity between the old and new covenant ages, yet such a sharp break between the current new covenant era and the eternal state? Or am I getting this completely wrong?

     LikeLike

427. Jon, the neo-Calvinist read of 2k as latent dispensationalism isn’t uncommon. But all 2k is trying to do is follow Paul’s own emphasis on the eternal age to come over against the provisional age. Neo-Calvinism’s emphasis is the other way around (which is why 2k can consider neos and theos to be Calvinism’s version of liberalism).

     Re obedience, recall the 2k point about the Christian life being summed up in one phrase: grateful obedience. 2k robustly affirms the third use of the law and the whole third section of the HC. 2k routinely gets shredded for esteeming civil obedience and eschewing civil disobedience. I’m not sure how any of that can be construed as “obedience always equated to moralism or legalism.”

     I know that neo-Calvinist transformationalists (like Terry) explicitly affirm sola fide. The point is that, to the extent that it thinks Christ has now made it possible to carry out Adam’s pre-fall charge to a covenant of works which is connected to earning eternal life, their cultural transformationalism is getting in the way of their otherwise good confession. The cultural mandate is still in effect but it is stripped of its eternal implications. It is now only a provisional mandate. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t matter; it just means that while the temporal dignity remains, the eternal stakes are radically lowered. And the Great Commission is now the church’s new mandate.

     But the spectrum extremes aren’t theonomists and 2kers, it’s post mil theonomists and liberals—both of which oppose amil 2k for emphasizing the age to come and downplaying the provisional age. Amils are also used to the suggestion of an under-realized eschatology, but it’s really just an accent on the forthcoming age.

     LikeLike

428. mark mcculley: quoting RS: “It is not unbiblical to think of God as having a person’s perseverance in mind when He declares a person just because He has ordained that perseverance and the whole of salvation from all eternity.”

     mark: Well, I see you have gotten past a denial that Edwards said it. As for whether it’s biblical, it either is or isn’t. The verdict already given could have been declared on the basis of how “grace” enables us to live in the future. That is what the Roman Catholic tradition teaches, and NT Wright reminds us that the best way to get back to union with so many other “Christians” is to simply agree with what Roman Catholics teach about the gospel.

     RS: While not a fan or NY Wright, I am not sure he would say that in that way. Hopefully. But as to perseverance, if it is a gift of Christ and a spiritual blessing to share in the divine life (II Peter 1:4) and to be a partaker of grace and holiness, then all of those things are by grace and are given by grace. How could the eternal God who foreknows all things not take those things into account when He declares sinners just? He does not declare them just based on what they will do, but He knows what they will do because His elect are His workmanship created for good works (Eph 2:10) of which He has planned and purchased the grace for His elect to share in.

     Matthew 24:13 “But the one who endures to the end, he will be saved.

     Matthew 10:22 “You will be hated by all because of My name, but it is the one who has endured to the end who will be saved.

     Rom 2:5 But because of your stubborness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, 6 who will render to each person according to his deeds: 7 to those who by perseverance in doing good seek glory and honor and immortality, eternal life.

     Rev 2:10 BE faithful until death, and I will give you the crown of life.

     Rom 8:30 and those whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.

     LikeLike

429. Zrim,

     “The point is that, to the extent that it thinks Christ has now made it possible to carry out Adam’s pre-fall charge to a covenant of works which is connected to earning eternal life, their cultural transformationalism is getting in the way of their otherwise good confession.” I definitely don’t agree with this, whoever says it.

     LikeLike

430. D. G. Hart: McMark, the OUP book on Edwards is supposed to be in the mail.

     RS: Bought the book per Amazon. Yes, I intend to read the chapters you wrote.

     D. G. Hart: McMark, well done those quotes from Calvin, especially for a recovering anabaptist.

     RS: What about the quote from Calvin that I gave? I guess you didn’t like that Calvin?

     LikeLike

431. Help a brother out. What is the name of the OUP book on Edwards and where do I get it? Thanks

     LikeLike

432. sean: Help a brother out. What is the name of the OUP book on Edwards and where do I get it? Thanks

     RS: It was posted by McMark earlier in this link, but the title is just below and I obtained mine from Amazon. By the way, D.G. Hart wrote a chapter or two, so I don’t expect Edwards to get a lot of the love he wrote about better than anyone else.

     After Jonathan Edwards
     The Courses of the New England Theology
     Edited by Oliver D. Crisp and Douglas A. Sweeney

     LikeLike

433. Thanks Richard.

     LikeLike

434. Richard, please repeat the quote from Calvin (though you may want to square it with McMark’s, or is Calvin having an Edwards moment?). It’s hard to keep up with you guys.

     LikeLike

435. Richard, I only wrote one chapter. And I never lay a glove on Edwards.

     LikeLike

436. D. G. Hart: Richard, please repeat the quote from Calvin (though you may want to square it with McMark’s, or is Calvin having an Edwards moment?). It’s hard to keep up with you guys.

     RS: I guess I just wanted you to notice it so you can see that by quoting him and Hodge that I acknowledge the shoulders of the giants that we all stand on. Some lean harder than others, however.

     Calvin: “If any man desires to obtain a place in Christ, that is, in His Kingdom of His Church, let him be a new creature.” “Let us therefore bear in mind this warning that all who have not been renewed by the Spirit of God should be nothing in the Church, whatever claims to distinction they may otherwise possess.” Since the kingdom of Christ is spiritual, this conversion must take place chiefly in the spirit and so Paul is right to begin with this. Paul is therefore making a most elegant and fitting illusion to this prophecy and adapting it to extol regeneration.”

     Charles Hodge: “If the revelation of Christ, the apprehension of his glory and love, had wrought such a change in him, the same illumination must produce a like change in others. He therefore says, If any may be in Christ he is a new creature. …To be in Christ is the common scriptural pharase to express the saving connection or union between him and his people. They are in him by covenant, as all men were in Adam; they are in him as members of his body, through the indwelling of his Spirit; and they are in him by faith, which lays hold of and appropriates him as the life and portion of the soul. Romans 8:1, 9; Gal 5, 6 etc. This union is transforming. It imparts a new life. It effects a new creation. This expression indicates no only the greatness and radical nature of the change effected, but also its divine origin. It is a divine work, i.e. one due to the mighty power of God. It is therefore called a creation, the commencement of a new state of being, Eph 1:19.In Gal 6:15; Rom 8,9, and elsewhere, the same effects are ascribed to union with Christ. If we are united to him so as to be intersted in the merits of his death, we must also be partakers of his life. This is the foundation on which the apostle builds his whole doctrine of sanctification as developed in the sixth and seventh chapter of his epistel to the Romans.”

     LikeLike

437. Continuing on with this comparison of Catholic spirituality and Reformed spirituality, consider some more quotes from Horton’s COVENANT AND SALVATION-UNION WITH CHRIST:

     1) Karl Adams (a Catholic) says this: “But since, according to the Catholic conception, justification does not consist in an external imputation of the merit of Christ….but in the gracious operation of the creative love of Christ within us, and in the supernatural emergence of a new love for goodness and holiness, therefore justification of its nature demands sanctification and perfection, and is only complete and finished in this sanctification”….final justification is the outcome of human cooperation with this infused grace.

     2) “The real difference between Roman Catholic and confessional Protestant positions does not lie in whether the reality of the new birth and sanctification is affirmed. Rather, the difference lies in whether forensic justification is affirmed along with renewal, and whether the former is regarded as the sponsor of the latter. According to Rome, the new life ‘is a sort of overflow of the eternal and infinite life within the soul.’ Intrinisic righteousness is the basis for the external verdict, and the righteous deeds of the new life are meritorious.”

     3) “At the heart of this notion of infused grace lies an ontological dualism, which assumes that there is a substantial deficiency in nature that must be supplemented by grace….In Reformed theology, however, grace justifies, sanctifies and glorifies creatures without adding anything substantial to nature.”

     4) Moving on to radical orthodoxy: “Like any version of overcoming estrangement I can think of, RO offers a subjective theory of the atonement, one in which the problematic of sin and grace becomes submerged in a synergistic vision of church that heals all ontic fissures….the danger of assimilating the concrete event of the cross into a speculative philosophy.”

     5) McMark- “The Bible has different senses of sanctification- both by the Spirit (2Thess. 2:13) and set apart and perfected by the blood (Hebrews 10)…..Of course, in our common language, when we say sanctification, we tend not to be talking about Christ’s death or about the Spirit causing us to hear the Gospel. We tend to think of the new birth as creating in us a new disposition which causes us to gradually get better.”

     6) Although closer to the Roman Catholic understanding of justification than confessional Protestantism, Mannermaa’s provocative thesis reflects a more ‘Byzantine’ Luther. If faith is seen by Rome as an assent to truths concerning the object of love, which only becomes active by love through the infusion of grace (gratia infusia), Luther sees love as identical to law. Love striving upward to God is the same as works-righteousness. Mannermaa accurately interprets on this point. Even grace-elevated love remains human love….The fides caritate formata (faith formed by love) position of Rome ‘rests on Greek ontology, and its notion of striving love only signifies a partial, incomplete and insufficient divinization. By contrast, Luther replaced love with the grace of God in Christ as the ‘substance’ rather than the mere ‘accident.’ Thus we are always justified by Christ’s righteousness, not by our own. Even Christ in nobis (in us) is Christ extra nos (outside us).”

     LikeLike

438. Richard, I don’t see how these quotations affect McMark’s quotes which deny conditionality in the declaration of the gospel. Plus, it’s interesting to see Hodge talking about union and new life in ways that Nevin was attempted to articulate, even though Hodge didn’t like such union-language applied to the Lord’s Supper, which is after a comm-union.

     LikeLike

439. Jon, that’s a very astute way of boiling this issue down to the nub. I’ve always felt Zrim and Darryl’s world view was virtually the same as dispensationalists, just dressed up in “reformed” verbiage.

     LikeLike

440. Doug, interesting. When I hear you I am reminded of Islam.

     LikeLike

441. D. G. Hart: Richard, I don’t see how these quotations affect McMark’s quotes which deny conditionality in the declaration of the gospel. Plus, it’s interesting to see Hodge talking about union and new life in ways that Nevin was attempted to articulate, even though Hodge didn’t like such union-language applied to the Lord’s Supper, which is after a comm-union.

     The topic has evolved some. There is no conditionality, however, in the writings of Edwards in terms of the Gospel. In context that comes out in what he is saying. The Bible speaks of many things and in many ways. McMark appears to want to focus on one aspect instead of taking into account the other ways the Bible speaks of things. For example, Mattthew 12: 36 “But I tell you that every careless word that people speak, they shall give an accounting for it in the day of judgment. 37 “For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.” I would not argue that this is the same justification in the same way that Paul speaks of in Romans 3 and 4, yet we must take this passage into account. Edwards’ way of doing things actually protects the doctrine of justification by grace alone through faith alone if one actually reads the whole passage rather than just take a quote from it. The charge of antinomianism is always close, but if you understand the view of God that takes it all in, and perseverance is always in mind but as a gift of God, then one can see that this actually protects the true doctrine of justification from the charge of antinomianism.

     LikeLike

442. Richard, the Reformed confessions already take these biblical texts into account and the churches have put down their chips — pardon the metaphor — on the forensic, choosing to regard the conditional through the lens of promise. Those who stress the conditional have to make sense of the promise. But those who also stress the conditional and new creation have to make sense of how deep down sin goes — it will never leave us until death — not to mention how wonder-working Christ’s salvation is. He doesn’t just jump start the holiness engine so that we can complete the race and won’t finish it until we are holy.

     Mind you, I think your emphasis on God’s doing it all in holiness of believers is just as prone to antinomianism as an emphasis on the promise. After all, if God is going to take care of sanctification, then I can chill.

     LikeLike

443. Doug (and Jon), on top of sounding Protestant liberal and Islamist, there is good reason it’s actually you who also sound Dispy:

     To put the matter in a comparative perspective, this theory of theonomic politics stands at the opposite end of the spectrum of error from Dispensationalism. The latter represents an extreme failure to do justice to the continuity between the old and new covenants. Chalcedon’s error, no less extreme or serious, is a failure to do justice to the discontinuity between the old and new covenants.

     And for extended explanations:

     http://www.meredithkline.com/klines-works/articles-and-essays/comments-on-an-old-new-error/

     http://www.the-highway.com/theonomy-hermeneutic_Irons.html

     LikeLike

444. D. G. Hart: Richard, the Reformed confessions already take these biblical texts into account and the churches have put down their chips — pardon the metaphor — on the forensic, choosing to regard the conditional through the lens of promise. Those who stress the conditional have to make sense of the promise. But those who also stress the conditional and new creation have to make sense of how deep down sin goes — it will never leave us until death — not to mention how wonder-working Christ’s salvation is. He doesn’t just jump start the holiness engine so that we can complete the race and won’t finish it until we are holy.

     RS: But I am not talking about these things as if they are conditional on our part and I am certainly not speaking against the forensic. The issue was one statement of Edwards (taken out of its context) about God’s view of things. I gave Romans 8:30 as one biblical example or this, but then gave others. Romans 8:30 gives us the picture that God has (in one sense): “and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.” Glorification is as if it already happened. So of course God takes that into account or has that in view. Those whom He justifies forensically He has them in His eyes as already glorified. The fact that He takes into account their sanctification and glorification in justification says nothing against the forensic nature of justification. “These whom He justified, He also glorified.” Again, the forensic nature of the Gospel and all things depend on God and the conditions are not there for men to fulfill.

     D.G. Hart: Mind you, I think your emphasis on God’s doing it all in holiness of believers is just as prone to antinomianism as an emphasis on the promise. After all, if God is going to take care of sanctification, then I can chill.

     RS: We are left with two options. The sinner is given a new heart and declared just on the basis of Christ and Christ alone by grace alone. 1) Now the sinner either grows and matures by grace or 2) the sinner grows and matures by his own efforts. You seem to think that if sanctification is by grace then you can just chill. I say that grace must work in the heart in order that we may do what we do by grace. So it is not that we can chill, but we must understand that apart from Christ we can do nothing (nothing good or spiritual). I say that any spiritual fruit must come from the Spirit who alone can work love, joy, etc in the soul. That is not chilling, but recognizing our utter dependence upon Him. If our sanctification is not by grace, then it has to be by the works we come up with.

     Colossians 2:6 Therefore as you have received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in Him,

     Galatians 2:20 “I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me.

     LikeLike

445. Doug,

     Thanks.

     Darryl,

     Your comparison of theonomy to Islam is common, though usually I get it from my dispensational friends. Sometimes I wonder if people are embarassed of the God of the Old Testament? They say OT laws were too harsh, but do they forget they were God’s laws? Islam, like any other counterfeit, has aspects of truth mingled it with its falsity. But that doesn’t mean there aren’t slivers of truth in other worldviews. We don’t quit believing in God just because Jehovah’s witnesses believe in him.

     But when I talk to non-theonomists about how they would make laws in today’s age, the answers are all over the place. Some are for corporate punishment, some against. No two people can agree. Theonomy gives an objective starting point. (This is where you jump in and discuss where theonomists disagree, but at least they have a common starting point. The disagreement comes in the application thereof.)

     LikeLike

446. Doug and Jon, on top of sounding Protestant liberal and Islamist, there is good reason it’s actually you who also sound Dispy:

     To put the matter in a comparative perspective, this theory of theonomic politics stands at the opposite end of the spectrum of error from Dispensationalism. The latter represents an extreme failure to do justice to the continuity between the old and new covenants. Chalcedon’s error, no less extreme or serious, is a failure to do justice to the discontinuity between the old and new covenants.

     And for extended explanations:

     http://www.meredithkline.com/klines-works/articles-and-essays/comments-on-an-old-new-error/

     LikeLike

447. And here:

     http://www.the-highway.com/theonomy-hermeneutic_Irons.html

     LikeLike

448. Jon, you might wonder if 2k is embarrassed of the God of the Old Testament, but 2k wonders if theonomy understands messianic fulfillment. Or WCF 19.3 and .4:

     “Besides this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a church under age, ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, His graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits; and partly, holding forth divers instructions of moral duties. All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated, under the New Testament.”

     “Besides this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a church under age, ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, His graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits; and partly, holding forth divers instructions of moral duties.All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated, under the New Testament.”

     LikeLike

449. Zrim,

     Greg Bahnsen has already anticipated the objection of lack of discontinuity and messianic fulfillement and answered them.

     http://reformed-theology.org/ice/newslet/be/be.05.80.htm

     The whole argument that if you argue for abrogation of the ceremonial laws, then you have to do away with the moral and civil laws, is lutheran and I believe answered in the book:

     “Five Views on Law and Gospel” edited by Stanley Gundry. I recommend anyone involved in this debate to read all five views.

     All three Reformed authors disagree with the above assertion.

     LikeLike

450. Jon, who said the moral law is done away with? WCF 19.5 makes it clear that, while the judicial and ceremonial laws are now abrogated in Christ, the moral law still abides and is binding on all.

     And Lutherans aren’t antinomian, as Fesko demonstrates here (no love for our closest theological relatives?):

     http://confessionalouthouse.wordpress.com/2009/12/29/fesko-on-the-third-use-in-lutheranism/

     LikeLike

451. Zrim,

     Douglas Moo takes that position in the book. He calls it the “modified Lutheran” view. I don’t lack any love for them, I’m just stating what I read in the book.

     I wasn’t sure what your view of the moral law’s abiding. That’s why I asked the question.

     LikeLike

452. RS: “Those whom He justifies forensically He has them in His eyes as already glorified.”

     mcmark: i wonder if this means that all the justified elect have already been infused with all the infusion they are going to get, “in His eyes”? I wonder if RS means that what’s in God’s eyes is less real or more real than what’s going to happen in history later.

     Romans 8:30 speaks of the glorification of the Surety of the elect. According to Romans 1:1-4, the Lord Jesus has already been glorified.

     Not all the elect have been justified yet. None of the justified elect have been glorified yet, except in the glorification of their public representative and surety, Jesus Christ.

     God judges in truth. Only those God has baptized into the death of Christ have been declared righteous by God. Since there is “no respect of persons” In God’s eyes, the elect who have not yet been legally united with Christ are not yet justified. In God’s eyes, none of the justified will be glorified until the last day, except in their Surety.

     Of course RS was trying to find something in Romans 8:29-30 about God conditioning the righteous verdict on the ungodly in part on God’s prescience of the perseverance worked out in the saints. Not there….

     LikeLike

453. Jon,

     Notice how Ursinus, when he speaks of the abrogation of the law in his Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, treats the ceremonial law and judicial law together, and sees even the judicial law as being typological:

     “When certain causes are once changed, the laws which are based upon these causes are also changed. One cause now of the ceremonial and judicial law was that the form of worship and civil polity which existed among the Jews, from whom the Messiah was to be born, might distinguish them from all other nations until the Messiah would come. Another cause was that they might be types of the Messiah and of his benefits. These causes now since the coming of the Messiah, have been done away with …”

     And in that “Five Views” book, none of those authors actually represents the Reformed (i.e., classic covenant theology) view. (And btw, there are only two, not three, ostensibly Reformed authors represented in the book.) The one who comes the closest is actually Moo (“modified Lutheran”), who does the best job of all of them at preserving the law/gospel distinction, as that is distinction is classically understood by both Lutherans and Reformed.

     LikeLike

454. McMark: Of course RS was trying to find something in Romans 8:29-30 about God conditioning the righteous verdict on the ungodly in part on God’s prescience of the perseverance worked out in the saints. Not there….

     RS: I was trying to show that God knows all about the future and He does have His eye on their perseverance and that from eternity past. I am not trying to show that the perseverance of the saints adds to their justification.

     LikeLike

455. Jon, I am not embarrassed by the OT. I am simply glad that Christ came and we no longer have to live with believers who stone us when we sin.

     LikeLike

456. Edwards did not say that human perseverance adds to justification. Rather, Edwards claimed that God takes this future “they will also be regenerated and glorified” into account as part of the basis and fittingness of justification. In other words, don’t worry about this legal imputation of righteousness to the ungodly so much, but later on they will “really” stop being sinners. So the Roman Catholics and the Wesleyans are wrong to think we are antinomians. Grace is “conditional” after all….

     “That which is highly esteemed among humans is abomination in the sight of God.” Luke 16:15

     I ask some “Calvinists” about why they have not yet reformed from using the idea of “infused righteousness”.. I am not asking to see the word “infusion”. I know it’s not there. But I want these Cavinists to show me from the Bible some inner “righteousness”, which is not legal and imputed, which is not in heaven but in our hearts.

     Many read Romans 6 with the assumption that chapter six says that the Holy Spirit (or the church) unites us to Christ on the inside. The chapter does not say that, and we should not read it with that assumption.

     It’s not enough to give a formal “I don’t deny that it also means the legal also”, if you then consistently look at texts and say “more than the forensic”, especially when the texts don’t mean anything OTHER than the forensic. The legal death has effective inner consequences, but the consequences are not to be equated with the death or the righteousness.

     Romans 6:20,21–”when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness. But fruit were you getting at that time from the things of which you are now ashamed. The end of those thing is death”

     It is God placing the elect into legal union with Christ’s death which has justified the elect and set them free. Before their justification, they may have already been ashamed of immorality. But they were not ashamed of their piety, their self-righteousness, or of their attempts to cooperate in the building of their own righteousness in attempts to gain assurance by a pattern of obedience to imperative. Now they count all that as trash (Philippians 3).

     Christ’s righteousness is the merit of His work (His death). Christians are “servants of righteousness”. But some Calvinists continue to claim “that the righteousness that is imputed to us in justification is the same righteousness that is also infused into us in our sanctification.”

     Where does the Bible use the word “righteousness” in such a way that we should know that it means infused habits, imparted energies or “inside you”? How do we avoid the path to Osiander?

     LikeLike

457. Darryl said: Jon, I am not embarrassed by the OT. I am simply glad that Christ came and we no longer have to live with believers who stone us when we sin.

     McMark said: Where does the Bible use the word “righteousness” in such a way that we should know that it means infused habits, imparted energies or “inside you”? How do we avoid the path to Osiander?

     I’m betting that Jon does not get invited, or, have any desire to go to where sinners and tax collectors
     gather together. What good is the Gospel if we don’t know how, or have no desire to communicate with those who do not believe the Gospel? The elect are still there and we are commanded to go find them and tell them of the Gospel, or, at least invite them to hear the Gospel. Is not part of our “common ground” with unbelievers the fact that we too are still sinners?

     LikeLike

458. mark mcculley: Edwards did not say that human perseverance adds to justification. Rather, Edwards claimed that God takes this future “they will also be regenerated and glorified” into account as part of the basis and fittingness of justification. In other words, don’t worry about this legal imputation of righteousness to the ungodly so much, but later on they will “really” stop being sinners. So the Roman Catholics and the Wesleyans are wrong to think we are antinomians. Grace is “conditional” after all….

     RS: Putting that into his mouth or imputing those motives to Edwards does not mean that he really taught them. I am not sure how anyone could read Edwards on justification and come out thinking that he taught anything less than unconditional grace (in human terms) and the imputation of the righteousness of Christ.

     LikeLike

459. McMark: I ask some “Calvinists” about why they have not yet reformed from using the idea of “infused righteousness”.. I am not asking to see the word “infusion”. I know it’s not there. But I want these Cavinists to show me from the Bible some inner “righteousness”, which is not legal and imputed, which is not in heaven but in our hearts.

     RS: It is really quite simple. Since Christ Himself is our righteousness and He is perfectly righteous, when He is the life of the believer and lives through the believer by His Spirit, the fruit of the righteous Savior is righteousness.

     Romans 8:1 Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
     2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death.
     3 For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh,
     4 so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.
     5 For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit.
     6 For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace,

     RS: Notice that the requirement of the Law is fulfilled in us, that is, those who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

     McMark: Many read Romans 6 with the assumption that chapter six says that the Holy Spirit (or the church) unites us to Christ on the inside. The chapter does not say that, and we should not read it with that assumption.

     RS: “Should” is an ought type of word. You don’t agree with it, but that does not mean that it is so and that puts no ought or obligation on others not to do so.

     McMark: It’s not enough to give a formal “I don’t deny that it also means the legal also”, if you then consistently look at texts and say “more than the forensic”, especially when the texts don’t mean anything OTHER than the forensic. The legal death has effective inner consequences, but the consequences are not to be equated with the death or the righteousness.

     RS: But the texts do mean more than forensic as Romans 8 does above. Galatians 2:20 also teaches the same thing. The indwelling of the Holy Spirit who lives and works in us His fruit says the same thing. The only soul that loves is a believer and the only source of that love is the Holy Spirit. I say that true love is a righteous act in the soul and is a righteous act as it is shown through the believer.

     Matthew 5:45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.

     Matthew 10:41 “He who receives a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet’s reward; and he who receives a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man’s reward.

     Romans 1:17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, “BUT THE RIGHTEOUS man SHALL LIVE BY FAITH.”

     James 5:16 Therefore, confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another so that you may be healed. The effective prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much.

     RS: Was Jesus righteous because He was declared righteous or because He was righteous? So when He is the life of His people and manifests His glory though them, are not the acts that He works in and through His people righteous? No, coming through sinful people they are tainted by us, but still wouldn’t you think of them as righteous since it was Christ in and through His people by His Spirit?

     LikeLike

460. McMark: Christ’s righteousness is the merit of His work (His death). Christians are “servants of righteousness”. But some Calvinists continue to claim “that the righteousness that is imputed to us in justification is the same righteousness that is also infused into us in our sanctification.”

     RS: No, that is not what is being talked about here. Justification is by the imputed righteous or Christ, but sanctification is by the working of Christ by the Spirit in the soul.

     Chapter XIII
     Of Sanctification
     I. They, who are once effectually called, and regenerated, having a new heart, and a new spirit created in them, are further sanctified, really and personally, through the virtue of Christ’s death and resurrection,[1] by His Word and Spirit dwelling in them:[2] the dominion of the whole body of sin is destroyed,[3] and the several lusts thereof are more and more weakened and mortified;[4] and they more and more quickened and strengthened in all saving graces,[5] to the practice of true holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord.[6]

     II. This sanctification is throughout, in the whole man;[7] yet imperfect in this life, there abiding still some remnants of corruption in every part;[8] whence arises a continual and irreconcilable war, the flesh lusting against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh.[9]

     III. In which war, although the remaining corruption, for a time, may much prevail;[10] yet, through the continual supply of strength from the sanctifying Spirit of Christ, the regenerate part does overcome;[11] and so, the saints grow in grace,[12] perfecting holiness in the fear of God.[13]

     WLC: Q. 66. What is that union which the elect have with Christ?

     A. The union which the elect have with Christ is the work of God’s grace,[270] whereby they are spiritually and mystically, yet really and inseparably, joined to Christ as their head and husband;[271] which is done in their effectual calling.[272]

     Q. 70. What is justification?

     A. Justification is an act of God’s free grace unto sinners,[286] in which he pardoneth all their sins, accepteth and accounteth their persons righteous in his sight;[287] not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them,[288] but only for the perfect obedience and full satisfaction of Christ, by God imputed to them,[289] and received by faith alone.[290]

     Q. 71. How is justification an act of God’s free grace?

     A. Although Christ, by his obedience and death, did make a proper, real, and full satisfaction to God’s justice in the behalf of them that are justified;[291] yet in as much as God accepteth the satisfaction from a surety, which he might have demanded of them, and did provide this surety, his own only Son,[292] imputing his righteousness to them,[293] and requiring nothing of them for their justification but faith,[294] which also is his gift,[295] their justification is to them of free grace.[296]

     Q. 74. What is adoption?

     A. Adoption is an act of the free grace of God,[307] in and for his only Son Jesus Christ,[308] whereby all those that are justified are received into the number of his children,[309] have his name put upon them,[310] the Spirit of his Son given to them,[311] are under his fatherly care and dispensations,[312] admitted to all the liberties and privileges of the sons of God, made heirs of all the promises, and fellow-heirs with Christ in glory.[313]

     Q. 75. What is sanctification?

     A. Sanctification is a work of God’s grace, whereby they whom God hath, before the foundation of the world, chosen to be holy, are in time, through the powerful operation of his Spirit[314] applying the death and resurrection of Christ unto them,[315] renewed in their whole man after the image of God;[316] having the seeds of repentance unto life, and all other saving graces, put into their hearts,[317] and those graces so stirred up, increased, and strengthened,[318] as that they more and more die unto sin, and rise unto newness of life.[319]

     Q. 76. What is repentance unto life?

     A. Repentance unto life is a saving grace,[320] wrought in the heart of a sinner by the Spirit[321] and Word of God,[322] whereby, out of the sight and sense, not only of the danger,[323] but also of the filthiness and odiousness of his sins,[324] and upon the apprehension of God’s mercy in Christ to such as are penitent,[325] he so grieves for[326] and hates his sins,[327] as that he turns from them all to God,[328] purposing and endeavouring constantly to walk with him in all the ways of new obedience.[329]

     Q. 77. Wherein do justification and sanctification differ?

     A. Although sanctification be inseparably joined with justification,[330] yet they differ, in that God in justification imputeth the righteousness of Christ;[331] in sanctification of his Spirit infuseth grace, and enableth to the exercise thereof;[332] in the former, sin is pardoned;[333] in the other, it is subdued:[334] the one doth equally free all believers from the revenging wrath of God, and that perfectly in this life, that they never fall into condemnation[335] the other is neither equal in all,[336] nor in this life perfect in any,[337] but growing up to perfection.[338]

     McMark: Where does the Bible use the word “righteousness” in such a way that we should know that it means infused habits, imparted energies or “inside you”? How do we avoid the path to Osiander?

     RS: I gave a few verses on that in a previous path. But read Ephesians 3:14ff where the Spirit has to strengthen your inner man in order for Christ to dwell in you. It is only when Christ is dwelling in you that you can be grounded in love and filled to the fullness of God.

     LikeLike

461. This thread began with Hart questioning those who expect more of regeneration than they should. To make regeneration in us to be that satisfies the law is quite definitely expecting of the new birth what it was never meant to accomplish.

     Smeaton, Apostles Doctrine of the Atonement, p178–”Romans 8:4–That the righteousness of the law would be fulfilled in us. That is so like another expression of the same apostle, that the two passages might fitly be compared for mutual elucidation (II Cor 5:21). This expression cannot be referred to any inward work of renovation; for no work or attainment of ours can with any propriety of language be designated a “fulfillment of the righteousness of the law”.

     The words, “the righteousness of the law,” are descriptive of Christ’s obedience as the work of one for many (Romans 5:18). This result is delineated as the end contemplated by Christ’s incarnation and atonement, and intimates that as He was made a sin-offering, so are we regarded as full-fillers of the law…”

     LikeLike

462. Charles Hodge: one’s interpretation of Romans 8 verse 4 is determined by the view taken of Romans 8:3. If that verse means that God, by sending His Son, destroyed sin in us, then, of course, this verse must mean, “He destroyed sin in order that we should fulfill the law” — that is, so that we should be holy. But if Romans 8:3 refers to the sacrificial death of Christ and to the condemnation of sin in Him as the sinners’ substitute, then this verse must refer to justification.”

     LikeLike

463. I am still waiting for any Bible verses which prove “infused righteousness”. Objection: God imputes this thing Christ purchased for the elect to the elect. I don’t deny that but If that’s the case, then I have to ask, where does Christ fit into that? Why don’t you talk more about real stuff, like Christ in your heart?

     mcmark:. Christ, besides being the earner who obtained all the blessings of salvation for the elect by His obedience, now does these two things. Christ both indwells (lives in) the justified and also intercedes (in heaven) for the elect.

     The indwelling—- Where faith is, Christ is. Luther was certainly correct about that truth, but it’s a mistake to locate the righteousness in the faith, or identify the righteousness with Christ’s life inside us (as Osiander did.)

     The work to earn righteousness for the elect was done outside of the elect. The righteousness which resulted and which is imputed is always outside of the elect. Bunyan explained: the righteousness is in heaven. The righteousness belongs not to us alone in our insides but to all the elect. The righteousness also belongs still to Christ.

     objection: Because if that is indeed the case, then to be blunt about it, we don’t even need Christ Himself anymore. He bought what we need, so now He can step back, go do whatever while God hands out what He purchased. Why would we have faith in Him? Our faith would be in what He purchased instead. How does that glorify Christ?

     mcmark: Of course Socinians who deny forensic justification often ask this, but I understand that you are not denying any forensic thing. You are only denying the only (the sola). You are merely deny the mere imputation. You want the forensic plus more, also Christ Himself the person living in you, but not only that, but let’s say it, Christ in us our righteousness.

     I agree that Christ the person is not a something to be imputed. I agree that the true Christ is given to live in the justified elect. We don’t need false alternatives, such as “HIM vs His work”. But we also need true antithesis. The “life of God in the soul of the man” IS NOT THE RIGHTEOUSNESS.

     In By Faith Not By Sight, Richard Gaffin : “Typically in the Reformation tradition the hope of salvation is expressed in terms of Christ’s righteousness, especially as imputed to the believer…however, I have to wonder if ‘Christ in you’ is not more prominent as an expression of evangelical hope…” p110

     Gaffin wants to say that both the “in us” and the “outside us” combined are our hope. His hope “as well” is Christ’s life in us defined as the power to avoid sin despite our “incomplete progress, flawed by our continued sinning”.

     Instead of reading the “according to works” texts as having to do with the distinction between dead works (Hebrews 6:1,9:14) and “fruit for God” (Romans 7:4), Gaffin bases assurance partly on Christ’s life in us evidenced by our imperfect but habitual obedience.

     Gaffin takes Romans 2:13 to be describing Christians. The hope for future justification is not Christ’s death, resurrection, and intercession outside us ALONE. Gaffin cautions us to remember that the obedience (works, avoidance of sin) which he thinks factor into assurance come from God living in us. He gives grace the credit for our “breach with sin”.

     I agree that the gospel is not only about what Christ did outside of the elect for the elect. The gospel is also about the effectual call which results from election in Christ and atonement in Christ and being legally placed into Christ’s death. One evidence of this effectual call is that the justified elect do not put their assurance in Christ’s life in us or even in what they call God’s effectual call.

     LikeLike

464. Zrim, what is maddening about you and those who say what you say such as

     The point is that, to the extent that it thinks Christ has now made it possible to carry out Adam’s pre-fall charge to a covenant of works which is connected to earning eternal life, their cultural transformationalism is getting in the way of their otherwise good confession.

     is that no one actually thinks this. Perhaps this is what you thought when you were a neo-Calvinist, but that’s your problem and not tha problem with the perspective. NO NEO-CALVINIST THINKS THEY ARE EARNING ETERNAL LIFE and NO NEO-CALVINIST THINKS THAT WE ARE CARRYING OUT THE COVENANT OF WORKS. Period! Jesus Christ accomplished salvation and inaugurated the age to come! That’s what neo-Calvinists confess (just like 2k’s). Cultural transformation is a good work just like all the good works 2k’s do. Responses of obedience out of gratitude for the salvation given us. You guys (including DVD) have constructed a straw man of massive proportions.

     LikeLike

465. Terry, pressing the connection between the cultural mandate and the covenant of works is a 2k reaction to the theonomist/transformationalist/neocal emphasis on post-resurrection believers fulfilling the charge (what I’ll call the ‘rabidly postmil’ position, for the sake of this comment). I don’t think that any 2ker believes that neocals are consciously pursuing works-righteousness.

     Your placement of cultural transformation among the rest of the Christian’s good works is interesting, like a “3rd use of the law” form of the mandate instead of the objective, present reality claimed by the rabid postmils. It’s a fine shorthand to describe the way that both 2kers and neocals strive to live God-honoring lives in all areas of life, cf. DGH, Matthew Tuininga, or DVD’s writings on other topics, like localism, politics, bioethics, etc. It avoids the arbitrariness of rabid postmil claims that Bach is played in heaven, or that Newton’s heretically-Christian math was superior to Leibniz’s openly unbelieving efforts, or whatever else.

     But if the Christian’s good moral works — speaking of concerns that both neocals and 2kers agree are governed by Scripture — are only rendered acceptable to God when seen through the application of Christ’s work, then the same would have to apply to the cultural works you suggest. On the one hand, I can try to imagine moral works, like my efforts to worship God and honor my parents, if they were objectively (instead of forensically) God-glorifying since we’re given the explicit commands of Scripture to consider, plus an account of Christ’s life.

     On the other hand, I don’t know where to begin with cultural efforts like art, architecture, or music. What do those look like when they’re sanctified? If our motivations, thoughts, treatment of others, etc. would be perfectly sinless while engaged in our work, then those are moral concerns identical to the 2k view of the Christian life. If you mean that our architectural efforts will become permanent structures and slide into Platonic forms or something as this world becomes the new heavens and earth, okay, but that seems weird. And if the homes that we build are objectively good homes here and now, in contrast to unbelieving construction, and their creation constitutes part of the growing Kingdom, then that sounds rabidly postmil.

     LikeLike

466. Terry, I understand the suggestion that neo-Calvinism is a culturalist variant of law-gospel confusion is maddening. I stand by it.

     But on top of Mike’s point that none of us believes neos are consciously pursuing works righteousness, I hope it helps a little to know that I’ll be the first to push back against those who portray my former neo-Cal communion as a “false church.” It’s a wayward denomination, and 2k principles supply the kind of tools needed to make that distinction. I do wish you all the best in laboring alongside the Rabbi.

     LikeLike

467. Zrim, it’s maddening because of your false charges and straw man argumentation. I can deal with disagreement. False charges borders on the immoral. Our disagreement rests in the degree to which the original creation and its development persists in the age to come. To try to discredit neo-Calvinism on other grounds as you, Darryl, and DVD do is unconscionable. And it’s not conducive to good discussion. I realize that you’ve taken it on the chin by neo-Calvinist and theonomist attackers. Their employment of similar tactics is no better and equally appalling.

     LikeLike

468. Darryl, for being a blog that is committed to Old School Presbyterian confessional theology rooted in the Westminster standards, I’m surprised at the degree of latitude and the platform that you give John and McMark for their brand of “real and personal” sanctification denying. We all know that historic Reformed theology promotes personal holiness, obedience to the Law of God (3rd use), and good works as the fruit of saving faith. As long as sanctification is not made a ground of our justification it is something for which the believer strives and progresses in during their life on earth. And sanctification, as the confession defines the term, is not to be confused with that imputed righteousness that is in Christ alone. Perhaps the Westminster doctrine of sanctification smacks of pietism and so you’re more tolerant of its critics on this particular point.

     LikeLike

469. Terry,

     I am not sure what you mean by “real and personal” sanctification denying. That is a confusing sentence. I cannot speak for McMark but what I am questioning, along with what I understand McMark saying, is whether the biblical definition of sanctification is striving and progressing in holiness. Many theologians have questioned that definition.

     McMark has also been challenging Richard on why he thinks the work of the Holy Spirit is a more real and personal union with Christ than God imputing our sins to Christ and Christ’s righteousness to us legally. McMark does not think there is biblical evidence that this imputation is by the Spirit. In fact, that is what Horton argues for in his book COVENANT AND SALVATION-UNION WITH CHRIST. Calvin seems to go back and forth with this in his writings. So, this issue of union with Christ can get very confusing.

     If Darryl tolerates neo-Cals, theonomists, Lutherans, Edwardians and evangelicals on his site why not those who believe in a “real and personal” legal union with Christ? We are challenging some of the definitions of the Westminster confession but so have many others on this site (including Richard). It is a public forum open for public debate- not an OPC restricted forum. Darryl has never said anything otherwise. If Darryl would tell me to keep my comments to myself I would certainly do so out of respect for him and his wishes.

     LikeLike

470. Terry, is the Christian Reformed Church as straw man? Where have you been. Here is a description of one of their beliefs:

     Kingdom
     A final word that’s important to a Reformed accent is kingdom. And here the accent gets very broad because kingdom takes in all of human culture throughout the world. Unlike nations on earth, God’s kingdom does not have defined borders. It is not restricted to a certain location, like a cathedral; nor can it be reduced to “religious” activity. By God’s kingdom we mean God’s sovereign rule, God’s sphere of influence. We believe that God’s Spirit is busy extending God’s rule all over creation.

     Certainly God’s reign is evident in spiritual experiences of renewal and change. But it is also evident in God’s gracious upholding of creation day by day, season by season. God’s reign is evident anywhere God’s will is done—in actions, lives, technology, artistry, and institutions.

     God calls each of us to participate in the spread of his kingdom. The whole world is a place where we can carry out the mission of restoring God’s creation. In the memorable words of Dutch statesman and pastor Abraham Kuyper, “There is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is Sovereign over all, does not cry: ‘Mine!’”

     Our kingdom focus means that our denomination has been active in some unique kingdom-building activities. Avoiding any division between sacred and secular, we encourage endeavors in any sphere of human activity: art, media, publishing, law, education, labor relations, caregiving, agriculture, business, social justice, and politics. No area of human enterprise is exempt. CRC communities have established Christian schools from preschool to graduate school—not to protect students from the world but to give them the tools to engage any aspect of culture from the perspective of God’s kingdom.

     If a whole committee of the CRC put this together, I imagine you could find innumerable Reformed Protestants who think this way.

     But your outrage — “unconscionable” — is predictable. Neo-Calvinists regularly go wobbly whenever the learn that other Reformed Protestants don’t think the way they do. (BTW, is it unconscionable for Eerdmans to publish DVD’s book, a business owned by Dutch-Americans with neo-Calvinist roots?)

     LikeLike

471. Terry, if I were restricting comments here based on Old School convictions, wouldn’t I delete yours?

     LikeLike

472. Terry, just to add to Darryl’s point, worldview isn’t contained only within the CRC. From the PRC’s stance on day schools to the URC which seems most days like the-CRC-that-doesn’t-ordain-women, Dutch Reformed Protestantism has your back. Outrage, while predictable, also seems a little unbecoming someone in such a majority. Why not live large in an every square inch sort of way?

     LikeLike

473. John Yeazel: Terry, I am not sure what you mean by “real and personal” sanctification denying. That is a confusing sentence. I cannot speak for McMark but what I am questioning, along with what I understand McMark saying, is whether the biblical definition of sanctification is striving and progressing in holiness. Many theologians have questioned that definition.

     McMark has also been challenging Richard on why he thinks the work of the Holy Spirit is a more real and personal union with Christ than God imputing our sins to Christ and Christ’s righteousness to us legally. McMark does not think there is biblical evidence that this imputation is by the Spirit. In fact, that is what Horton argues for in his book COVENANT AND SALVATION-UNION WITH CHRIST. Calvin seems to go back and forth with this in his writings. So, this issue of union with Christ can get very confusing.

     RS: John, notice what you are doing here and what is done so often. In the days of Jesus the way that the scholars of that day argued was to say rabbi X said this, but rabbi Y said that. Along came Jesus who cut through all that and said “you err not knowing the Scriptures” and “But I say unto you.” We can quote scholars all day long, but at some point we have to to know that we err by not knowing the Scriptures and that what we know in the depths of our hearts must be taught us by Him. Whatever Horton says in his book, if he follows his pattern, he will tell you what a thousand others have said on the subject. Maybe I am a simpleton and all of that, but I want to hear a “thus says the Lord” over a thus says scholar or rabbi A while scholar or rabbi Y says something else while… Christians have went from arguing (presenting reasons) about the Bible to arguing about the Confessions to arguing about the scholars.

     Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because they have no dawn.

     2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;

     Acts 1:16 “Brethren, the Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit foretold by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus.

     Acts 2:17 ‘AND IT SHALL BE IN THE LAST DAYS,’ God says, ‘THAT I WILL POUR FORTH OF MY SPIRIT ON ALL MANKIND; AND YOUR SONS AND YOUR DAUGHTERS SHALL PROPHESY, AND YOUR YOUNG MEN SHALL SEE VISIONS, AND YOUR OLD MEN SHALL DREAM DREAMS;

     Hebrews 3:7 Therefore, just as the Holy Spirit says, “TODAY IF YOU HEAR HIS VOICE,

     Note that in the last two verses the writer was quoting the Old Testament and yet the voice of the Holy Spirit is said to be in the present active.

     WCF:
     IV. The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, depends not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.[9]

     V. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture.[10] And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it does abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.[11]

     Belgic Confession Article 7:

     Neither do we consider of equal value any writing of men, however holy these men may have been, with those divine Scriptures; nor ought we to consider custom, or the great multitude, or antiquity, or succession of times and persons, or councils, decrees, or statues, as of equal value with the truth of God, for the truth is above all; for all men are of themselves liars, and mor vain than vanity itself.”

     LikeLike

474. Hebrews 10: 10 “And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. 11 And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, 13 waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. 14 For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.”

     Now all we need to do is wait for RS to tell us what it means. Terry complains about me talking about a “personal” sanctification, and then tells us that the Confession teaches “personal” sanctification. I not only do not know what Terry’s point is, but I also do not remember using the word “personal”.

     LikeLike

475. I don’t know that anybody is denying the importance of “works”. The question rather is about if works cause sanctification (incomplete) or if sanctification (by Christ’s death) causes works. And this is not simply a Lutheran-Reformed discussion, but a discussion among the Reformed. Unless you are already “sanctified” (in some sense, by faith, by the effectual call, II Thess 2:13), are not your works still dead, unacceptable to God?

     Hebrews 6:1 Therefore let us leave the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God,

     Hebrews 9:14 how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God.

     Hebrews 10:24 And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works

     LikeLike

476. Doug, interesting. When I hear you I am reminded of Islam.

     Darryl, of all the insulting things you could ever say, that is maybe the most disappointing. Here you can’t tell the difference between God’s Law and Islam. Are you even a Christian? God’s Law is a perfect reflection of his character! It’s called good, and only God is good, yet the Bible calls the Law good as well. And you can’t tell the difference between God’s Law, and Sharia Law?

     No wonder you hate God’s written Law for society, you can’t see the difference between it, and Islam. Wow! This does explain a lot 😦

     LikeLike

477. mark mcculley: I don’t know that anybody is denying the importance of “works”. The question rather is about if works cause sanctification (incomplete) or if sanctification (by Christ’s death) causes works. And this is not simply a Lutheran-Reformed discussion, but a discussion among the Reformed. Unless you are already “sanctified” (in some sense, by faith, by the effectual call, II Thess 2:13), are not your works still dead, unacceptable to God?

     Hebrews 10:10 “And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. 11 And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, 13 waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. 14 For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.”

     RS: There is the being made holy and blameless by Christ and the person that has been regenerated and justified is sanctified (made holy) in that sense. But the word “sanctification” is also used in a second sense. While those who are regenerated and justified are made perfect by that one sacrifice of Christ and as such they are set apart as holy (sanctified), they also by practice grow in the practice of holiness. In one sense in justification a person is completely and perfectly sanctified in Christ, but in another sense the process of making the person holy in life (growing in faith and love) starts. It is not that works cause a person to become more sanctified, but the regenerate and justified person will manfiest a different life and that different and growing in holiness life is thought of as sanctification.

     For example, Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness” (Mat 5:6). Then we have Matthew 5: 18 “For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.
     19 “Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
     20 “For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.

     After verse 20 (verses 21-28) Jesus shows what the standard of the scribes and Pharisees is, but then contrasts that with His own teaching. He ends up telling the people that they are to be perfect. He then goes on into chapter 6 where He tells them not to practice their righteousness before men to be noticed by them. Another approach to this is to see this pursuit and practice of righteousness as sanctification or being made holy in life, which is of course by grace as well.

     Romans 6:19 I am speaking in human terms because of the weakness of your flesh. For just as you presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness, resulting in further lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness, resulting in sanctification.

     Romans 6:22 But now having been freed from sin and enslaved to God, you derive your benefit, resulting in sanctification, and the outcome, eternal life.

     1 Thessalonians 4:3 For this is the will of God, your sanctification; that is, that you abstain from sexual immorality; 4 that each of you know how to possess his own vessel in sanctification and honor, 7 For God has not called us for the purpose of impurity, but in sanctification.

     2 Thessalonians 2:13 But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth.

     Hebrews 12:14 Pursue peace with all men, and the sanctification without which no one will see the Lord.

     LikeLike

478. Doug, you’re right. My bad. A Muslim would not use emoticons.

     LikeLike

479. Pssst Richard,

     You’re reading those scriptures with Edwardsian, Holy Spirit revival sending glasses (extraordinary means of grace). I am reading them with atonement, legal imputation and perfect righteousness of Christ delared and transferred to me glasses. You see the Holy Spirit regenerating as logically before imputation and justification. I see the imputation as logically before justification (justification of the ungodly). The justification results in reconciliation and adoption which is the basis for Christ giving the Holy Spirit (renewal and sanctification) to the ungodly one who is no longer ungodly because of Christ’s righteousness transferred and God declaring us not guilty anymore.

     3 scripture passages for Richard to read and consider:

     1) Galatians chapter 3 and 4- because you are sons (adoption), you are given faith, ie., adoption before regeneration and faith.

     2) 2Peter 1:1- not only that faith is given, but that faith is given through the righteousness of Christ which has been transferred to us.

     3) Romans 8:10- life (Holy Spirit renewal) because of righteousness (transferred or imputed)

     Receive in scipture sometimes means faith and sometimes means being imputed with in scripture.

     LikeLike

480. 2 Thessalonians 2:13 “But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth.”

     If there are two senses of “sanctification” (and I think there are), then we better say which sense we mean when we use the word. Not only does the Bible teach “sanctification” by the blood, but also it teaches an either/or between those who have faith in the truth of the gospel and those who do not.

     “Sanctification by the Spirit” produces faith in the truth. But even in this second sense, one is either a saint or one is not. No inbetween. No incomplete. No on the way to, getting better at….

     So perhaps there are three senses of the word “sanctification”. If so, then we need to be even more careful to say in what sense we use the word. I know that the way the word is must often used outside of Scripture is about the Christian life after we become saints. My main concern is not the word we use, but that we make it clear what we mean when we use the word.

     This involves attending to what Bible verses mean when they use the word “sanctification”. It also means not formally agreeing that there is a past tense meaning to the word, but then forgetting that idea even though it is predominant in the Bible (but not in the Confession’s paragraphs on “sanctification”).

     In terms of the two verses in Romans 6, I would recommend David Petersen’s book Possessed by God, in which he argues that the sanctification result is an either/or, not a “continuing to complete an incomplete regeneration”. But I remember we don’t need to bother with scholarship. All we need are the Bible texts, and RS to tell us what they obviously mean.

     I Corinthians 1:1 Paul, called by the will of God to be an apostle of Christ Jesus, and our brother Sosthenes, 2 To the church of God that is in Corinth, to those SANCTIFIED in Christ Jesus, called to be SAINTS together with all those who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both their Lord and ours…

     30 And because of God you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and SANCTIFICATION and redemption, 31 so that, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.”

     1 Corinthians 6:11 “And such were some of you. But you were washed, you WERE SANCTIFIED, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.”

     LikeLike

481. Romans 5: 17 speaks of “those who receive the free gift of righteousness” and how they reign in life through the one man Christ Jesus. This receiving is not the sinner believing. It is not an “exercise of faith”. ( In places like John 1:12-13, receive does mean “believe”.)

     The elect “receive” the righteousness by God’s imputation. The elect do not impute their sins to Christ. Nor can the elect impute Christ’s righteousness to themselves until after God has already imputed the righteousness. God is the one who imputes. Believers count (reckon) what God has already counted.

     The receiving of the righteousness is not the same as the righteousness. The imputation is not at the same TIME as when Christ earned the righteousness. God declaring the elect to be joint-heirs with Christ in that righteousness is not the same as the righteousness.

     There is a difference between imputation and righteousness. Our continuing acts of faith are not the righteousness. But neither is God’s imputation the righteousness.

     This is not four-pointer double-talk about a difference between “objective redemption” and actual atonement. Rather, it is a recognition of the biblical difference between Christ obtaining (purchasing, bringing in) the righteousness and justification.

     I am NOT talking about the elect “doing something” to get justified. I am talking about a distinction between God’s imputing and God’s righteousness. Even before they are justified, the elect are entitled by Christ’s work to justification. But the elect are not justified until God imputes the righteousness to them.

     II Peter 1:1 “Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ,To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:”

     LikeLike

482. John Yeazel: Pssst Richard, You’re reading those scriptures with Edwardsian, Holy Spirit revival sending glasses (extraordinary means of grace).

     RS: All grace is extraordinary. I am sorry that you think of ordinary grace. Actually, I am reading Edwards and looking at him through the lense of Scripture and the Holy Spirit is the only One who can open the eyes of the mind or soul to behold Him.

     John Yeazel: I am reading them with atonement, legal imputation and perfect righteousness of Christ delared and transferred to me glasses.

     RS: But of course I believe those things, so it is not that I don’t believe them. It seems that you believe those things apart from a real Christ really dwelling in His people. Like I said, it sure seems that this is what you meam. Take, for example, I John 4. It speaks of propitiation, but what does propitiation do? It takes away the wrath of God so that the love of God may dwell in the soul. Why does God justify sinners? Could it be so that He may dwell in them and make them His dwelling place?

     John Yeazel: You see the Holy Spirit regenerating as logically before imputation and justification. I see the imputation as logically before justification (justification of the ungodly). The justification results in reconciliation and adoption which is the basis for Christ giving the Holy Spirit (renewal and sanctification) to the ungodly one who is no longer ungodly because of Christ’s righteousness transferred and God declaring us not guilty anymore.

     RS: But then you would have a non-spiritual and dead person justified. You would have a spiritually dead person exercising spiritual faith? It takes faith to receive Christ and grace, but the only way a person can have faith is if a person is regenerated and so is a believing soul.

     John Yeazel: 3 scripture passages for Richard to read and consider:

     1) Galatians chapter 3 and 4- because you are sons (adoption), you are given faith, ie., adoption before regeneration and faith.

     RS: You might want to read 4:6 again. That text is not speaking of regeneration or justification necessarily, but what the Spirit does in the heart. The point is that the Spirit cries out in the heart.

     2) 2Peter 1:1- not only that faith is given, but that faith is given through the righteousness of Christ which has been transferred to us.

     RS: But of course the II Peter 1:1 is not speaking of a faith that a person has, but the objective faith as in the Christian faith. Another example of this is in Jude 3: ” Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints.”

     3) Romans 8:10- life (Holy Spirit renewal) because of righteousness (transferred or imputed)

     RS: I am afraid I don’t see your point taught in this text. Romans 8:4 speaks of the righteous requirement of the law being fulfilled in those who walk according to the Spirit. The context, then, is of those who cannot submit to the law and cannot please God (Rom 8:7-8). Those who have the Spirit of God, however, are not in the flesh and Christ and the Spirit dwells in them.

     John Yeazel: Receive in scipture sometimes means faith and sometimes means being imputed with in scripture.

     RS: Nevertheless, if you will look closely at John 1:12-13 you will notice that a person is born again before they believe. Look at the tense of the verb starting verse 13 and ask when “you were born” actually happened. Why was that verb in the past tense? Then if you go to John 3:3-8, you can see that before a person can see (only those with faith can see in this way) that person must be born again.

     LikeLike

483. McMark: In terms of the two verses in Romans 6, I would recommend David Petersen’s book Possessed by God, in which he argues that the sanctification result is an either/or, not a “continuing to complete an incomplete regeneration”. But I remember we don’t need to bother with scholarship. All we need are the Bible texts, and RS to tell us what they obviously mean.

     RS: Which, of course, my point is not to say that scholarship is not needed or wanted. The point is that discussions can degenerate into discussion about what men say about what other men say. I do not argue an incomplete regeneration.

     mark mcculley: Romans 5: 17 speaks of “those who receive the free gift of righteousness” and how they reign in life through the one man Christ Jesus. This receiving is not the sinner believing. It is not an “exercise of faith”. ( In places like John 1:12-13, receive does mean “believe”.)

     RS: Receiving is what believing does.

     McMark: The elect “receive” the righteousness by God’s imputation. The elect do not impute their sins to Christ. Nor can the elect impute Christ’s righteousness to themselves until after God has already imputed the righteousness. God is the one who imputes. Believers count (reckon) what God has already counted.

     RS: But the sins of the elect are imputed to Christ or He could not have payed for them. Indeed believers cannot impute the righteousness of Christ to themselves, but that righteousness must be imputed to them in a legal way and that is by union (married to) with Christ. It seems that you are striving for an imputation apart from the two being counted as one.

     McMark: The receiving of the righteousness is not the same as the righteousness. The imputation is not at the same TIME as when Christ earned the righteousness. God declaring the elect to be joint-heirs with Christ in that righteousness is not the same as the righteousness.

     RS: But can one receive the righteousness of Christ apart from receiving Christ? I say not at all, but it is in receiving Christ that one has His righteousness.

     McMark: There is a difference between imputation and righteousness. Our continuing acts of faith are not the righteousness. But neither is God’s imputation the righteousness.

     RS: Of course there is a difference between those two and our continuing acts of faith are not that righteousness. Christ Himself is our righteousness.

     LikeLike

484. Unless you are a Pharisee, you will know that the only righteousness that exceeds that of the Pharisee is the imputed righteousness of Christ. No amount of a supposed infused or imparted righteousness can make you more acceptable to God than were the Pharisees. You are not
     more sincere than the Pharisee nor have you now managed to escape the law/gospel antithesis. Nor is Christ the person inside us, in distinction from His finished work, our Righteousness.

     John Murray: “The righteousness of Christ is the righteousness of his perfect obedience, a righteousness undefiled and undefilable, a righteousness which not only warrants the justification of the ungodly but one that necessarily elicits and constrains such justification. God cannot but accept into his favor those who are invested with the righteousness of his own Son.” [John Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied (Eerdmans, 1955), p 124

     As the guilt of Adam is not received by faith but by imputation, even so the righteousness of Christ must be received by imputation. Faith to receive the gospel is a result of the legal passive reception of Christ’s righteousness.

     Romans 5:11 “More than that, we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now RECEIVED reconciliation.12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all because all sinned— 13 for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. 14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of
     Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.

     15 But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. 16 And the free gift is not like the result of that one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. 17 For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who RECEIVE the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.”

     LikeLike

485. mark mcculley: Unless you are a Pharisee, you will know that the only righteousness that exceeds that of the Pharisee is the imputed righteousness of Christ. No amount of a supposed infused or imparted righteousness can make you more acceptable to God than were the Pharisees. You are not more sincere than the Pharisee nor have you now managed to escape the law/gospel antithesis. Nor is Christ the person inside us, in distinction from His finished work, our Righteousness.

     RS: I can see all the things you are bringing up and perhaps the mental block that keeps you from interpreting this passage in its own context. I have some sympathy for that, but your interpretation is far wide of the context. The imputation of the righteousness of Christ is far from the context, though indeed it is the only perfect righteousness acceptable to God. However, once again, that is not what that text is speaking of. Read the text slowly and carefully noting the reasons that are given.

     Matthew 5:17 “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18 “For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 “Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 “For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.

     RS: Notice how verse 20 starts off. It starts off with a “for” which is giving us a reason for what he just said. It is talking about those who keep and teach the commandments versus those who do not keep and teach them. The righteousness spoken of there is a righteousness that is correlated with the keeping of the law, but indeed one cannot earn salvation or merit anything because of it. However, if one has eternal life then one loves Christ and keeps His commandments. So a sign of love for Christ is keeping the commandments which is exactly what is being spoken of here.

     The righteousness spoken of in this context is that which is greater than the scribes and the Pharisees. In the very next verse Christ starts a section in which He goes through a few of the commandments. He deals with the commands that deal with murder, adultery, lying, and loving your neighbor. He then compared the interpretation of the law of the scribes and Pharisees with His which was the true one. They interpreted the law by outward actions but Jesus went to the depths of the heart. In keeping the law from the heart is the way which people surpass the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees. It is only those who have Christ in their heart that can do that. But again, it does not earn anything toward justification but is what one is saved for.

     LikeLike

486. Darryl, re Confessionalism, I suspected you might give such a retort. But, you see, I don’t disagree with the Confession and I think you’d be hard pressed to find an OPC judicatory that would say that neo-Calvinism is contrary to the ordination vows.

     Also, I don’t really expect comments to be deleted just because you disagree with them. What fun would that be. But I would expect that your zeal for the Confession would cause you to speak up against those who would deny the Confession’s teaching on sanctification or who would collapse sanctification into justification and make all righteousness to be forensic. You seem to be more focused on disputing Richard who is defending the Confession’s teaching on sanctification. Just seems odd.

     LikeLike

487. I would be glad to hear Terry’s case for a non-forensic righteousness. Does he want to take up the Pharisee interpretation of Matthew 5:20.? The first part of that is to tell those of us who look only to Christ’s imputed righteousness to read the text more slowly. I deny that I am collapsing justification and sanctification. The fact that “sanctification” as described in the Bible (by the blood, by the Spirit teaching the truth) is a completed thing, where we are either holy or not, does not mean that sanctification is the same as justification. Righteous and holy are not the same thing.

     I certainly would agree that I have a different emphasis than the Confession when defining “sanctification”. But RS’s notion of a “real but incomplete” righteousness inside us sounds much more like Osiander than it does like Calvin or the Confession. I would remind you that this thread started with the topic of the “noetic effects of regeneration” and I am denying that “sanctification” equates to “the continuing but partial result of regeneration”.

     Since there is no “non-forensic righteousness” in the Bible, we certainly should not equate that concept with “sanctification”. And nobody here is denying that regeneration causes faith in the gospel, or that faith in Christ comes after regeneration.

     But when you read Matthew 5 slowly, tell yourselves, now there is no need in this context for what Christ did outside me (I don’t deny that of course but) no need here because unlike the Pharisees who didn’t have the Spirit like I do, I thank God that I do keep and teach the commandments versus those who do not keep and teach them. And sure, I don’t keep them perfectly, but I do keep them habitually and as a pattern of life, and this is my nonforensic righteousness which certainly exceeds that of the pharisees. And remember I give grace the credit for me keeping the laws, and I don’t claim merit. Because the Pharisees didn’t thank God. They thought it was merit not grace. But I don’t.

     So in this context, there is no need to bring up Christ’s death or Christ’s love or Christ’s keeping the commandments. In this context, let’s talk about me loving (not perfectly but by grace better than most) and let’s not forget Christ but let’s focus on Christ in me helping me to love and in this context not on Christ’s death back then over there in this context which is you will remember not Pauline so it’s not about having Christ’s righteousness imputed to you because in this context what saints do is enough to exceed those other people. What saints do is the “non-forensic righteousness of Christ”, because you see Christ is in them.

     And one more thing. We know we are better than the Pharisees not because of imputed righteousness but because our interpretation of the commands is better because in this context Jesus is not giving any new or different commands but simply clearing away the Pharisee’s interpretation of the commands which allowed them to imagine that they were keeping commands but we ourselves are not like that because we understand that commands are not merely external and so that’s why we know that we measure up internally we are better than they were and don’t need to talk about a forensic righteousness (not that we deny that) but there’s no need for it in this context. And again, remember we are not talking about our merits or even about our justification but the Pharisees were but we are not and so that’s why we know our righteousness not only exceeds that of theirs but we know (as of right now) that our righteousness is enough because Christ lives in us and the Spirit causes us not to sin enough to be like Pharisees.

     And I don’t know why the objection “why don’t you just sin and get more grace” ever comes up because in this context everybody knows that grace is not about the forgiveness of sin but about not sinning.

     LikeLike

488. McMark: I certainly would agree that I have a different emphasis than the Confession when defining “sanctification”. But RS’s notion of a “real but incomplete” righteousness inside us sounds much more like Osiander than it does like Calvin or the Confession. I would remind you that this thread started with the topic of the “noetic effects of regeneration” and I am denying that “sanctification” equates to “the continuing but partial result of regeneration”.

     RS: Even if you deny that the word is used in the Bible in the way that others use it, surely you will allow the concept of people growing in maturity and holiness. If not, then there is no need for anything after they are converted.

     McMark: Since there is no “non-forensic righteousness” in the Bible, we certainly should not equate that concept with “sanctification”. And nobody here is denying that regeneration causes faith in the gospel, or that faith in Christ comes after regeneration.

     RS: Matthew 5 and 6 gives us specific instances of non-forensic righteousness. The context absolutely demands that we look at it that way. Matthew 6:1 tells us to “Beware of practicing your righteousness before men to be noticed by them.” That is not forensic righteousness.

     McMark: But when you read Matthew 5 slowly, tell yourselves, now there is no need in this context for what Christ did outside me (I don’t deny that of course but) no need here because unlike the Pharisees who didn’t have the Spirit like I do, I thank God that I do keep and teach the commandments versus those who do not keep and teach them.

     RS: Mock away, but it is speaking of how one keeps the commandments rather than how one receives the imputed righteousness of Christ. How one lives shows who their father is. For example, John 8 has Jesus telling the Pharisees that they were of their father the devil. He lied and was the father of lies. But in Matthew 5, there is a real Father.
     43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and hate your enemy.’

     RS: Here, once again, is how the scribes and the Pharisees interpreted the second Greatest Command.

     44 “But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,

     RS: Here is Jesus telling the truth of that command. Remember that this is in the context of believers having to exceed or surpass the righteousness of the Pharisees. The natural man who has the devil as his father cannot love his enemies, but those who are born of God and know God are the only ones who can truly love and so they love based on love for and from the Father (I John 4:7-8).

     45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.

     RS: Why are believers to love their enemies? It shows who their Father really is.

     46 “For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?

     RS: The world simply loves those who love them and hate those who hate them. What biting words fo the Pharisees that those hated tax collectors loved those who loved them.

     47 “If you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?

     RS: But again, love prompted by self-interest is not true love, but only love for self which is the great I-dol of the world.

     48 “Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

     RS: We can argue about what it means to be perfect in this context, but we know that it means to be like our heavenly Father. It is about how we behave in the world and how we are to be like Him because what we have is from Him. As Matthew 5:16 sets out, “Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.” That is not an imputed righteousness for a forensic justification.

     McMark: And sure, I don’t keep them perfectly, but I do keep them habitually and as a pattern of life, and this is my nonforensic righteousness which certainly exceeds that of the pharisees.

     RS: With your sarcasm noted, please note that the Word of God says with perfect clarity that unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees you will not enter the kingdom. The context is about how the interpretation of the scribes and Pharisees led them to live lives focused in an external keeping of the law, but Jesus is saying we must keep them from the heart. In other words, we must love God from the heart first in order to keep the commandments.

     McMark: And remember I give grace the credit for me keeping the laws, and I don’t claim merit. Because the Pharisees didn’t thank God. They thought it was merit not grace. But I don’t.

     RS: Your sarcasm is not fitting a discussion of this sort. Would you make fun of Paul? In fact you are making fun of what I said which is mirrored by and based on what Paul said. Notice what he says below:

     1 Corinthians 15:10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me did not prove vain; but I labored even more than all of them, yet not I, but the grace of God with me.

     Col 1:27 to whom God willed to make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.
     28 We proclaim Him, admonishing every man and teaching every man with all wisdom, so that we may present every man complete in Christ.
     29 For this purpose also I labor, striving according to His power, which mightily works within me.

     LikeLike

489. McMark: So in this context, there is no need to bring up Christ’s death or Christ’s love or Christ’s keeping the commandments. In this context, let’s talk about me loving (not perfectly but by grace better than most) and let’s not forget Christ but let’s focus on Christ in me helping me to love and in this context not on Christ’s death back then over there in this context which is you will remember not Pauline so it’s not about having Christ’s righteousness imputed to you because in this context what saints do is enough to exceed those other people. What saints do is the “non-forensic righteousness of Christ”, because you see Christ is in them.

     RS: Galatians 2:20 should be clear enough for you to stop the mocking, but I have given that before.

     McMark: And one more thing. We know we are better than the Pharisees

     RS: Not better as such, but the text says our righteousness must exceed or surpass that of the Pharisees or we will not enter the kingdom. Those are the words of Jesus. It might behoove you to think on that just a bit before you so easily and mockingly dismiss them. That is also another way of saying what James said. You appear to want a faith without works, yet James said that faith without works is dead. A person has not been regenerated if that person is not striving to keep the law from the heart.

     McMark: not because of imputed righteousness but because our interpretation of the commands is better because in this context Jesus is not giving any new or different commands but simply clearing away the Pharisee’s interpretation of the commands which allowed them to imagine that they were keeping commands but we ourselves are not like that because we understand that commands are not merely external and so that’s why we know that we measure up internally we are better than they were and don’t need to talk about a forensic righteousness (not that we deny that) but there’s no need for it in this context.

     RS: Notice that no one said that there is no need of the forensic righteousness of Christ. That is the only way a person can be declared righteous. However, while the works that exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees cannot be done by any unconverted person and they do not merit anything before God, they must be there or new life is not there. If a person does not have a righteousness that exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, that person does not have the imputed righteousness of Christ which only comes when one has Christ Himself.

     McMark: And again, remember we are not talking about our merits or even about our justification but the Pharisees were but we are not and so that’s why we know our righteousness not only exceeds that of theirs but we know (as of right now) that our righteousness is enough because Christ lives in us and the Spirit causes us not to sin enough to be like Pharisees.

     RS: Aside from your mocking tone, that is pretty much correct. A believer that Christ has saved and lives in will certainly be different and the one that is the temple of the Spirit will certainly live differently than those whose father is the devil.

     McMark: And I don’t know why the objection “why don’t you just sin and get more grace” ever comes up because in this context everybody knows that grace is not about the forgiveness of sin but about not sinning.

     RS: That is precisely the question that people who did not understand the fullness of grace asked Paul. He answered that below.

     Romans 6:1 What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase?
     2 May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it?
     3 Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death?
     4 Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.
     5 For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection,
     6 knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin;
     7 for he who has died is freed from sin.

     RS: Grace is certainly about the forgiveness of sin but also about delivering people from sin in this life. Remember Titus 2? ” 11 For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men, 12 instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age”

     RS: Grace brings salvation, but it also instructs us about other things. It instructs us how to live, and part of that is how to live righteously and godly in the present age. Grace instructs us how to deny ungodliness and it instructs us how to live righteously in the present age. That is what the text says.

     13 looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus, 14 who gave Himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed, and to purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds.

     RS: What did God intend by the atonement? To redeem us from every lawless deed. In other words, Christ died to buy His people back from lawless deeds (non-imputation, non-judicial only). He also died to purify for Himself a people that are zealous for good deeds. But again, that would be in this present world and it is how they live. But again, are these things accomplished in His people or did He die in vain? Could it be that Christ died in order to make His people where their righteousness would exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees? Yes, that is part of what He died for and King Jesus gets what He died for.

     LikeLike

490. Terry, you’re dodging the so-called straw man of neo-Calvinism and the CRC (not to mention what happened to the Free University and GKN).

     No one is saying that neo-Cal’s should be brought up on charges. The point is that neo-Cals need to do some real self-identity adjustment and own up to the neo- in their name instead of looking in shock (UNCONSCIONABLE!!) at 2kers and other dissenters as the ones who are novel.

     LikeLike

491. Darryl, you misread my complaint. If you were to make reasoned arguments against the view you quoted (which is a fair summary especially  if read against the grid of church as institute vs. church as organism, i.e. the “all of life” tasks are tasks of believers in their respective vocations) I would have no quarrel. But when you say that we think believers are smarter than unbelievers because of the work of the Holy Spirit, or that the cultural mandate is a form of obedience to the covenant of works and motivated by works righteousness, or that the coming kingdom depends on our work instead of God’s or that we underestimate the power of the enemy because we think we work toward God’s ways in the world, or that our neighbors are “bad” (just to name a few recent examples), then you are arguing against a straw man. Neo-Calvinists don’t say those things, even CRC neo-Calvinists.

     I’m just asking for good arguments. That’s all.

     LikeLike

492. Terry, smart guy reason with thyself. All of the objections here are based on Reformed teachings that neo-Calvinists don’t sufficiently consider when they claim the abiding authority of the creation mandate, w-w, cultural transformation as kingdom work, and social justice and righteousness. If you were a nice fellow, you’d be thanking me for all of the grief because it should actually help neo-Cals strengthen their arguments. But they have been so dominant in evangelical and Reformed circles that their minds have grown soft and the only response is outrage and charges of strawmen.

     Really, anyone who claims to be neo-Cal needs to do some serious reassessment and the CRC and GKN would be the first reasons to do so.

     LikeLike

493. Mark, does the work of the Holy Spirit and our abiding in Christ produce fruit in the form of a changed life: love, joy, peace, patience, etc.? Do we love God’s Word more? Are we more remorseful for our sins? Do we desire to know God? Etc. Please note that none of this ever becomes the ground of justification (Rome’s and Osiander’s error). Do believer’s lives get transformed? Are we expected to obey God’s (but not perfectly) by the empowering of the Spirit?

     LikeLike

494. Darryl, if you can’t see the difference between your baseless accusations that no neo-Calvinist holds to (and that you construct in you own mind) and the substance of the debate (the character of the kingdom, God’s mission, the degree of continuity between the Creation and the New Heavens and the New Earth), then I don’t really have much more to say. I do appreciate the questions and the consequent sharpening of my view and you already know that I’m critical of the trajectory in the CRC which is the result of a flawed implementation rather than a flawed theory. I also am willing to keep saying that a APJ-like pluralism with sphere sovereignty and common grace comes very close to your 2k position.

     If you want to keep preaching to the 2k choir, keep up the straw men and the snarky comments. If you want to engage and make a serious effort to convince neo-Calvinists then let’s focus on the substance of the differences.

     LikeLike

495. Terry, but for you, whether it’s a blog post or a book from Eerdmans, it’s all unconscionable and baseless. And you have yet to acknowledge the CRC or GKN, not to mention both communions got hooked on neo-Calvinism.

     For the record, I have said that kingdom is an important difference. I pasted here a long quote from the CRC about the kingdom in response to your charge about unconscionable. And all I get is typical neo-Cal bluster — be serious and let’s talk about real differences. Well, I’m dialing up the differences line Terry. I mentioned kingdom. I produced a quote. And all I’m getting is your recording.

     LikeLike

496. Terry: “does the work of the Holy Spirit and our abiding in Christ produce fruit in the form of a changed life: love, joy, peace, patience, etc.? Do we love God’s Word more? Are we more remorseful for our sins? Do we desire to know God? Etc. Please note that none of this ever becomes the ground of justification (Rome’s and Osiander’s error). Do believer’s lives get transformed? Are we expected to obey God’s (but not perfectly) by the empowering of the Spirit?”

     mark: I am not sure I can unpack all of that now. I notice that you have two agents, not only the Spirit but our abiding. Are you saying that there is a “synergism” in creating this “changed life”? As in 100% God and 100% man, so that if I change less than you, the cause is less than 100% on my part? Notice I didn’t say that you said this, nor am I attempting to start an argument, but I am asking for clarification before I agree to the way you want to talk about it.

     The problem,Terry, is that you have not read the entire discussion. And of course there is no reason you should. But the question was about defining “righteousness” and “sanctification”. Surely, I agree that if there is any growth in the Christian life, it must be after justification and sanctification. Before justification and sanctification, we were dead in sins, dead workers, with dead works leading to death, and so there was zero growth, zero works that were acceptable and pleasing to God. And this is the main point I was making. I don’t care if it’s the tradition to say that the works are the sanctification, because that’s NOT how the Bible describes sanctification.

     But tradition talks about an infused righteousness, an imparted righteousness. (I know the word “infusion” got used some at Dordt.) I am not denying regeneration or fruit or that the justified continue to believe the gospel. I am denying that those things are “sanctification” or “righteousness”. And of course I am also denying the “practical syllogism” which bases assurance on what we find God doing in ourselves. So in this respect I have more in common with the Heidelberg than with the Westminster.

     Of course we are expect to obey God’s law. Even those outside of Christ are commanded to obey God’s law. Sin is still sin. But our assurance is to be found in what Christ did to justify and sanctify those who believe, and not in “imperfect” obeying. Imperfect obedience is not our righteousness or our hope. How perfect would our obeying need to be today for us to prove to ourselves that we believe the gospel? Terry, are you obeying that much today?

     As for Osiander, again Terry I don’t think you have read the entire discussion. Nobody (here) said that what God did in us was our merit or our “ground of future justification” But when what the Spirit enables us to do gets conflated with what Christ did and is then called the “the righteousness”, the position of Osiander is being approached. For a good work showing this problem, I would recommend the old volume by Boehl (The Reformed Doctrine of Justification).

     LikeLike

497. Galatians 2:20 I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself
     for me. 21 I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died in vain.

     mcmark: RS seems to be arguing for a righteousness (non-forensic, which he has not defined) which does come through the law as Christians are now enabled to keep the law. But verse 21 clearly teaches that if righteousness comes that way, then Christ’s death is no purpose. This should make us go back and think about Christ’s substitionary death as it is taught in verse 20.

     I want to quote now from a liberal Mennonite on verse 20, not to say that RS believes the same thing, but to give some idea of why I am so passionate about what may look like a mere technical point about righteousness. The Mennonite named Belousek (Atonement, Justice and
     Peace, Eerdmans, 2012, p314) writes concerning “I have been crucified with Christ” —“that the death of Jesus is something that has happened to himself RATHER THAN IN PLACE OF HIMSELF makes all the difference.” The Mennonite goes on to explain that the “I have been crucified” is not forensic/ substitutionary but refers to “Christ who lives in me”.

     I am not saying that RS would agree with that reading of Galatians 2:20, even though I certainly would be interested in his comments. The Mennonite’s point is that we should also include the “Christ lives in me” so that it becomes Christ’s death. The Mennonite denies that we can know we died simply because we believe the gospel. The Mennonite denies that the “we died” is based on “any narrow legal idea of imputation” The Mennonite (not all Mennonites, Belousek) thinks we know we died because Christ lives and accomplishes things in us now.

     I am sure that RS would not deny forensic substitution in 2:20 but I think also that he would want to somehow equate the “lives in me” with some kind of righteousness, and on top of that, base his assurance on this righteousness in us. As he says, unless this gets accomplished in us, the death
     of Christ would be to no purpose. So RS denies that the requirement of the law is perfectly satisfied in us by legal identification, imputation.

     RS: As Matthew 5:16 sets out, “Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.” That is not an imputed
     righteousness for a forensic justification.

     mark: I take it that “good works” is the antecedent for “That”. But our good works are not a righteousness. RS begs the question. This specific text does not say that anything is “righteousness”.

     LikeLike

498. RS: But again, are these things accomplished in His people or did He die in vain? Could it be that Christ died in order to make His people where their righteousness would exceed that of the scribes an Pharisees?

     II Corinthians 5:14-15, “For the love of Christ controls us, because we have concluded this: that one died for all, therefore all have died, and he died for all, that those who live would no longer live
     for themselves but who for themselves for him who for their sake died and was raised.”

     We can think about a “for” which is not substitution. I can score a goal for my team, without any idea that I am the only one playing the game. I score the goal for the sake of others on my team, and not only for myself, but that does not mean they do nothing and I do everything. In II Corinthians 5:14-15, it is not the “for” which get us to the idea of substitution.

     What gets us to substitution is “therefore all died”.

     How did “therefore all die”? The all died by imputation, by legal substitution. The command to those justified by God is that they no longer live for themselves but for Him, but it is NOT this living for Christ which accomplishes the righteousness or any part of the righteousness. The righteousness accomplished in the justified is accomplished by imputation. The righteousness imputed is that which exceeds that of the Pharisees, and we do not need to turn into
     Pharisees with a claim of some other “exceeding” to prove to ourselves and others that we have had this righteousness imputed.

     “Therefore all have died”. It is a mistake to reference this death of the all to some experience believers have. The death of all is not their continuing repentance. The death of all is not their imperfect keeping of Christ’s commandments.

     The idea is NOT that Christ died one kind of death and as a result believers die another kind of death. The idea is NOT that Christ rose again from death and as a result believers now experience some ontological “breach with sin” so that they inevitably obey God and transcend the law-gospel antithesis.

     Christ’s death is His righteousness. The death Christ died to propitiate God’s wrath because of imputed sins is counted to the elect. “Therefore all have died” Christ alone, by Himself, without
     them, died this death. And it is that death, not some other kind of death, which the text teaches “all died.”

     Moo writes on Romans 8:4 in NICNT, p482—”Some think that Christians, with the Spirit empowering within, fulfill the demand of the law by righteous living. However, while it is true that God’s act in Christ has as one of its intents that we produce fruit, we do not think that this is what Paul is saying here.

     First, the passive verb “be fulfilled” points not to something that we are to do but to something that is done in and for us. Second, the always imperfect obedience of the law by Christians does not satisfy what is demanded by the logic of this text. The fulfilling of the “just decree of the law” must answer to that inability of the law with which Paul began this sentence. “What the law could not do” is to free people from “the law of sin and death”–to procure righteousness and life. And it could not do this because the “flesh” prevented people from obeying its precepts.

     The removal of this barrier consists not in the actions of believers (so that flesh in us is eliminated or reformed or modified) because our obedience always falls short of that perfect obedience
     required by the law. If then the inability of the law is to be overcome without an arbitrary cancellation of the law, it can only happen through a perfect obedience of the law’s demands. (See Romans 2:13 and our comments there.)

     As Calvin puts it, “the faithful, while they sojourn in this world, never make such a proficiency, as that the justification of the law becomes in them full or complete. This must be applied to forgiveness; for when the obedience of Christ is accepted for us, the law is satisfied, so that we are counted just.”

     LikeLike

499. McMark: I am sure that RS would not deny forensic substitution in 2:20 but I think also that he would want to somehow equate the “lives in me” with some kind of righteousness, and on top of that, base his assurance on this righteousness in us. As he says, unless this gets accomplished in us, the death of Christ would be to no purpose. So RS denies that the requirement of the law is perfectly satisfied in us by legal identification, imputation.

     RS: As said before, what Christ did in His life and on the cross was sufficient to purchase salvation fully and completely for all whom He died for. However, the Law is not abrogated by the death of Christ and believers must be delivered from their bondage to sin in order to the freedom of keeping the law. If believers are to keep the law, it must be because of Christ in them. The only way to keep the law in any degree (since we cannot be perfect in this life) is by love. We have no access to love apart from God Himself who is the origin and source of love. We must have Christ in us by His Spirit or we have not been justified and we don’t love God. Those who love God keep His commandments.

     McMark quoting RS: As Matthew 5:16 sets out, “Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.” That is not an imputed
     righteousness for a forensic justification.

     mark: I take it that “good works” is the antecedent for “That”. But our good works are not a righteousness. RS begs the question. This specific text does not say that anything is “righteousness”.

     RS: This specific text is in the context of righteousness and us the verse immediately before the text we have been discussing.
     17 “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.
     18 “For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.
     19 “Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
     20 “For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.

     That text comes on the heels of the Beatitudes which includes 5:6 “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.” That text is part of the context of Matthew 6:1 (same sermon): “Beware of practicing your righteousness before men to be noticed by them; otherwise you have no reward with your Father who is in heaven.” That text is in the same sermon as what believers are to seek first: 33 “But seek first His kingdom and His righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.” That text is also in the same sermon that ends in this way: 7:18 “A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit. 19 “Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 “So then, you will know them by their fruits.

     RS: You know a tree by its fruits which is to say you know whether one is a lover of Christ or not by what the person does and the way s/he does it.

     21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.

     RS: I can rephrase this passage just a bit.”Not everyone who says to Me ‘Lord [your imputed righteousness], Lord’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.” In other words, once again, it is not what comes out of the mouth but it is the one who does the will of the Father who will enter. It is not that entering heaven is based on earning it by those works, but whether one has Christ or not is seen by whether one obeys the will of the Father or not. The devil’s children follow after the devil and his ways even in the things of religion, but those with God as their Father love the Son of the Father and obey His commands.

     22 “Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’
     23 “And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.’

     RS: Look at this text. What is the opposite of righteousness? It is sin or lawlessness. Regardless of what people say on that day, even if they have correct doctrine, preach, or cast out demons and do miracles, they will be told to depart if they practiced lawlessness. The scribes and the Pharisees practiced lawlessness in their very religion, but those who have been saved by Christ love Him and obey His commands. In that they exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees.

     LikeLike

500. mark mcculley: Quoting RS: But again, are these things accomplished in His people or did He die in vain? Could it be that Christ died in order to make His people where their righteousness would exceed that of the scribes an Pharisees?

     RS: You did not answer this question which was based on Titus 2:
     11 For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men,
     12 instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age, 13 looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus, 14 who gave Himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed, and to purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds.

     Note what grace does for believers and note what Christ died for. Grace teaches us to live righteously and godly in the present age. Christ died to redeem us from every lawless deed and to purify for Himself a people for HIs own possession, zealous for good deeds. That is what grace does to those that grace has already saved and part of what died for was to redeem from lawless deeds and make His people zealous for good deeds. It was more than justification and it was for more than an imputed righteousness. They all fit together, but one cannot deny one and assert the other without causing great harm to the whole teaching of Christ.

     LikeLike

501. mark mcculley:
     II Corinthians 5:14-15, “For the love of Christ controls us, because we have concluded this: that one died for all, therefore all have died, and he died for all, that those who live would no longer live
     for themselves but who for themselves for him who for their sake died and was raised.”

     We can think about a “for” which is not substitution. I can score a goal for my team, without any idea that I am the only one playing the game. I score the goal for the sake of others on my team, and not only for myself, but that does not mean they do nothing and I do everything. In II Corinthians 5:14-15, it is not the “for” which get us to the idea of substitution.

     What gets us to substitution is “therefore all died”.

     How did “therefore all die”? The all died by imputation, by legal substitution. The command to those justified by God is that they no longer live for themselves but for Him, but it is NOT this living for Christ which accomplishes the righteousness or any part of the righteousness. The righteousness accomplished in the justified is accomplished by imputation. The righteousness imputed is that which exceeds that of the Pharisees, and we do not need to turn into Pharisees with a claim of some other “exceeding” to prove to ourselves and others that we have had this righteousness imputed.

     RS: Galatians 2:20 speaks of dying to self so that Christ is our life.
     Galatians 5:24 Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.

     Galatians 6:14 But may it never be that I would boast, except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.

     Romans 6:4 Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection, 6 knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin;

     Colossians 3:3 For you have died and your life is hidden with Christ in God.

     RS: Following your logic of the text, if our death to self is by imputation and legal substitution, does that mean that our no longer living for ourselves but for Him is also by imputation and legal substitution? You cannot deny one and hold to the other. We must die to self by the grace of God so that the life in us is not that of self, pride, and the flesh, but will now be the resurrected Christ in us. If you are going to deny that we must really die to self, then you must also deny that we should live for Him.

     LikeLike

502. McMark: Moo writes on Romans 8:4 in NICNT, p482—”Some think that Christians, with the Spirit empowering within, fulfill the demand of the law by righteous living. However, while it is true that God’s act in Christ has as one of its intents that we produce fruit, we do not think that this is what Paul is saying here.

     RS: He can say that until the cows come home, but that does not make it so. Grammar is important and so is the context. Notice the context just below. There is no condemnation for those who ARE ALREADY in Christ. They are free from the law of sin and death. Remember, living and walking in sin is spiritual death. The law could not condemn sin in the flesh, but Christ did. Why did God send the Son in the likeness of sinful flesh as an offering for sin? So that the requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us!!!!! Who are those who in whom the law is being fulfilled? It is those who walk according to the Spirit and not according to the flesh. The subject being dealt with is following the flesh or fulfilling the law by the Spirit. One purpose of the death of Christ is so that the Law would be fulfilled in His people by the Spirit.

     Romans 8:1 Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
     2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death.
     3 For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh,
     4 so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.
     5 For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit.
     6 For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace,
     7 because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so,
     8 and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

     McMark: First, the passive verb “be fulfilled” points not to something that we are to do but to something that is done in and for us. Second, the always imperfect obedience of the law by Christians does not satisfy what is demanded by the logic of this text. The fulfilling of the “just decree of the law” must answer to that inability of the law with which Paul began this sentence. “What the law could not do” is to free people from “the law of sin and death”–to procure righteousness and life. And it could not do this because the “flesh” prevented people from obeying its precepts.

     RS: The passive points out that it is the Spirit who does this in us. The context is not speaking of imputation.

     McMark: The removal of this barrier consists not in the actions of believers (so that flesh in us is eliminated or reformed or modified) because our obedience always falls short of that perfect obedience required by the law. If then the inability of the law is to be overcome without an arbitrary cancellation of the law, it can only happen through a perfect obedience of the law’s demands. (See Romans 2:13 and our comments there.)

     RS: Romans 3:31 Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law.

     Of course we don’t obey perfectly, but that does not mean we are not to love God and seek to keep His holy commandments. Again, if we love Him we will obey His comamndments. He died so that His people could love Him. Keeping the commandments is true freedom and a privilege and having Christ in us is such a hope of the Gospel.

     LikeLike

503. Mark, I understand that you don’t want to use the word sanctification the way the Confession does. That’s largely semantics. I understand that. I also think that growth (what the Confession and historical Reformed theology calls sanctification) is the fruit of justification and definitive sanctification. That growth is something that God by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit works in us — it is both synergistic (e.g. we attend to the means of grace, we strive for law-keeping–we don’t “let go and let God”) and imparted and infused. If you’re not denying that then I and the Confession and, I’m guessing, even Richard have no disagreement.

     I agree that I should look to Christ alone as the basis for my being right with God. Yet, the Reformed understanding of James as articulated in the Reformed confessions seems to allow for the believer to see his/her good works as a confirmation of their faith–I think that’s different from object of faith or ground of justification. I have never thought that in doing so it allows the believer to replace Christ with works as the object of saving faith.

     But I keep hearing you say that there is not even such a thing as Holy Spirit produced transformation IN the believer, there is only Christ’s imputed righteousness.

     For what it’s worth, I think it was John who took some issue with “real and personal” when Richard used it in contrast with “forensic”. The Confession uses “real and personal” in this way in contrast with the forensic of an imputed righteousness.

     LikeLike

504. Darryl, it seems that you don’t want to own up to the straw men that you and Zrim keep tossing out. I guess I’ll have to live with that.

     I readily admit that we disagree on the meaning of kingdom (and, hence, you’re troubled by the CRC explanation of kingdom and I’m not). I agree that that may be a significant difference. I may even be willing to admit that the neo-Calvinist way of reading kingdom is truly “neo”. I’m still working on that one though. And, even if it is, I’m not sure the general concept is really “neo”. If I remember, you admit to the content of neo-Calvinists’ kingdom in Creation, Providence, vocation. and
     the common”. So we’re only differentiated in whether the word “kingdom” applies to any of that. I’m also not convinced that the neo-Calvinist view is necessarily at odds with the Westminster Confession–on the other hand, it may be supplemental to the Confession.

     I’m not nearly ready to concede that you are right and that neo-Calvinism has it wrong (even if it is truly “neo”). I’m not opposed to some progress in our Confession. As you’ve pointed out, American Presbyterianism modified its Confession in 1787 (or there-abouts) and the OPC did in 1937 (or whenever that was exactly). I think there are redemptive-historical/eschatological aspects (neo-Calvinists, Vos, Ridderbos, Gaffin, etc.) that are possible advances in Reformed theology that aren’t reflected by any Confessional documents. I don’t say that lightly since I don’t really think the Church’s confession really changes that much. (Changes are usually made when old heresies are now found acceptable.) As I’ve noted with respect to my own assessments of DVD and now reading some Bavinck on the question, one’s eschatology influences where one lands in all of this.

     As I’ve noted before I’m not all that sure that worldview is “Confessional”. The Christian worldview is rooted in the Confession, i.e. the summary of Biblical teaching. But worldview, inasmuch as it is an aspect of philosophy, goes beyond “Confession”. Church qua church doesn’t really do philosophy or the work of the state or the school or science or the arts or the family or … All of those things fall under worldview and “not one square inch” and the Lordship of Christ who is Lord and King of the earth and everything in it. They don’t fall “under” the church. They stand along side the church. The church does occupy a unique role compared to the other spheres in that it is the place where citizens of the kingdom are under the authority of Christ through the preaching of the gospel, the administration of the sacraments, and the exercise of church discipline.

     LikeLike

505. I am of course denying infusion and impartation. I disagree with Gaffin. I deny “snyergism in sanctification”

     Mike Horton: “It is inappropriate to import the monergism-synergism antithesis (typically belonging to the debate over the new birth and justification) into sanctification. It is better simply to say that we
     are working out that salvation that has Christ has already won for us…. Though in sanctification (unlike justification) faith is active in good works, the gospel is always the ground of our sanctification as well as our justification.”

     RS: HOWEVER, the Law is not abrogated by the death of Christ and believers must be delivered from their bondage to sin in order to the freedom of keeping the law. If believers are to keep the law, it must be because of Christ in them. The only way to keep the law in any degree (since we cannot be perfect in this life) is by love.

     mcmark: God’s justification by imputation has delivered the saints from their bondage to sin. RS simply keeps begging the question. He doesn’t deny justification but he denies that justification is what satisfies the law. Instead of resting in Christ’s perfect satisfaction, he continues to think that his own “to some degree” satisfaction of the law is the real thing which confirms everything.
     The law must be kept perfectly and that is why I keep saying, time after time, if believers in the gospel are to keep the law, it must be by imputation. Moo explains this very well, and RS merely repeats himself, paraphrasing the text again but not dealing with the problem of any idea of imperfection fulfilling the requirement of the law. What gives?–has God changed the law, made it less strict? Will you follow Richard Baxter and Wesley in your fear of antinomianism?

     Romans 6:14 For sin will have no dominion over you, because you are not under law but under grace.

     I know it is common to deny that Romans 6:7 means “justified from sin” and to claim that the chapter is about the power of sin and not the guilt of sin, but that distinction simply begs the question by assuming that the accusations of sin are not the power of sin. But Romans 6 does not refer to the power of the Holy Spirit as that which enables us to satisfy the law. Romans 6 refers to identification with Christ’s death to sin as that which frees us from the dominion of sin.
     Christ was not freed from sin by a regenerative “breach with sin” but by His death.

     RS: I can rephrase this passage just a bit.”Not everyone who says to Me ‘Lord [your imputed righteousness], Lord’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.” In other words, once again, it is not what comes out of the
     mouth but it is the one who does the will of the Father who will enter. It is not that entering heaven is based on earning it by those works, but whether one has Christ or not is seen by whether one obeys the will of the Father or not.

     mcmark: quite a rephrasing! It’s not by the declarative word out of God’s mouth (imputation) but by us getting busy with the Spirit’s help? I would recommend Mike Horton’s book on Covenant Union (and Bruce McCormack) on the performative effectiveness of God’s imputation. It will not do to claim, as does the Gaffin school, that forensic effectiveness confuses justification with regeneration. The effect does not have to be forensic for the cause to be forensic. And besides, the Gaffin school solution is to say that “union” (undefined, but not a forensic priority) causes justification. When they give priority to regeneration (and the following ontological breach with sin which supposedly overcomes the law-gospel antithesis) before justification, does that mean that justification is non-forensic because of a non-forensic cause? And so they retreat to admitting a legal aspect, and an election aspect to “union”, but before long again, they are forgetting both election and the legal, and getting back to Romans 2. Thus the claim: we are doing the will of God to some satisfactory degree, even if imperfectly, more than others, better and you can see it.

     To get back to RS, he simply begs the question. He assumes that “doing the will of God” equates to obeying commands, but in the context, those who are forbidden entrance have works and sincerely claim to have works. And yet God says to them, I never knew you. So “doing the
     will of God” cannot amount in this context to “see our works but we don’t claim merit for them”. Again, his is the argument of the Pharisee— even though those other guys say they have works, they really don’t because they don’t have good motives like we do, they don’t love God like we do. But my hope is in God’s love not mine, and the only way I can possibly satisfy God is by God’s imputation. Doing the will of God is believing that, and NOT believing that my imperfection will get it done or even confirm that it was done. If I don’t believe this forensic gospel, I still have no fear of the true God who demands zero “lawlessness”.

     RS: Galatians 2:20 speaks of dying to self so that Christ is our life. Galatians 5:24 Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. Galatians 6:14 But may it never be that I would boast, except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.

     mark. NO 2;20 DOES NOT speak of dying to self.. Galatian 2:20, like 5:24 and 6:14, speak of
     having died, not of a daily dying. Christ is not our life because of our daily dying. Christ is our life because by imputation we died with Christ. I am not denying daily dying. But I am denying that three texts in Galatians (or Romans 6) are talking about a daily dying. RS is doing the same thing the liberal Mennonite did. He is ignoring the past then, back there—the “I was crucified”, the “has been crucified”, and he wants to move the dying into what he now does. The texts won’t accomodate him.

     1 Peter 2:24 He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we HAVING DIED TO SIN, live to righteousness.

     LikeLike

506. Terry, please drop the straw man line. The CRC and its wider educational institutions are real, not straw. And if you think the CRC statement is fine, then we substantially disagree. And if you think that neo-Calvinism has helped the witness of the CRC and the former GKN, then have you considered whether your head is filled with straw?

     The bottom line is that a broad view of kingdom implicitly (and has historically) undermined a commitment to the uniqueness of word, sacrament, and discipline. Liberal Protestants blurred the kingdom. Kuyper did. Look at the effects on the churches.

     And I haven’t even started on how the mindset of “this world belongs to God” squares with “set your mind on things above.” Neo-Calvinism is spooked by the otherworldliness of biblical religion. It looks at this as fundamentalist. Great. Use derisive names. But read the Bible.

     LikeLike

507. mcmark: God’s justification by imputation has delivered the saints from their bondage to sin. RS simply keeps begging the question. He doesn’t deny justification but he denies that justification is what satisfies the law. Instead of resting in Christ’s perfect satisfaction, he continues to think that his own “to some degree” satisfaction of the law is the real thing which confirms everything.
     The law must be kept perfectly and that is why I keep saying, time after time, if believers in the gospel are to keep the law, it must be by imputation. Moo explains this very well, and RS merely repeats himself, paraphrasing the text again but not dealing with the problem of any idea of imperfection fulfilling the requirement of the law. What gives?–has God changed the law, made it less strict? Will you follow Richard Baxter and Wesley in your fear of antinomianism?

     RS: Yes, you keep saying that the law must be kept perfectly which is why we must have imputationi. But of course we must have imputation for justification. However, the Bible says that we must continue to keep the law out of love to/for God all of our days and that without pride or merit. Over and over I give you verses that tell us that if we love God we will obey His commands. It is in loving God that we obey His commands and it is in loving our neighbor that we fulfill the law. You have set up a paradigm which allows you to ignore the plain and clear teaching of Scripture. Believers are commanded to be holy as He is holy. We are commanded to love God with all of our heart, mind, soul, and strength and we are told that if we love Him we will obey His commands.

     Moo simply used a tense of the word rather than explain the context. His intepretation did not fit the context. No, I am not going the way of Richard Baxter either. I might say that my interpretation is in the whole line of the Puritans and the continental theologians as well., Why does a sinner that has already been declared just and perfectly righteous by the imputation of the righteousness of Christ need more imputation? The sinner that has been declared perfectly righteous by God is perfectly righteous in His sight and needs nothing else to walk into glory. What can imputation do to add to perfect imputation? Are you saying that the imputation in the sinners justification was not enough at that point? If so, then what does justification mean in your theology?

     A new heart that has Christ and the Spirit of Christ in it is a heart in which the love of God dwells and is a heart that wants to love God and live to the glory of God. The temple of the Holy Spirit is the temple of the living God and the Spirit of God is not content to live in His people without working in those people holiness. Remember, He is the HOLY Spirit. His work does not add to Christ, but instead it is to apply Christ. Love for God and obedience to His law does not add to justification, but shows that a sinner is justified because now Christ Himself and His Spirit dwell in the person.

     Romans 3:31 Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law.

     Romans 7:22 For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man,

     Romans 13:8 Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. 9 For this, “YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY, YOU SHALL NOT MURDER, YOU SHALL NOT STEAL, YOU SHALL NOT COVET,” and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying, “YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.” 10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

     Jeremiah 31:33 “But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the LORD, “I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.

     James 2:8 If, however, you are fulfilling the royal law according to the Scripture, “YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF,” you are doing well. 9 But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. 10 For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all. 11 For He who said, “DO NOT COMMIT ADULTERY,” also said, “DO NOT COMMIT MURDER.” Now if you do not commit adultery, but do commit murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. 12 So speak and so act as those who are to be judged by the law of liberty.

     John 14:15 “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.

     John 14:21 “He who has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me; and he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and will disclose Myself to him.”

     1 John 5:2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and observe His commandments. 3 For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not burdensome.

     2 John 1:6 And this is love, that we walk according to His commandments. This is the commandment, just as you have heard from the beginning, that you should walk in it.

     LikeLike

508. McMark quoting RS: I can rephrase this passage just a bit.”Not everyone who says to Me ‘Lord [your imputed righteousness], Lord’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.” In other words, once again, it is not what comes out of the
     mouth but it is the one who does the will of the Father who will enter. It is not that entering heaven is based on earning it by those works, but whether one has Christ or not is seen by whether one obeys the will of the Father or not.

     mcmark: quite a rephrasing! It’s not by the declarative word out of God’s mouth (imputation) but by us getting busy with the Spirit’s help?

     RS: But that is not what I said and that is not what the text says either. Again, it is not those who say ‘Lord, Lord’ that will enter the kingdom. Note, the contrast is with those who use theological language and those who do the will of God.
     Matthew 7:21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.
     22 “Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’
     23 “And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.’

     RS: Once again, who are those tho are commanded to depart from Him? Those who practice lawlessness. What is lawlessness? It is breaking the law and therefore sin. 1 John 3:4 Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness. You must argue with the text to get at your stated opinion. There will be many religious people who have correct theology and there will be many people who were preachers and did miracles. But despite all of their religion, if they practiced lawlessness they will be commanded to depart. Yes, a person must be declared just in the sight of God on the basis of Christ alone, but that leads to holiness and a desire to be like God in keeping the law. Read the text.

     McMark: I would recommend Mike Horton’s book on Covenant Union (and Bruce McCormack) on the performative effectiveness of God’s imputation. It will not do to claim, as does the Gaffin school, that forensic effectiveness confuses justification with regeneration. The effect does not have to be forensic for the cause to be forensic. And besides, the Gaffin school solution is to say that “union” (undefined, but not a forensic priority) causes justification. When they give priority to regeneration (and the following ontological breach with sin which supposedly overcomes the law-gospel antithesis) before justification, does that mean that justification is non-forensic because of a non-forensic cause? And so they retreat to admitting a legal aspect, and an election aspect to “union”, but before long again, they are forgetting both election and the legal, and getting back to Romans 2. Thus the claim: we are doing the will of God to some satisfactory degree, even if imperfectly, more than others, better and you can see it.

     RS: Of course believers keep the law of God more than others because apart from the love of/for God there is no obedience to the law at all. Of course those who have the love of God dwelling in them keep the law to some degree better than those who don’t have the love of God. I Corinthians 13 sets this out so very clearly. Apart from love all we do is of no benefit. But once again, keeping the law out of love does not merit justification in the slightest. But it does show that the love of God is in a person.

     LikeLike

509. McMark: To get back to RS, he simply begs the question. He assumes that “doing the will of God” equates to obeying commands, but in the context, those who are forbidden entrance have works and sincerely claim to have works. And yet God says to them, I never knew you. So “doing the will of God” cannot amount in this context to “see our works but we don’t claim merit for them”.

     RS: No, the text says quite clearly that the difference is in those who say things and do certain things, but that they actually do lawlessness. Read the text closely.

     McMark: Again, his is the argument of the Pharisee— even though those other guys say they have works, they really don’t because they don’t have good motives like we do, they don’t love God like we do. But my hope is in God’s love not mine, and the only way I can possibly satisfy God is by God’s imputation. Doing the will of God is believing that, and NOT believing that my imperfection will get it done or even confirm that it was done. If I don’t believe this forensic gospel, I still have no fear of the true God who demands zero “lawlessness”.

     RS: My argument is far from the Pharisees, but I will of course admit that non-believers don’t love God like believers. In fact, unbelievers hate God and believers love God because of His indwelling love. The fact that believers love God is by grace. That is not what a Pharisee would say. But again, of course justification is forensic, but the Bible is clear that those who love God obey His commands. I have given several verses on that more than once. The hope of the believer is Christ alone, but that does not mean that the believer is free from the love of God which is keeping His commandments.

     McMark quoting RS: Galatians 2:20 speaks of dying to self so that Christ is our life. Galatians 5:24 Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. Galatians 6:14 But may it never be that I would boast, except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.

     mark. NO 2;20 DOES NOT speak of dying to self.. Galatian 2:20, like 5:24 and 6:14, speak of
     having died, not of a daily dying. Christ is not our life because of our daily dying. Christ is our life because by imputation we died with Christ. I am not denying daily dying. But I am denying that three texts in Galatians (or Romans 6) are talking about a daily dying. RS is doing the same thing the liberal Mennonite did. He is ignoring the past then, back there—the “I was crucified”, the “has been crucified”, and he wants to move the dying into what he now does. The texts won’t accomodate him.

     RS: But the texts do accomodate this. It is speaking of a present living by faith and a present Christ who lives in the person. As Paul also said in another place, 1 Corinthians 15:31 ” I affirm, brethren, by the boasting in you which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily.” We are also told by Jesus to deny ourselves daily. So indeed there is a death in the past, but there is also the need to do this daily as indeed we are to repent daily (if not hourly or every minute).

     McMark quoting Peter: 1 Peter 2:24 He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we HAVING DIED TO SIN, live to righteousness.

     RS: A very true verse, but let me give you the NAS translation: 1 Peter 2:24 “and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed.” A few things to note here: 1) Christ bore the sins of His people on the cross. 2) The purpose of that is so that we might die to sin. 3) The second purpose (of second part of the one) is that we would live to righteousness. We have to die to sin in order to live to righteousness. Your translation is not supported by the original language, but even if you are correct about the having died to sin, what does your theory say about us living to righteousness? Again, Christ died so that His people would live for righteousness, but they have to die in order to do that. The word translated as die is actually a participle and can be translated “so that by dying to sin we might live to righteousness.” It is only as we die to sin that we live to righteousness. Since we are to grow in righteousness that means we have more to die to.

     LikeLike

510. Verse 21: Not everyone who says to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter the Kingdom of Heaven, but he who does the will of my Father in Heaven.

     John Robbins, dead but still speaking: “At first glance, verse 21 seems to be saying that the decisive difference between those who are excluded and those who are admitted into the Kingdom of Heaven is the difference between empty professors and actual doers of the Word. It is not those who say, Lord, Lord, but those who actually do the will of the Father, who are admitted into Heaven. In verse 21, Jesus seems to be making the same distinction that James makes in 2:14: What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? The
     contrast in James is between a person who says something with his lips, but does not give evidence of his faith by his works. But, unlike James, Jesus does not explicitly mention belief in verse 21; he
     mentions doing and saying, asserting that doing the will of the Father in Heaven is required to get into the Kingdom of Heaven, but saying Lord, Lord is not enough.

     Again, at first glance, verse 21 seems to contradict verses such as Acts 16:31: Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved…. and Romans 3:28: Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law; and Ephesians 2:8-9: For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast; and scores more verses that deny salvation comes by doing.

     This apparent contradiction in the New Testament raises a further difficulty: Does the Bible contradict itself? Many scholars say, Yes, it does. Or if they are coy rather than candid, they say the Scriptures contain tensions, paradoxes, and antinomies. The scholars apparently never consider the possibility that they have misunderstood the Scriptures. They are quick to attribute logical difficulties to the revealed propositions (and they always add that it is pious and humble to do so), but they do not even contemplate the possibility that they might not understand the text. That would be unthinkable! Imagine! Professors and theologians not understanding the text!
     Impossible! Therefore, the text itself must be paradoxical.

     But as Christians we ought to be humble and say, Of course the Scriptures contain no contradictions, no paradoxes, and no tensions. When we come to what seems to be a contradiction in our theology, we must check our premises, return to the propositions of Scripture, and conform our thoughts to what the non-contradictory Scriptures say.

     The first glance reading of verse 21 raises still another problem: Does Jesus teach legalism? Here I am using the word legalism in its proper sense: the notion that one can obtain, in whole or in part,
     salvation by doing, rather than by mere belief. Norman Shepherd appeals to this verse because he believes that Jesus does in fact teach salvation by doing here. The central problem in verse 21 is the
     meaning of Jesus’ phrase: he who does the will of my Father in Heaven. He believes that that phrase means works. But that interpretation, of course, implies that the Bible contradicts itself. And that
     interpretation of the phrase cannot be correct, because of what verse 22 says.

     Verse 22: Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in your name, cast out demons in your name, and done many wonders in your name?

     Now if we understand verse 21 as Shepherd understands it, what Jesus says in verse 22 is both unexpected and inexplicable. If Jesus’ point in verse 21 were that faith is not enough, that good
     works, or covenant faithfulness, or obedience is also necessary in order to be sure we are saved, then Jesus should have said something like this in verse 22: Many will say to me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, we trusted in you alone, we had faith in you alone, we believed the Bible and your words.’ But of course Jesus says nothing of the sort. Instead, he reports that many people will appear before him at the Judgment and will talk about their works, not their faith or correct doctrine. But these
     people-the ones who present works-will be excluded from the Kingdom of Heaven.

     Let us examine this verse carefully.

     First, Jesus says Many. At first glance, verse 21 suggests that there will be only a few among those who will say, Lord, Lord who will be excluded from the Kingdom of Heaven. Jesus had said, Not everyone, and, sinners that we are, we jumped to the conclusion that he meant almost everyone. But here in verse 22 he says many. Many will come before Christ Jesus and speak to him, saying, Lord, Lord, and they will be excluded from the Kingdom of Heaven.

     Jesus in his mercy tells us what many will say to him in that Day: First, they will acknowledge the Lordship of Jesus Christ, addressing him as Lord. Not only will they say it once, they will repeat it:
     Lord, Lord. Recognizing the gravity of the situation, they will plead for their lives. This repetition of Lord may also suggest that they think they are on familiar terms with Jesus.

     Next, they will ask Jesus a series of questions, calling the Christ himself as a witness in their defense. Notice that they will not directly assert that they have done good works. They will speak in
     interrogative, not declarative, sentences. Because of this, their defense will actually be much stronger than their own mere declarations would have been: They will call Christ Jesus himself as
     their defense witness. They will ask him to testify to the facts of their lives: their prophesying, exorcising, and wonderworking.

     Some commentators have tried to dismiss the claims of these defendants by suggesting that they will lie or exaggerate, that they really will not have done what they will claim to have done. There is nothing in the text that supports such an accusation. That misinterpretation is a desperate device to evade what Jesus is telling us in this passage. The defendants will make no direct assertions. They will ask questions. They will address those questions to Jesus, whom they will acknowledge as Lord. They will ask him to testify to the truth of their claims. They actually will have done these things on Earth: prophesying, casting out demons, and performing wonders.

     Now the fact that many people will have done these things on Earth implies several things.

     First, it implies that these people are not mere professors, without works and without practice, as we may have concluded from our superficial reading of verse 21. They are not pew warmers; they are
     not spiritual spectators; they are not churchgoers who show up only on Easter and Christmas; they are not those who have no works. These people have many works, and they will call on Jesus himself to testify to their works on Earth. Theirs is not mere lip service; theirs is not
     an empty profession. They will have been very active in church and in other religious endeavors.

     Second, not only are these people active in the churches, they are church leaders. They prophesy, they preach, they proselytize, they teach; they cast out demons, they exorcise; they perform many
     wonders-not just a few, but many wonders. These are things publicly done, not things done in a corner or in the privacy of one’s own home.

     Third, they will do all these works in the name of Jesus Christ. Notice that the defendants will use the phrase “in your name” repeatedly: They will prophesy in Jesus’ name; they will cast out
     demons in Jesus’ name; they will perform many wonders in Jesus’ name. They will be leaders in professedly Christian churches. They are not Buddhists, performing these things in the name of Buddha. Nor are they Hindus, performing these works in the name of Shiva or some other Hindu god. Nor are they Muslims, doing these things in the names of Allah or Mohammed. Nor are they Jews, doing these things in the name of Abraham. These are not pagans ignorant of the name of Jesus; they are professing Christians who will do all these works in the name of Jesus Christ.

     Do not the Scriptures say that every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord? And do not the Scriptures say that some people will not be saved? It therefore follows that confessing Jesus as Lord is insufficient for salvation; one must also confess him as
     Saviour.

     Now, consider the irony of the exegetical situation. Proponents of assurance by works appeal to this passage in Matthew 7 to support their view that belief alone in the Lord Jesus Christ is not enough
     for salvation, that we must also practice the Lordship of Christ by faithfully performing works in order to show ourselves that we are saved. Yet this passage clearly teaches that some of those who confess Jesus as Lord and perform amazing works will be excluded from the Kingdom of Heaven. Therefore, one may acknowledge the Lordship of Christ, perform many wonderful works, and still perish. The passage is not a contrast between mere believers (who are lost) and workers
     (who are saved), for Jesus himself says that the workers are lost.

     Let us turn our attention briefly to the sorts of works these church leaders will have done. They will have prophesied in the name of Jesus; they will have cast out demons in the name of Jesus; they will have performed wonders in the name of Jesus. Now, these are not only works; they are extraordinary and supernatural works. In fact, they are the greatest works done by men and among men, to use John Gill’s phrase. None of us, perhaps a few of us, but certainly not this writer, has done anything remotely as great or as impressive as these works. Our works are ordinary: attending church, being good neighbors, giving money to the church and to the poor, taking care of our
     families, and so on.

     Now here is the question: If none of us has done or will do anything like the works these men will have done, and if these men are lost, then what hope is there for us? If Jesus himself turns these men out of the Kingdom of Heaven-these many men who have performed such great works in the name of Jesus-what hope have we?

     The answer is, We have no hope, if, like these men, our assurance of our faith depends on our works. We will have no hope, no matter how faithful our obedience, regardless of whether we act in the name of Jesus, or whether we confess Jesus as Lord. When these church leaders give their defense at the Judgment, they will offer their works as Exhibits A, B, and C. Their plea to Jesus
     will be their works-works done in the name of Jesus, to be sure, but works nonetheless. And far from lessening their guilt, doing their works in the name of Jesus increases their guilt before God.

     Far from teaching a message of works, Jesus warns us that anyone who comes before him at the Judgment and offers his covenant faithfulness as his defense will die the second death. What is wrong with their defense? Jesus tells us plainly: They will plead their own lives and Christian works.

     What their defense should be is not their works, but the imputed righteousness of Christ. Those condemned will not mention that they are sinners saved only by the righteousness of the Man Christ Jesus. They will not deny the substitutionary atonement of Jesus Christ for his people, but their assurance will be their own idea of what “doing the will of God” means.

     If RS disagrees with John Robbins, it’s probably because he didn’t read slow enough.

     LikeLike

511. Robert Reymond, Systematic Theology, p 756—-“The New Testament often represents the Christian as one who has been sanctified, and therefore as one who has been definitively constituted in some way and on some basis holy (see Acts 20:32; 26:18; I Cor 1:2, 6:11; Eph 5:25); note the perfect tense in the first three instances and the aorist tense in the last two references, as well as the numerous instances where Christians are called ‘saints’ or “holy ones'(Eph 1:11; Phil 1:1; Col 1:2)”

     Romans 6:2, 6–We DIED to sin….the old man WAS crucified with Him.

     Romans 6:18–You HAVE BEEN set free from sin and HAVE BECOME slaves to righteousness.

     Romans 7:4-6–You WERE made to die to the law….but now we have been released from the law, HAVING DIED to that by which we were bound

     I Peter 2:24—that we, HAVING DIED to sins, might live to righteousness

     I Peter 4:1-2—-he who HAS suffered in the flesh (when Christ suffered in the flesh) is DONE WITH sin….

     LikeLike

512. Smeaton, Apostles’ Doctrine of the Atonement, p437on I Peter 2:24—” Being dead to sin….We have a style of thought in common between Peter and Paul. We died with Christ in that atoning death.We shared so in that one act of our Representative, that we suffered the punishment of death, and fulfilled the divine claims in Him, as truly as if we had personally performed it all. This does greater justice to the language. It shows more forcibly in what way the Christian died to sin, and is discharged from guilt.”

     “Sin is considered as a person, a master exercising authority over a slave. Death liberates the slave. When the penal infliction due to sin ran its course on the Surety, with whom we were one in the eye of God, we died to sin. His death and our death are not regarded as two separate acts, of which one is like the other, but one and the same. We may say it either way, Christ died for us to deliver our persons from guilt, or we died when He died in that one representative act.”

     LikeLike

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