As noted a few days ago, the fallout from the recent discussion of two-kingdom theology at Covenant College (with Mike Horton) has touched off several lively discussions. The one at Dr. K.’s blog led the good doctor to use a phrase in connection with the virtues of neo-Calvinism that I had never heard before: “a public Christian theology of cultural obedience.”
If you perform a Google search for the phrase you find variations on cultural obedience or public theology but nothing with the whole enchilada of Kuyperian grandeur.
A public theology of cultural obedience would be one thing. It must be a way to distinguish a public from a private or personal theology of cultural obedience. But to add Christian to the phrase would apparently distinguish this from Muslim and Jewish public theologies of cultural obedience (though it does not address differences between Roman Catholics and Protestants or confessional differences among the latter).
Even odder is the phrase cultural obedience (more below). Public theology would seem to be one way of describing a Christian’s engagement with social, political, and cultural affairs. So cultural obedience seems to be redundant. But I suspect it is a form of overstatement for emphasis. Like Isaiah’s utterance of “holy, holy, holy” to describe the gulf separating him and God, this phrase indicates that we really, really, really need to be engaged with human existence outside the church.
Fine. Culture is important. But it is also one of the least useful categories for assessing problems in political, economic, and social life.
Still, what is cultural obedience and how does it square with Christian liberty? If Christians do not have a culture the way Israelites did (food, language, politics, land) because Christians now find themselves living in all the nations of the world, and if a hallmark of Reformed conviction has been the notion that Christians are free in those activities not prescribed by Scripture (like meat offered to idols or whether to speak Dutch or English), what possibly could the phrase cultural obedience mean? I get it. It’s supposed to indicate that Christians are supposed to live their lives before the face of God and not treat areas of life as if independent from Christ’s Lordship.
But here is where some serious theological reflection needs to go on because the ideals of Christian liberty (which allows for Christian smoking) and the Lordship of Christ for all areas of life are in tension. If I have liberty in those areas where the Bible is silent but now find out that I need to submit to Christ in everything I do, my brain cramps. Either I have liberty or I must show submission the next time I reach into the humidor. Neo-Calvinists really could provide some assistance if they would wrestle with these contrasting theological notions rather than simply trotting out pious and inspirational bumper stickers.
They might also benefit from some serious cultural reflection, such as the kind that comes in books like Witold Rybczinski’s Home: The History of An Idea. (I am on a Rybczinski kick since I am teaching a seminar on place and home and have assigned his book which is — truth be told — brilliant in its ability to instill a sense of wonder about things we regard as ordinary.) What neo-Calvinists could learn from books like Home is that culture is never as self-conscious or intentional as the ideas-have-consequences model alleges. Like history, culture is accidental, and it comes to us without a rule book or manual. We inherit the choices (ironic and unwitting) of previous generations and accept them as part of the cultural norm. And when those norms prove unacceptable, we change them but often the changes are as much functional as based on ideals. Perhaps the greatest example of how common and unthinking culture is is the chair (a piece of furniture that absorbs architects’ attention almost as much as the exterior of buildings). Here are a few excerpts from Rybczinski that might give users of the phrase cultural obedience the willies:
Differences in posture, like differences in eating utensils (knife and fork, chopsticks or fingers, for example), divide the world as profoundly as political boundaries. Regarding posture there are two camps: the sitters-up (the so-called western world) and the squatters (everyone else). Although there is not Iron Curtain separating the two sides, neither feels comfortable in the position of the other. (78)
If this is true, and it surely has the ring of it, what does cultural obedience mean for posture. Do I submit to the Lord by sitting in a chair or squatting on the floor? And if one of these is more obedient, do Christians have an obligation to transform squatters into sitters (or vice versa, though sitting would be better for the furniture makers in Grand Rapids)?
Rybczinski goes on to try to answer how sitting developed in the western world and does so by suggesting how little inevitability accompanied those pieces of furniture that would never imaginably produce calls for a Christian public theology of cultural obedience:
A little reflection shows that all human culture is artificial, cooking no less than music, furniture no less than painting. Why prepare time-consuming sauces when a raw fruit would suffice? Why bother with musical instruments when the voice is pleasant enough? Why paint pictures when looking at nature is satisfying? Why sit up when you can squat?
The answer is that it makes life richer, more interesting, and more pleasurable. Of course furniture is unnatural; it is an artifact. Sitting is artificial, and like other artificial activities, although less obvioulsy than cooking, instrumental music, or painting, it introduces art into life. We eat pasta or play the piano — or sit upright — out of choice, not out of need. . . .
Here is an explanation of why the world came to be divided into sitters and squatters. The coincidence of all the factors necessary to comfortable sitting is so unlikely, the probability of awkwardness and discomfort is so great, that it is not hard to imagine that many cultures, having had a try at it, would abandon the effort and wisely resort to sitting on the ground. This choice, in turn, would have affected the development of furniture in general, for without chairs, there would be no need for tables and desks, and little likelihood that a floor-sitting society would want to surround itself with other upright furniture such as cupboards, commodes, and bookcases. (80, 96)
Bottom line: culture and its development (or transformation) are far more complicated and independent of human control or manipulation than phrases such as a Christian public theology of cultural obedience would suggest. The Lordship of Christ? Of course. The Lordship of Christ involves neo-Calvinists’ lordship of culture? Hardly.
Old Life 
“A public Christian theology of cultural obedience” sounds awfully Islamic. If the church is focused on “everything” is it really focused on anything?
LikeLike
DGH,
I appreciated the post and wanted to ask you a question on one specific sentence:
“If I have liberty in those areas where the Bible is silent but now find out that I need to submit to Christ in everything I do, my brain cramps.”
My way of thinking has been this: God through His word gives Christians Liberty in areas where His word is silent and so in exercising that Liberty I am indeed submitting to Christ “in everything”. (I am not implying here I do not sin, I do and far too frequently…just laying out the framework of my thoughts.)
My question than is this: While ‘submitting to Christ in every area of life’ is often used improperly by many evangelicals, cannot we use it correctly in correlation with Christian Liberty and 2K to make the defense that we are submitting to Christ in everything as we exercise the Liberty given to us by Christ?
LikeLike
I forcefully called out Nelson Kloosterman on his blog for citing Misty Irons as the 2K standard bearer (which is nonsense) and he deleted my comment and ceased dialogue with me. Very disappointing. If someone takes a strong position and can’t tolerate being challenged what does that say about them and their argument? Argue, don’t censor and give up.
LikeLike
When I read through Kloosterman’s blog post, that phrase also stood out to me very sharply. It is more than a little opaque. Obedience to the culture? Obedience in the culture? Obedience by means of culture? I suspect he means the third, but again there is no real clarity.
I also suspect that questions like this “And if one of these is more obedient, do Christians have an obligation to transform squatters into sitters (or vice versa, though sitting would be better for the furniture makers in Grand Rapids)?” are what really rile Kuyperians because cultural transformation language is usually delivered with an aura of some sanctity, and you, DG, keep employing these reductio ad absurdum’s.
LikeLike
Public theology means something very different for Richard Mouw than it does for Ralph Reed. But both agree that the only way to be “public” and “responsible” is to be willing to kill to preserve that which has come about with the passing of time.
The phrase “public theology” assumes a language consructed by contrast with “private theology”. In other words, unless you agree on some level with the brothers Niehbuhr, you are a sectarian who should know not to speak and who should not be heard. The very language of “public theology” often ignores the historical fact that language is not universal and not a-historical.
Yiddish is a language that emerged in the early second millennium in central Europe among a group of Ashkenazi Jews. It is not linguistically related to Hebrew though it uses the Hebrew alphabet; it is not German though it shares 70-80 percent of its vocabulary. Of course, its origins are
contested, but at certain times in history it did become a language capable of bridging diverse, often persecuted Jewish communities around the world. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.
LikeLike
Peter Leithart, Between Babel and Beast, p 63
“The church made its peace with the empire when, and only insofar as, the empire began to care for the church and submitted to the Lord Christ and His Kingdom . The ‘state’ recognized the church as an independent polity or order of its own, the civil order’s (often grudging) acceptance of the quasi-civic order of the church in its midst, the acknowledgment of the Eucharist as the sacrificial center of a polity – a sacrificial center not controlled by the state – and civil government’s embrace of the church’s end, the kingdom of God, as its own end. “
LikeLike
Peter Berger, most certainly not a socialist, in Different Gospels: The Social Sources of Apostasy, Erasmus Lecture, January 22, 1987
“Any cultural or political agenda embellished with such authority is a manifestation of works righteousness and ipso facto an act of apostasy. No value or institutional system, past or present or future, is to be identified with the gospel. The mission of the churches is not to legitimate any status quo or any putative alteration of the status quo. The world of bourgeois America stands under judgment, in the light of the gospel, as does every other human society. Democracy or capitalism or the particular family arrangements of middle-class culture are not to be identified with the Christian life, and neither is any alternative political, economic, or cultural system.
“The vocation of churches is to proclaim the gospel, not to defend the American way of life, not to build a just society. All our notions of justice are fallible and finally marred by sin. The heresy lies
precisely in the insinuation that, if only we do this or refrain from doing that, we will bring in the kingdom.”
LikeLike
Kloosterman: “Erik, Given your last post, I’m discontinuing my conversation with you for the time being.”
Me: “Wow, that is really disappointing. I can’t believe someone who argues forcefully is so thin-skinned. That is a bad sign for anyone who falls under your authority. Contrast your blog to Hart’s blog, where real uncensored arguments can take place.”
Kloosterman: “As someone experienced in heavy ecclesiastical debates, I’m not really thin-skinned. Rather, as the one whose blog is being used for “conversation,” I expect and require participants to converse. Your persistent use of ad hominem arguments to disqualify Misty Irons’ hermeneutical case, and your persistent refusal to engage the issue of the contemporary 2K-hermeneutic, indicates clearly that you are not interested in genuine conversation. Dismissing my replies my referring to your personal disappointment, my weakness, etc., are simply more of the same. I have no problem engaging in the substance of arguments relating to this controversy. In fact, doing so is precisely why I continue to write posts for my blog. As far as “real uncensored arguments” are concerned, I simply don’t believe in them. The ad hominem fallacy is a violation of the Ninth Commandment. Blessings.”
Me: “In other words, you can’t cite anyone but Misty Irons. Very weak.”
Is it just me or is Kloosterman quite Brian Crossity in his methods?
So let’s review: He quotes Misty Irons as representative of “the contemporary 2k-hermeneutic”. I challenge that assertion and he accuses me of making ad-hominem attacks and cuts off debate. Why not quote Hart? Why not quote Van Drunen? Misty Irons? This is an unordained woman with a blog who as far as I know is not even in a conservative P&R church any more. What does quoting her even begin to prove? It frankly hurts his case more than helping it.
If 10 years from now I want to discredit the URC do I bring up Patrick Edouard as the URC standard bearer? If this is the best I can do I would rightly be a laughing stock.
LikeLike
It’s also worth pointing out that “the contemporary 2k hermeneutic” is the one that is content to not go beyond the Reformed Creeds & Confessions, while Neocalvinism wants to go beyond them, as if Ursinus, de Bres, and the Westminster Divines had some good ideas but just didn’t go far enough for these guys. We are the ones who make simple, straightforward arguments. They are the ones who have to contort themselves arguing about ““a public Christian theology of cultural obedience.” It’s like comparing amillennialism to a premillennial dispensationalist scheme with pages of charts. Generally whichever theology gives you a headache is the one to be suspicious of.
LikeLike
All anyone has to do is go look and read what Erik was writing over on Dr. Kloosterman’s blog the Cosmic Eye and realize that the poor kid just doesn’t have much of a foundation…..
That is not ad hominem either.
Just look at his two comments and my replies.
http://cosmiceye.wordpress.com/2012/10/30/avoiding-the-possible-disingenuousness-of-as-if/#comment-352
http://cosmiceye.wordpress.com/2012/10/30/avoiding-the-possible-disingenuousness-of-as-if/#comment-394
LikeLike
Erik…
” Generally whichever theology gives you a headache is the one to be suspicious of.”
Me…
Erik,
You need to really think some things through. Dr. Hart is making a point blank statement by his title on this blog and it seems it applies to all of us maybe. We speak a bit to hastily sometimes. Of course he is addressing some issues but the title point is very good. That is the nature of this kind of communication. Some of the things you are saying are just wack in light of scripture and truth. If the above is your criteria for discernment then you have some major issues. I have read a few of your comments that just reveal to me you have some life long maturing issues to go through before you know Him and how He sovereignly works in our life’s situations. Generally, just because it feels good should make us sinful people wonder if it is right. LOL. Headaches and all! LOL. Slow down bud. Listen a bit more. Soak things in for a few more years. At least on a basic level. I am saying this as a caring older friend. I am not trying to be harsh. This media format does not reveal the sympathy and compassion I am trying to exhibit. I really do understand some of your frustrations and know you are trying to work this out. Just slow down a bit.
Randy
LikeLike
Martin,
How old are you, 70? I’m 43 with a kid getting married so I don’t relish your fatherly wisdom. What church are you a member of and what version of the Westminster or Belgic do you use? It’s a relevant question because most Neocalvinists that I have encountered in this debate subscribe to the revised confessions when it comes to the articles on the civil magistrate. It seems like these guys are trying to hold us to the unrevised articles. Why don’t they just join groups that haven’t revised them? Make a Neocalvinist case using the confessions that I subscribe to today (The Three Forms) or the Westminster if you choose. Unlike Kloosterman or Cross I won’t “withdraw”. I’ll debate with you as long as you would like.
Also tell me how Kloosterman quoting Misty Irons is relevant to the debate against Me, Hart, Van Drunen, etc? (not to put myself on par with them). He accuses me of an “ad hominem” argument, but continuing to quote some woman as if she is representative of Reformed men in good standing in Reformed churches is the ad hominem argument as far as I am concerned.
LikeLike
Randy,
Read em. Seems like a difference of opinion more than a reflection of character. Attempts to be ‘pastoral’ in a combox, though I’m sure well-intentioned, are a tough gambit. The community that adheres on-line is tenuous to say the least, though I enjoy this group quite a bit. Still, I would think most ‘pastoral’ attempts are best left to a local body with whom we are all called to invest ourselves. That’s why at some point and in certain circumstances it’s a ‘fair’ question to ask, if not already declared, somebody’s church affiliation if necessary. That local body is in a much better and ‘called’ position to do that work and even then it can be incredibly difficult if not impossible(wheats and tares growing up together). But beyond all that, Hart and Muether are the sherrifs around here.
LikeLike
I actually had an itinerant street preacher who I said on my blog had no connection to a visible church that I could ascertain call my pastor and complain that I had slandered him. When he asked him what church he was connected to, if any, he wouldn’t answer. So here I give him my church affiliation and pastor’s name so he can call him and he won’t do the same. Eventually the guy just went away. People need to either lighten up or toughen up (or both).
LikeLike
You know, if we were to apply Christian worldview to culture, then I guess we should all be sitting on thrones instead swivel chairs. I know my boss would get a kick out of it. I can just hear it now:
Boss: “Nate, what’s with the throne?”
Nate: “I’m exercising my God given authority over culture, since I’m seated with Christ in the heavenlies. And since Jesus’ Lordship extends over all things, I am carrying that out by showing you that Christians should be sitting on thrones, not desk chairs.”
Boss: “Just as long as you get your work done, I don’t really care how you sit…”
LikeLike
Randy,
BTW, and to prove the point, my combox reply to you seems flat and harsh in that last sentence(to me anyway), and that wasn’t the intention, and then to add fuel to the fire this group tends to enjoy getting it’s sarcasm on, which adds yet another layer of interpretation. It’s a style I really enjoy, but it’s not everyone’s cup of tea.
LikeLike
David, the thanks I get.
LikeLike
McMark, great quote from Berger. I invoke it often (and Hauerwas sure has the better of Niebuhr in my view, though I don’t come down where SH resides in the end — duh).
LikeLike
That is a great quote from Peter Berger.
LikeLike
I wish as many Reformed folks read Hauerwas as they have Niebuhr, but of course Leithart has not only read Stanley but Stanley reads Leithart and approves his Christendom project, Because Hauerwas, like Brad Gregory, hates not only the Reformation but also the very idea of a voluntary liberal society, he is willing to go along with Milbank, Macintyre, and Oliver O”Donovan and those other anti-pluralists that Lilla writes about.
My teacher John Howard Yoder did not agree with the Hauerwas romance with Constantinianism. After Stan wrote Against the Nations (by means of one catholic established church)), Yoder wrote a book called For the Nations. In sum, Yoder thought that ecclesia is something which happens (or not) but Hauerwas wants (in theory) this one church where the ordained sacramentalists hand out salvation and tell you what to do if you want to stay in the covenant. Stan went from churches being important to church being the gospel. He likes the pope and Amish elders.
All this to assure you that I don’t end up where Hauerwas is either. Most importantly, I believe in justification by legal identification with Christ and Stan thinks that’s gnosticism. But secondly, I don’t think the future of the gospel in any way depends on having a non-liberal society. That’s where I as a one kingdom person (I agree with Luther that the devil has the other kingdom, but not that this means it’s ok for justified sinners to step down into the….) can very much agree with your polemics against the dreams of the neo-Calvinists.
The best critique written so far of the anti-liberalism of Hauerwas is Nate Kerr’s book on apocalyptic. Our hope is not our influence on society but the second coming of our King..
LikeLike
I have a couple of posts up on “The Neocalvinist Minister – The Most Interesting Man in the World” and “The Neocalvinist Minister as the Very Model of the Modern Major General”. If we don’t get some committed Neocalvinists commenting here frequently we’ll need to invent some. They are too funny.
LikeLike
Neocalvinist Superminister Rev. Bret McAtee on the lowly Non-political Two Kingdoms Minister:
“The R2K minister is like Rocky Balboa. He is dumb as a box of rocks but he knows how to take a punch. He can tell you haltingly about boxing — barely — but don’t ask him about anything else.
And even when he wins in the ring, he squanders it all upon those that are using him to advance an agenda that is altogether different then his.”
Me: I’ll make sure and chide my URC minister (who doesn’t say much about politics) that he is slacking off in only preaching two sermons a week, teaching Wednesday Bible study, catechizing the youth, dealing with a divorce & church discipline situation, checking up on sick people, doing family visitations with the elders, and serving on missions committees at the classis & synod level. He needs to quit slacking off and pick up the pace. Having to deal with births, deaths, weddings, and baptisms are also no excuse. Neither is being a husband and homeschooling his three children. We’re losing the culture while he wastes time on these trivial pursuits.
LikeLike
Reading the Wikipedia entry on Greg Bahnsen this morning:
“One of the original pillars of Christian Reconstruction, Bahnsen was a leading proponent of theonomy, postmillennialism, and presuppositional apologetics.”
Well, one out of four ain’t bad…
LikeLike
Nate – That’s hilarious.
LikeLike
Richard Gamble’s (Reformed Presbyterian Theological Seminary) critique of 2K. I have started to listen to it. If you get an echo turn the volume in the bottom right corner all the way down.
https://www.fuzemeeting.com/replay_meeting/bffa2e59/2761243
LikeLike
Erik, I get no echo because I get no sound. Help, my PC is way more being sanctified than transformed.
LikeLike
Erik,
I’ve never heard of Misty Irons before, so I went searching and found some unpleasant material. Why would Dr. Kloosterman use her as an example of two-kingdom thinking? I did a search on Darryl’s blog, and found that he did refer to her as a proponent of two-kingdoms, along with people like Meredith Kline, in a blog entry he wrote in response to Dr. Kloosterman in May 2009. Is she well regarded by 2k people?
Either I am extremely ignorant of the Scriptures and 2k, or Misty Irons is openly giving unbiblical and ungodly commentary on things like homosexuality. I see a difference between voting a certain way and approving what God condemns, and she seems to be approving what God condemns. Her words seem like a great way to conform Christianity to this present evil age.
LikeLike
Alberto, it’s right out a political playbook. They talk about Misty Irons as a rhetorical manuever to associate 2k with homosexuality. It’s just button-pushing manipulation. It’s the kind of thing a political candidate does to his opponent, but the candidate makes sure he doesn’t formally approve such tactics. The neoCals somehow do it without blushing.
LikeLike
You’re on your own, Zrim. If I’m doing tech support we’re all in trouble. This is what happens when we leave Neocalvinists who reject the enlightenment in charge of technology…
LikeLike
Alberto says: “Is she well regarded by 2k people?”
Erik: I sure hope not. Most of the guys who comment here go farther back in this debate that I do so maybe they can weigh in. If she’s our standard bearer I’m going to have to get off this train. I don’t think she is. One question, though, is if Hart goes further than Van Drunen in her direction. He can answer that if he wishes. I’m not saying Hart embraces her take on gay marriage — I don’t think he does. I do remember raising a few more eyebrows reading “A Secular Faith” than I did reading “Living in God’s Two Kingdoms”, but that might just be because I read it first and 2K thinking was new to me. I might not have that reaction if I read it again. Certainly everything Hart has said here on 2K resonates with me.
I think Irons basic mistake is to say that Christians should not oppose gay marriage because it is a civil issue. She ignores the fact that Christians are also citizens and are free to vote their consciences when given the opportunity. I think she goes to the opposite extreme of a Neocalvinist who says all Christians should vote the same way because of Neocalvinism. Kloosterman should not quote her as a representative of anyone but herself. She is obviously not a minister, an officer, or a professor of theology — she is just a lady with an opinion.
LikeLike
R Martin Snyder’s continued attempts to give me fatherly advice has caused me to change my picture to be Kip from “Napoleon Dynamite”. Kip lived with his grandma as a grown man so she could look after him. Thanks Randy. I haven’t felt this young in years.
I spoke to a friend today at church who teaches at Dordt College (and who graduated from there). He talked about how Kuyerianism is the foundation of their entire approach to education there. This is why Neocalvinists are alarmed by 2k. It shakes their theological foundations. Oddly, though, many of these same people attend churches that affirm the sufficiency of Word & Sacrament and the distinction between Law & Gospel (or maybe they don’t, which could be part of the problem). It’s an odd mixture — The Regulative Principle & Confessionalism on one hand, Neocalvinism on the other.
LikeLike
Erik, I’m not sure what going in Irons’ direction would look like. Most of what I have published on 2k has been historical. As a citizen I’m willing to have a conversation about lots of things. As an elder, I’m strict and vinegary. Where this antinomian charge comes from is beyond me.
LikeLike
D.G. – Alberto referred to a May 2009 post that you wrote in which you “did refer to her as a proponent of two-kingdoms, along with people like Meredith Kline”
I just now looked that up. You wrote:
“Nelson Kloosterman, professor of Ethics and New Testament Studies at Mid-America Reformed Seminary, is laying it on thick in a series for Christian Renewal, a Dutch-Canadian Reformed news and opinion magazine. The series is entitled, “The Bible, The Church, and the World: A Third Way.” In it, Kloosterman attempts to forge a middle ground between theonomy on the one side and two-kingdom theology on the other. Dr. K tips his hand by calling two-kingdom advocates such as Misty Irons, Meredith Kline, and D. G. Hart “religious secularists.” (“Secular” is to “secularism” what “behavior” is to “behaviorism” or what “material” is to “materialism.”)”
From this it is clear that it is Kloosterman who is linking “Misty Irons, Meredith Kline, and D.G. Hart”, not you. Why would you write a blog post referring to yourself in the third person?
I also wouldn’t think you would link those three names together — it’s kind of like saying “Brad Pitt, George Clooney, and Pee Wee Herman”, the three don’t go together unless someone is trying to demean Pitt & Clooney by linking them with Herman.
Regardless, when I type in the name “Misty Irons” in the search box of Oldlife only two articles come up, so it would be hard for anyone to claim that you are claiming her as a fellow 2K warrior.
All this illustrates why Kloosterman should just stop bringing her up if he wants to be taken seriously. Someone with a Ph.D. who has been a minister for close to 40 years should be able to do much better.
As a side note, I am reading James Bratt’s history of Dutch Calvinism in America. He was talking about early CRC preaching in the U.S. Not a lot of Neocalvinist themes there. I hope to write on that soon.
LikeLike
Erik-Kip, what are you talking about? I thought you loved technology? Always and forever, always and forever. But I’ll pass on that time machine you bought on line.
But re your remark on education, it seems to be a third rail in Dutch Reformed circles. Even 2kers who affirm the sufficiency of Word and sacrament, the law-gospel distinction, and even question redemptive versions of creational tasks seem to turn worldview-y when the task turns to education. I’m sure it’s complicated, but I’ve wondered if at least part of it owes to a conflation of catechesis and curriculum, as well as a function of a lingering immigrant outlook (education is a way to retain cohesiveness when wandering in a strange land). This latter possibility is respectable, but no less problematic for a faith in which there is supposed to be no more ons volk and goyim.
LikeLike
I’m really questioning the value of Christian education after adult Sunday school yesterday. I was talking about the Second Great Awakening and used the video of Talking Heads “Once in a Lifetime” as an example of some of the weird physical manifestations that camp meeting converts experienced. No one knew what I was talking about except for my wife. Just what did those people learn growing up in Christian school? Most also didn’t have any idea who Harvey Korman was and only a 70-something year old woman had seen “Paper Moon”.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1wg1DNHbNU
LikeLike
We’re going to have to turn Oldlife into a church since I’m going to get kicked out of everywhere else.
If xxxchurch.com can do it, why not Oldlife? I guess we do have that pesky Regulative principle to deal with.
LikeLike
Eric, I knew Misty some time back, and would still listen to what she has to say. But it is clear, with all that has been written by 2kers (compared to the paucity of 2k’s critics — aside from blogging), that you don’t need to cite Misty Irons to understand 2k, that is, unless you want to alarm the rank and file.
On the CRC, it seems you need to keep an eye on at least three Dutch Reformed expressions in North America — the Afscheding which was more pietist and dominated the CRC at the beginning, the Doleantie (the Kuyperians) who became more influential in the CRC after 1890, and then the Liberated Church (the Schilderites). How you harmonize these groups is anyone’s guess.
LikeLike
Bratt’s next chapter is on “four competing philosophies” in the early 20th century American CRC/RCA world or something like that. This must be where he is heading.
One thing I want to get a handle on is, just how big is the Kloosterman-type Neocalvinist group in the American, conservative P&R world today. Is this just a small, but vocal group? Are they dominant? I just don’t really know yet. I do know that you and Van Drunen are the ones who are portrayed as rocking the boat and not the other way around. I have been a bit insulated from the Neocalvinist world because my URC minister is a 2K guy who was trained at Westminster. I think he might have a hard time getting a job at a lot of churches and I might have time stomaching a lot of churches if Neocalvinism is the dominant paradigm. I just don’t get it outside of the Dutch ghetto setting. This is something the URC needs to think about as they continue to plant churches outside of Dutch communities.
I think Dutch Neocalvinists share some of the characteristics of some of the Scottish Presbyterians who want to take beliefs that came about in a very specific historical context and continue to maintain those beliefs up to the present day. Kuyper was a man who wrote and ruled in a specific time and place as well. Sometimes people forget these historical contexts and superimpose things on the Bible that may not actually be there. They cling to these beliefs as if they were part of the Apostles’ Creed.
LikeLike
Erik,
An Old Life church? Why have a church when we can have a conference?! Or better yet conferenceS! Darryl can travel around via tour bus igniting a 2K revival. Darryl, maybe you could get a real sappy praise band to open for you too. I’d love to see how a “strict and vinegary” Presbyterian elder mixes with these guys:
I can see it now… Darryl, Zirm, mikelmann, Erik,…. arms raised and singing long.
LikeLike
I’ve done the love songs to Jesus thing, before it occurred to me that he was a dude.
No arm raising will be a part of the Third Great (2K) Awakening.
Whitefield, Finney,….and Hart.
LikeLike
That whole setting in the video somehow makes a lot more sense when you are a part of the dating scene than it does when you are 43 with a wife and 4 kids. Maybe it’s just me.
Lyman Beecher once said there was more life being begotten in the bushes than souls being converted to Christ during the Camp Meetings of the Second Great Awakening.
LikeLike
I don’t know guys, if we’re going to put a soundtrack to oldlife, I’m thinking more angry and moody but not whiny, so it can’t be Nirvana, maybe something a lil more along these lines http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxhHnVkQ5Ak though I’m sure some one like Robert Johnson would really be the go to music and musician.
LikeLike
I would take sides with Hoeksema vs the “liberated churches”. But both have a view of “regeneration” which removes the Word as the instrument.
Click to access Baptism%20and%20the%20Status%20of%20Children_Mouw.pdf
LikeLike
Lewis, why isn’t the singer (whoever Matt Redman is) wearing a bowtie?
LikeLike
Sean, sorry to disappoint but this has to be the Old Life musical idiom (minus the organ): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfwKPZq49yI&playnext=1&list=PLFD6A2426A9243804&feature=results_main
LikeLike
Lewis, I’ve no problem with raised hands–in response to being bidden to receive the benediction, in unison, etc. You know, pro-dialogical and anti-spontaneity and all that.
But what about this for a theme–versification of Psalms without sounding gay. But just say no to U2charists:
LikeLike
Nice going Zrim. Thinking about U-2 got me thinking about their 1985 “Live Aid” performance, which got me thinking about this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQsM6u0a038&feature=related
This is how things get out of hand around here…
LikeLike
Well, in honor of Jason’s conversion and Oldlife’s interaction with the papists, I think we should fly this flag for awhile;
http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=fUspLVStPbk&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DfUspLVStPbk
LikeLike
Here’s another candidate for Old Life theme song (my own life’s soundtrack):
LikeLike
Here I try to make this a wholesome and family friendly blog and readers link to videos of Queen and a Marxist. What will Dr. K. think? That we’re all (minus the New Divinity folks) antinomians?
LikeLike
Darryl, does it help to know that Brian May is a published astrophysicist and Chancellor of Liverpool John Moores University? But where do pagans get all that talent without having a cosmic eye?
LikeLike
who is Brian May?
LikeLike
Darryl,
Brian May is the totally rad guitar shredder for Queen with the hair that looks like he stuck his finger in a light socket.
LikeLike
Sean, oh. So that means he looks like Zrim’s youth pastor?
LikeLike
No, I don’t have a youth pastor. He looks like the Chancellor of Liverpool John Moores University.
LikeLike
Darryl, that’s right.
LikeLike
Wait a cotton-pickin minute, since when do youth pastors dress like rock stars? I thought that khakis, brown braided leather belt, with sort of Christian T-Shirt (e.g. a shirt that says “Jesus” but looks like a Pepsi logo, or “Do The Jew” that looks like a Mountain Dew logo) tucked into the pants. Of course he would be shod with Birkenstocks sandals, accompanied by the obligatory pair of socks. He call’s everyone bro, and when he wants to convey something serious he speaks in a raspy whisper. The closest he gets to rock and roll is his cassette of Stryper’s album “To Hell With the Devil”….
Basically if I am not describing Zrim’s youth pastor, it would definitely be his BFF.
LikeLike
Actually, May does look a bit like Rev. Tim “Jesus was a teen, too” Tom:
http://rookiepastor.com/2010/05/19/rev-tim-tom/
LikeLike
Jed – You may have outdone your brother on that one. I would love to gather around your family dinner table. The milk would be coming out of my nose for sure!
LikeLike
Erik,
Yeah, we Paschalls are a odd bunch, dinner is best described as what happens when you blend a covenant family with social darwinism — brutal, funny, and irreverent on all but spiritual matters. BTW, at our table, it is likely that you would be experiencing IPA, or an Imperial Stout coming out of your nose, milk is for our (growing) pack of kiddos. Unless of course the milk is from Brogiures farms, then the adults get a crack at the good stuff.
LikeLike
D.G. Hart: But here is where some serious theological reflection needs to go on because the ideals of Christian liberty (which allows for Christian smoking) and the Lordship of Christ for all areas of life are in tension. If I have liberty in those areas where the Bible is silent but now find out that I need to submit to Christ in everything I do, my brain cramps. Either I have liberty or I must show submission the next time I reach into the humidor. Neo-Calvinists really could provide some assistance if they would wrestle with these contrasting theological notions rather than simply trotting out pious and inspirational bumper stickers.
RS: Freedom in Christ does not mean free from the lordship of Christ, but free from the bondage of sin. The concept of freedom is not that one is free to sin or free from obedience to live in a nebulous middle ground, but instead freedom is a freedom to obey and live for His glory. For example, “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” (Gal 5:13-14).
Then there is another aspect of freedom in the NT. It is freedom from the Law, but that is not the same thing as freedom from holiness. It is only because Christ is Lord of all and over all that one can be free to love and be aimed toward keeping the Greatest Commandments at all times. If at any point one is not in submission to Christ, then to whom is one in submission to? It is not like there is any freedom between the devil and Christ, but it is one or the other. Instead of there being tension between the Lordship of Christ and the freedom of the believer, you are simply blowing smoke again. What is that Blog humidor again?
LikeLike
Good word Richard!
LikeLike
Richard, you missed the point (in good New Divinity fashion). It is that the Lordship of Christ frees me from the doctrines and commandments of men. I really can have a drink despite what prohibitionists say about my morality. In which case, Lordship yields not submission but freedom in those cases where the word is silent.
LikeLike
Shepherd and Gaffin are not so much worried about your having a drink, but they do worry that your freedom may cause you to miss out on salvation. They read Romans 2 as saying that our justification hangs in the balance, conditioned on the holiness God will be imparting to you, and that this depends on your attitude. They worry that you encourage “easy believism” by looking at the perfect obedience of Christ rather than your own failures in holiness. Of course there is a time for looking to what Christ has done, but now is not that time. There’s stuff to do.
The law-gospel-law sandwich is not saying that we won’t go on sinning. It’s merely warning that an “unbalanced” focus only on churches and justification will get in the way of fixing THE culture. So the sandwich has “perspectives in tension” which together make up a “worldview”. The sandwich has law on both sides to protect the gospel in between. It’s not making perfectionist claims. But when it comes to living holy, there’s nothing quite like the beauty of spiritual threats.
The law-gospel-law teachers do not deny the imputation “equation”. They simply remind you that justification is a result of being united to the resurrected Christ, and of course those who are united to Christ will continue to keep producing holiness. This happens by by a mysterious “synergism” of work (100% ours, 100% God’s). All your talk about “liberty” ignores the duties and obligations of human reciprocity and responsibility.
LikeLike
Edwards, WJE 24:1171—on James 2:24—“They fail to distinguish first and second justification. The first justification, which is at conversion, is a man’s coming to have a righteousness
imputed to him. This is by faith alone. The second is at the judgment, which is that by which a man is proved and declared to be righteous. This is by works and not by faith only.”
Benjamin Keach, The Marrow of True Justification: p 80—” “Once we are justified, we need not inquire how a man is justified after he is justified. By that righteousness of Christ which is out of us, though imputed to us, the Justice of God is satisfied; therefore all Works
done by us, or inherent in us, are excluded in our Justification before God.”
LikeLike
Christian liberty also means we can have a cigar with our orange.
I’ve observed that it is not the proponent of Christian liberty but the legalist who is often caught with his pants around his ankles when the prostitution sting comes to town. The last time this happened in our area the score was Baptists 2, P&R 0.
If there is no valve for letting out the steam the result is sometimes an explosion.
LikeLike
Richard – The Christian must always be on guard against the legalist who takes the good commandments of God, makes incorrect inferences from them, and then seeks to bind others’ consciences with those inferences.
For example, the Bible teaches we should not get drunk. The legalist takes that and says, “Well, the only way people can get drunk is if they drink alcohol, so we should play it safe and ban alcohol.” The legalist ignores the fact that lots of Christians can drink 1-2 beers or have a shot of whiskey or a glass of Scotch and not get drunk. The legalist repeats this process across the board and makes their inferences the test of whether or not one is a faithful Christian.
What we end up with is not Christianity but Phariseeism and self-righteousness.
LikeLike
mark mcculley: Edwards, WJE 24:1171—on James 2:24—”They fail to distinguish first and second justification. The first justification, which is at conversion, is a man’s coming to have a righteousness imputed to him. This is by faith alone. The second is at the judgment, which is that by which a man is proved and declared to be righteous. This is by works and not by faith only.”
Benjamin Keach, The Marrow of True Justification: p 80—” “Once we are justified, we need not inquire how a man is justified after he is justified. By that righteousness of Christ which is out of us, though imputed to us, the Justice of God is satisfied; therefore all Works
done by us, or inherent in us, are excluded in our Justification before God.”
RS: But, Mark, if the Bible sets out two justifications, then there are two justifications. The question, however, is what the second justification really is.
James 2:20 But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless?
21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar?
24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.
25 In the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way?
RS: The Bible (James) says that Abraham was justified before works and also that Rahab was justifed by works. Does it mean in that context that sinners are declared just by grace alone on the basis of works? No, but there is a type of justification which is by works. If not, then the Bible errs in James 2. But the Bible does not err. The Bible also teaches us that our works will be judged on judgment day. Keach is right that our works are excluded in our justification before God, but that does not mean that our works justify us in one sense before men and that they will be judged by God on judgment day.
As Edwards says in that same context, “the error of those whom the Apostle opposes, in what he here says about faith and works, consisted in three things. 1. They mistook the nature of justifying faith, and supposed that mere assent of the understanding of the doctrines of Christianity were opposite to heathenish infidelity. If one wants to read Edwards on justification, then read Edwards on the doctrine of justification where he clearly asserts that God justifies (forensic justification) the ungodly apart from works. However, that does not contradict the teaching that sinners are justified before men by works (as Abraham and Rahab) and that there will be a judgment of works.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: Richard, you missed the point (in good New Divinity fashion).
RS: The New Divinity is indeed good Divinity.
D.G. Hart: It is that the Lordship of Christ frees me from the doctrines and commandments of men.
RS: But the two can be confused, and that from both directions. There are legalists and libertines. Both seem to think that their views are biblical.
D.G. Hart: I really can have a drink despite what prohibitionists say about my morality. In which case, Lordship yields not submission but freedom in those cases where the word is silent.
RS: But the Word is not silent. 1 Corinthians 10:31 “Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.” If one is going to have a drink, then it has to be out of love for God and to the glory of God. That means that the standard is not whether I like the taste or not. I would think that people would desire submission to the Lordship of Christ as He always works to the glory of God rather than a desire to drink.
LikeLike
Which men justified Abraham? What works did Abraham do before men that enabled these men to justify Abraham? And if this justification by men is not “on the basis of works”, then what is it based on?
Are sinners not condemned on the basis of their sins? Sola faith, faith alone, mere faith….
Also, I want to know what kind of works we are talking about here. Are we talking about the work of making bad trees bear good fruit? Are we talk about changing the culture? Or are we talking about being a grandfather who takes the little ones to the zoo? Is there some regulative principle by which we know which works are acceptable before God?
Is this “second justification” before God or before men? If it’s before men, then we will need to find out which men and what works they approve.
LikeLike
Erik Charter: Christian liberty also means we can have a cigar with our orange.
RS: Why does it mean that?
Erik Charter: I’ve observed that it is not the proponent of Christian liberty but the legalist who is often caught with his pants around his ankles when the prostitution sting comes to town. The last time this happened in our area the score was Baptists 2, P&R 0.
RS: What was the score regarding pastors caught in sexual misconduct with women in their congregation? It is not just the legalists who get caught in that type of thing. It is also the libertine.
Erik C: If there is no valve for letting out the steam the result is sometimes an explosion.
RS: So be sure to sin as an escape valve so that there will not be an explosion of sin?
LikeLike
Erik Charter: Richard – The Christian must always be on guard against the legalist who takes the good commandments of God, makes incorrect inferences from them, and then seeks to bind others’ consciences with those inferences.
RS: But we must also be on guard against the libertine who does the same thing except the consciences of others are loosened.
Erik C: For example, the Bible teaches we should not get drunk. The legalist takes that and says, “Well, the only way people can get drunk is if they drink alcohol, so we should play it safe and ban alcohol.” The legalist ignores the fact that lots of Christians can drink 1-2 beers or have a shot of whiskey or a glass of Scotch and not get drunk.
RS: So how are you going to define what is drunk and what is not drunk? Are you setting up a standard that is not biblical but conforms to your own desires?
Erik C: The legalist repeats this process across the board and makes their inferences the test of whether or not one is a faithful Christian.
RS: And the libertine sneers at those who think that one should drink only a little wine for the sake of their stomach.
Erik C: What we end up with is not Christianity but Phariseeism and self-righteousness.
RS: Or simply antinomianism and those who follow their own desires for drink rather than love for Christ and sober lives and hearts.
LikeLike
Psalm 104:14-15
English Standard Version (ESV)
14 You cause the grass to grow for the livestock
and plants for man to cultivate,
that he may bring forth food from the earth
15 and wine to gladden the heart of man,
oil to make his face shine
and bread to strengthen man’s heart.
Richard – You need to watch “Boardwalk Empire” and absorb the character of Agent Nelson Van Alden.
We can have a cigar with our orange because Machen said so.
I sincerely hope that you don’t get to the end of your life and regret that you have not fully lived. And I’m not talking about sinning.
LikeLike
Encountering libertines has not been a problem in the URC as I have been apart of. Neither has encountering legalists. People seem to have a good balance, which I have really appreciated. Having a Pastor who embraced books, culture, wine, good beer, etc. was a godsend for me coming out of evangelicalism.
LikeLike
Richard, it means I can put an orange in my Blue Moon Winter White Ale if I want to. But I prefer my wife to do it for me. But you’re also working with only two categories, the legalist and the libertine. You’re forgetting the liberated. And why can’t my liberty take into account my desires? They are created by God himself. If I’m doing a thing in faith then his glorification will naturally follow–I don’t need to force it, unless the point is to show off. This “drinking to the glory of God” business always comes off just this side of hyper-spiritual.
LikeLike
Erik C: I sincerely hope that you don’t get to the end of your life and regret that you have not fully lived. And I’m not talking about sinning.
RS: So I cannot fully live if I don’t smoke cigars and drink alcohol? And here I thought the abundant life was to have Christ. By the way, did Jesus smoke? Perhaps He drank a bit of wine, but was His conversation ever built on drinking and liberty? No, He said that doing the will of the Father was what He came to do. Do you think that Jesus fully lived?
Look, I have noted more conversations about cigars and alcohol than about Jesus on Oldlife. At the very least it makes one wonder if the concept of Christian liberty has not led to a hidden slavery.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, it means I can put an orange in my Blue Moon Winter White Ale if I want to. But I prefer my wife to do it for me. But you’re also working with only two categories, the legalist and the libertine. You’re forgetting the liberated. And why can’t my liberty take into account my desires?
RS: But you are not taking something else into account. We are liberated from the passions (a kind of desire) of our sinful hearts. Hearts that follow their desires rather than Christ are not truly liberated.
Zrim: They are created by God himself.
RS: Not all desires are created by God, but instead are a result of the fall.
Zrim: If I’m doing a thing in faith then his glorification will naturally follow–I don’t need to force it, unless the point is to show off.
RS: Nada.
Zrim: This “drinking to the glory of God” business always comes off just this side of hyper-spiritual.
RS: I am sorry that the Greatest Commandment comes off to you as hyper-spiritual. Nevertheless, it is part of the Greatest Commandment.
LikeLike
Richard – No, I just mean that I hope you have some fun and enjoy God’s creation (including the interesting things that men have created – art, music, literature, film) now and then.
I don’t smoke anything and I only drink a beer every so often. That’s not really the issue.
LikeLike
Doug Wilson has a good quote: “God likes matter. He created it.”
LikeLike
Richard, it’s not the greatest commandment that comes off as hyper-spiritual. It’s the making of redemption to swallow up creation that all-of-lifery brings, which is what the Edwardsian pietists and neo-Calvinist culturalists have in common.
And the liberty you see around here isn’t about indulging sinful passions, it’s about not calling unclean what God has made clean. Rise, Richard, uncork and drink. And smoke them if you got them. Or don’t if none of it resonates with your desires. But whatever you do, lay off the sanctity.
LikeLike
Erik Charter: Richard – No, I just mean that I hope you have some fun and enjoy God’s creation (including the interesting things that men have created – art, music, literature, film) now and then.
RS: What is fun? The WSC says our goal/end/purpose in life is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever. Surely that has a few implications for life as a whole. Does the mere fact that one enjoys music or literature mean that the person is glorifying God? I would argue that it does not. Is there a difference between a pagan enjoying music and a Christian enjoying music?
Erik Charter: I don’t smoke anything and I only drink a beer every so often. That’s not really the issue.
RS: You are evidently not unsanctified enough for Zrim.
LikeLike
Erik Charter: Encountering libertines has not been a problem in the URC as I have been apart of. Neither has encountering legalists.
RS: Or perhaps you have not noticed them.
Erik C: People seem to have a good balance, which I have really appreciated. Having a Pastor who embraced books, culture, wine, good beer, etc. was a godsend for me coming out of evangelicalism.
RS: Or, perhaps, Wormwood was involved. A Pastor should be known for His deep devotion to Christ and His glory.
LikeLike
Erik Charter: Doug Wilson has a good quote: “God likes matter. He created it.”
RS: But if Doug Wilsom said it, then it does not matter.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, it’s not the greatest commandment that comes off as hyper-spiritual. It’s the making of redemption to swallow up creation that all-of-lifery brings, which is what the Edwardsian pietists and neo-Calvinist culturalists have in common.
RS: But even creation needs redemption. Romans 8:21 that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. All of life is to be lived to the glory and honor of God in love for Him. Christ came to redeem His children from every lawless deed. Christ came to redeem His children and to purify for Himself a people that are His possession and zealous for good deeds. That sure sounds like people who are seeking Christ and His glory at all times and in all things.
Titus 2:14 who gave Himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed, and to purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds.
Zrim: And the liberty you see around here isn’t about indulging sinful passions, it’s about not calling unclean what God has made clean.
RS: But of course it could also be the thought that one has liberty in certain things that makes them think it is not sinful passions and that God is not against it. Again, why is it that people think that they have liberty to do things that are not seeking God? We are not set free from the bondage of sin in order to seek the things of the world. We are set free from the bondge of sin in order that we CAN and MAY obey the living God out of love.
Zrim: Rise, Richard, uncork and drink. And smoke them if you got them. Or don’t if none of it resonates with your desires.
RS: Wormwood strikes again.
Zrim: But whatever you do, lay off the sanctity.
RS: Why is that? I Cor 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? 20 For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body.”
Are we commanded to glorify God with our body just some of the time? No, true liberty is the freedom to seek the glory of God in our body and soul. The Bible is quite clear that people are to pursue sanctification and are not truly saved if they are not seeking sanctification. We are not at liberty to pursue liberty more than sanctification.
2 Timothy 2: 16 But avoid worldly and empty chatter, for it will lead to further ungodliness,21 Therefore, if anyone cleanses himself from these things, he will be a vessel for honor, sanctified, useful to the Master, prepared for every good work.
1 Thessalonians 4:7 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
Richard,
While I really do appreciate your contrarian contribution amongst us OldLifers, in all of your time here I think you have really failed to grasp the piety of your confessionalist interlocutors here. With respect to life under the sun, we tend to take the words of Ecclesiastes to heart – “Be not overly righteous, and do not make yourselves too wise. Why should you destroy yourself?” (7:16). This isn’t because we don’t hold Christ dearly in our hearts, rather it comes from the fact that to a good degree, even we among the redeemed do not escape the reality of vanity in life under the sun, nor are we inclined to wax triumphant in the face of sin that easily entangles us all.
But for those of us who long to return to a historic Reformed piety, I think that it is safe to say that our hearts long for the Lord’s day, when heaven literally touches earth at the gathering of God’s covenant people. Here, without fail we hear the very words of God to and for us, we can come boldly to the throne of grace to confess our many sins with absolute confidence that our sins are forgiven. We feel inside of us the drama and dialectic of the Law and the Gospel, knowing that therin we participate fully on the Way of redemption. We hear the Word preached, and long for that weekly invitation to the Lord’s Table, where we, beleagured by sin and trial, are invited to supp with the Lord of All – this is where we find our strength and hope as we are feed upon the person and work of Christ, and all he has accomplished on our behalf. We do not find strength in any other place, not in our own piety or weekly performance, however good or bad it might be. Then, with the benediction, we leave with Christ’s name upon us. Sure, we long to comune with God in our every day lives, but we find strength and hope in the work of God these very ordinary means.
I do not know you personally, so I’ll refrain from assuming anything on your part personally. But,I can remember having a piety very similar to the kind you seem to defend here, Edwards was one of my heroes, but year after year of having to face my own sinfulness and quickness to failure left me with the soul-crushing realization that the only way I could have an Edwardsian, or experimental Calvinist piety was to pretend I was something that I clearly was not in my heart. Only after many years of a crisis of faith did I find the easy yoke of Grace, and I needn’t defend God’s slow and quiet work in my heart here. But suffice to say, I know it, and I have no in inclination whatsoever to return to the soul crushing spirituality of revivalistic Calvinism.
But, enough about me, since here it is all about DGH, we as confessionalists have little need to wear our piety on our sleeves. And, we know that given the folly and vanityl of life under the sun, that whether it is a finger or two of fine Kentucky Burboun, or a plate of fresh tomatoes, a fine hand rolled cigarette, or a pint of Ben & Jerry’s ice cream, all things in moderation, and especially in the joy of good company might just be as close to heaven as we can get Monday through Saturday, and that these might just be God given gifts to foreshaddow good things to come. It may just be ironies of ironnies if in the Kingdom to come if you find yourself a brewmaster for the first hundred million years of eternity, but I am sure that your Ales would be out of this world good.
LikeLike
Richard,
You seem to be reading a lot into those passages that is not stated. Why does pursuing sanctification necessarily involve adopting a semi-ascetic lifestyle where I deny myself the enjoyment of a certain arbitrary set of good things? I’ve noticed a fair number of non-drinking Baptists who have no problem indulging in deep-fried foods and rich desserts? Perhaps “pursuing sanctfucation” should include limiting one’s caloric intake and participating in regular exercise?
Besides, why must pursuing sanctfication necessarily involve denying myself of the good things of God’s creation? Why can’t I pursue sanctification by making use of the means of grace? Why must it be something else?
It is in this sense, that the pietism of Edwards and Finney ultimately seems to devolve into a de facto works righteousness. Mark’s quote of Edwards (above) is telling. Edwards clearly denied that forensic justificaton is sufficient to secure entry into heaven. Edwards would have us secure entry into heaven by supplementing Christ’s work on our behalf by certain unspecified human works whereby we achieve our second justification. According to Edwards’ thinking, it is this second justification that secures our ultimate entry into heaven. And you still allege that Edwards was less of a Pelagian than Finney?
LikeLike
Richard, how does glorifying God determine whether I drink or not? The Bible says I glorify God in all that I do, whether I drink or abstain. The Bible doesn’t speak on drinking.
Why is it that the glory of God folks always blow it up to make the Bible speak on everything?
LikeLike
Jed, TMI. No testimonies here. (But we’re glad you came through New Divinity hades.)
LikeLike
You Calvinists are entertaining. So moderate in your indulging of the fruit of the vine and distilled substances. I’ll stick with the definitive explanation of sanctification and continue to believe that progressive sanctification is a pipe dream. Our only hope is trusting in the work of Christ and his obedience, ie., not our works or obedience.
LikeLike
And Richard can tell me I am unregenerate all he wants- so sad, is’nt it Richard? Your spiritual threats and warnings fall on deaf ears. Consider this quote from R.C. Sproul I read yesterday:
For Sproul, assurance is not founded upon the truth of the gospel, but rather in the notion that settling for Jesus is a better option than not settling for Him. He writes:
“There are people in this world who are not saved, but who are convinced that they are. The presence of such people causes genuine Christians to doubt their salvation. After all, we wonder, suppose I am in that category? Suppose I am mistaken about my salvation and am really going to hell? How can I know that I am a real Christian?
“A while back I had one of those moments of acute self-awareness that we have from time to time, and suddenly the question hit me: “R.C., what if you are not one of the redeemed? What if your destiny is not heaven after all, but hell?” Let me tell you that I was flooded in my body with a chill that went from my head to the bottom of my spine. I was terrified.
“I tried to grab hold of myself. I thought, “Well, it’s a good sign that I’m worried about this. Only true Christians really care about salvation.” But then I began to take stock of my life, and I looked at my performance. My sins came pouring into my mind, and the more I looked at myself, the worse I felt. I thought, “Maybe it’s really true. Maybe I’m not saved after all.”
“I went to my room and began to read the Bible. On my knees I said, “Well, here I am. I can’t point to my obedience. There’s nothing I can offer. I can only rely on Your atonement for my sins. I can only throw myself on Your mercy.” Even then I knew that some people only flee to the Cross to escape hell, not out of a real turning to God. I could not be sure about my own heart and motivation. Then I remembered John 6:68. Jesus had been giving out hard teaching, and many of His former followers had left Him. When He asked Peter if he was also going to leave, Peter said, “Where else can I go? Only You have the words of eternal life.” In other words, Peter was also uncomfortable, but he realized that being uncomfortable with Jesus was better than any other option.
Hence, I was never able to find any comfort or assurance while reading Sproul, Gerstner or Edwards. My assurance is found in the work of Christ and my faith in that work of His.
LikeLike
And there is a period at the end of Christ’s work.
LikeLike
mark mcculley: Which men justified Abraham?
RS: No man justified Abraham, but there is a sense that works proclaim that a person does the works by God before men. 1 Timothy 3:16 By common confession, great is the mystery of godliness: He who was revealed in the flesh, Was vindicated in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Proclaimed among the nations, Believed on in the world, Taken up in glory.”
The word “vindicated” is translated “justified in the KJV and is the same word in Greek. Jesus was also justified or vindicated before men.
McMark: What works did Abraham do before men that enabled these men to justify Abraham? And if this justification by men is not “on the basis of works”, then what is it based on?
RS: But one is not justified by works in the sense of forensic justification by God. That justification is be the imputed righteousness of Christ and any attempt to add works at that point destroys the grace of the Gospel. The works that come by grace later on is a different matter. James is quite clear that Abraham was justified (in some sense) by works and so was Rahab.
McMark: Are sinners not condemned on the basis of their sins? Sola faith, faith alone, mere faith….
RS: Matthew 12:37 “For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”
McMark: Also, I want to know what kind of works we are talking about here. Are we talking about the work of making bad trees bear good fruit? Are we talk about changing the culture? Or are we talking about being a grandfather who takes the little ones to the zoo? Is there some regulative principle by which we know which works are acceptable before God?
RS: The soul that has been justified (declared righteous before God on the basis of imputed righteousness) is also a soul that has been born of God and has the life of God in that soul. As Jesus said in John 15:5, “apart from Me you can do nothing.” So good works would be those that come from Christ (the vine) and the works are the fruit that are seen on the branch.
McMark: Is this “second justification” before God or before men? If it’s before men, then we will need to find out which men and what works they approve.
RS: However you want to question it, James is quite clear that in some sense Abraham was justified by works and so was Rahab. Clearly they were not declared holy and blameless before God on the basis of their works, because that is only by grace alone. But if we are going to deal with the whole of Scripture, we have to account for what James tells us.
LikeLike
Jed Paschall: I do not know you personally, so I’ll refrain from assuming anything on your part personally. But,I can remember having a piety very similar to the kind you seem to defend here, Edwards was one of my heroes, but year after year of having to face my own sinfulness and quickness to failure left me with the soul-crushing realization that the only way I could have an Edwardsian, or experimental Calvinist piety was to pretend I was something that I clearly was not in my heart.
RS: But the real way to face that is to stop pretending and know that all is found in Christ.
Jed Paschall: Only after many years of a crisis of faith did I find the easy yoke of Grace, and I needn’t defend God’s slow and quiet work in my heart here. But suffice to say, I know it, and I have no in inclination whatsoever to return to the soul crushing spirituality of revivalistic Calvinism.
RS: But it is not soul crushing, it is the crushing of self so that Christ may be the life of the person.
Jed Paschall: But, enough about me, since here it is all about DGH, we as confessionalists have little need to wear our piety on our sleeves.
RS: There is no need to wear any piety on the sleeve as that is not where piety is. Calvin said that piety is where the love of God and the fear of God meet. In other words, it is in all of life starting with the heart.
Jed Paschall: And, we know that given the folly and vanityl of life under the sun, that whether it is a finger or two of fine Kentucky Burboun, or a plate of fresh tomatoes, a fine hand rolled cigarette, or a pint of Ben & Jerry’s ice cream, all things in moderation, and especially in the joy of good company might just be as close to heaven as we can get Monday through Saturday, and that these might just be God given gifts to foreshaddow good things to come. It may just be ironies of ironnies if in the Kingdom to come if you find yourself a brewmaster for the first hundred million years of eternity, but I am sure that your Ales would be out of this world good.
RS: Jesus said that He came so that His people would have the abundant life. He didn’t mention any of the things that you you list above, nor do we find Him doing those things. I am just saying that surely that would give you pause to think.
LikeLike
Bob: Richard, You seem to be reading a lot into those passages that is not stated. Why does pursuing sanctification necessarily involve adopting a semi-ascetic lifestyle where I deny myself the enjoyment of a certain arbitrary set of good things? I’ve noticed a fair number of non-drinking Baptists who have no problem indulging in deep-fried foods and rich desserts? Perhaps “pursuing sanctfucation” should include limiting one’s caloric intake and participating in regular exercise?
RS: Perhaps I am reading a lot into those passages, but it may also be that others are deduction a lot out of them. I am not arguing for a semi-ascetic lifestyle, but one must remember that we are at war. We are in a spiritual war and we are to be soliders of King Jesus.
Bob: Besides, why must pursuing sanctfication necessarily involve denying myself of the good things of God’s creation? Why can’t I pursue sanctification by making use of the means of grace? Why must it be something else?
RS: Christ Himself is the grace that is pursued. I would also argue that just because something is or just because it is there does not mean that it is good or that using it is good.
Bob: It is in this sense, that the pietism of Edwards and Finney ultimately seems to devolve into a de facto works righteousness.
RS: Not Edwards.
Bob: Mark’s quote of Edwards (above) is telling.
RS: Yes, it tells us that it is taken out of context.
Bob: Edwards clearly denied that forensic justificaton is sufficient to secure entry into heaven.
RS: That is pure and utter nonsense. You can take anyone out of context and make them say anything you want. However, once again, James clearly says that Abraham and Rahab were justified by works. There is a justification that is by works. If we deny what James is teaching there, we are denying something vital to Scripture.
Bob: Edwards would have us secure entry into heaven by supplementing Christ’s work on our behalf by certain unspecified human works whereby we achieve our second justification.
RS: Again, pure nonsense.
Bob: According to Edwards’ thinking, it is this second justification that secures our ultimate entry into heaven. And you still allege that Edwards was less of a Pelagian than Finney?
RS: I can only say that you would need to read Edwards on justification. If you did, you would see clearly that your statement just above is simply false. Edwards was not a Pelagian in the slightest.
LikeLike
D. G. HartL Richard, how does glorifying God determine whether I drink or not? The Bible says I glorify God in all that I do, whether I drink or abstain. The Bible doesn’t speak on drinking.
RS: The unbeliever also glorifies God in all he does, but he glorifies God in a different way. The Bible speaks a lot about drinking.
D.G. Hart: Why is it that the glory of God folks always blow it up to make the Bible speak on everything?
RS: Because it does speak on everything in some way. The Greatest Commandment is to love God with all of your being at all times. Nothing we do escapes that commandment. Jesus is Lord at all times and in all ways. We either submit to Him at all times or we don’t. Just to be clear, no fallen human being in the present world does, but that does not mean that this is not our goal. If we don’t want to submit here, then why would we want to go to heaven where it is all about Him all of the time and we submit 100 % all the time? We should long to enter into His eternal presence (heaven) so that we may be free to adore and worship to His glory without sin. But again, if we don’t really want that here then do we really want heaven as it really is?
By the way, when are you going to fix this thing so that we don’t have to type our names and addresses each time we post? Are you sure that the guy who works on this thing (Blog) is not given to wine a little too much?
LikeLike
John Yeazel: You Calvinists are entertaining. So moderate in your indulging of the fruit of the vine and distilled substances. I’ll stick with the definitive explanation of sanctification and continue to believe that progressive sanctification is a pipe dream. Our only hope is trusting in the work of Christ and his obedience, ie., not our works or obedience.
RS: The work of Christ continues, however. He is Prophet, Priest, and king. He works in His people to crucify the flesh (Gal 5) and to have the fruit of the Spirit. If there is no progressive sanctification, then there is no reign and rule of Christ in the soul. If there is no progressive sanctification, then the Holy Spirit is not working holiness in the soul. The works and obedience of the believer is a work of grace in the soul. If there are no works and obedience, then there is no work of grace in the soul.
LikeLike
Richard, I’ve been through this before, but I do believe it sounds down right silly to say that the Bible speaks about plumbing but never mentions it. Is that Edwardsian Haiku? I understand your point and you may have one. But it is not helped by saying that the Bible speaks about everything, especially since the Bible says just the opposite — that’s how Paul gets to Christian liberty.
LikeLike
Richard, by the way, if you use Google, why don’t you get those automatic fill-ins in the name and email boxes?
LikeLike
John Yeazel: And Richard can tell me I am unregenerate all he wants- so sad, is’nt it Richard? Your spiritual threats and warnings fall on deaf ears.
RS: I wasn’t aware that I was sending out spiritual threats and warnings.
John Yeazel: Consider this quote from R.C. Sproul I read yesterday:
For Sproul, assurance is not founded upon the truth of the gospel, but rather in the notion that settling for Jesus is a better option than not settling for Him. He writes:
“There are people in this world who are not saved, but who are convinced that they are. The presence of such people causes genuine Christians to doubt their salvation. After all, we wonder, suppose I am in that category? Suppose I am mistaken about my salvation and am really going to hell? How can I know that I am a real Christian?
RS: The Bible has several places where it tells people not to be deceived.
John Yeazel quoting Sproul: “A while back I had one of those moments of acute self-awareness that we have from time to time, and suddenly the question hit me: “R.C., what if you are not one of the redeemed? What if your destiny is not heaven after all, but hell?” Let me tell you that I was flooded in my body with a chill that went from my head to the bottom of my spine. I was terrified.
“I tried to grab hold of myself. I thought, “Well, it’s a good sign that I’m worried about this. Only true Christians really care about salvation.” But then I began to take stock of my life, and I looked at my performance. My sins came pouring into my mind, and the more I looked at myself, the worse I felt. I thought, “Maybe it’s really true. Maybe I’m not saved after all.”
“I went to my room and began to read the Bible. On my knees I said, “Well, here I am. I can’t point to my obedience. There’s nothing I can offer. I can only rely on Your atonement for my sins. I can only throw myself on Your mercy.” Even then I knew that some people only flee to the Cross to escape hell, not out of a real turning to God. I could not be sure about my own heart and motivation. Then I remembered John 6:68. Jesus had been giving out hard teaching, and many of His former followers had left Him. When He asked Peter if he was also going to leave, Peter said, “Where else can I go? Only You have the words of eternal life.” In other words, Peter was also uncomfortable, but he realized that being uncomfortable with Jesus was better than any other option.
John Yeazel: Hence, I was never able to find any comfort or assurance while reading Sproul, Gerstner or Edwards. My assurance is found in the work of Christ and my faith in that work of His.
RS: Your deduction does not follow. Sproul tells us that Christ alone has words of eternal life and that is true even when you are uncomfortable. You should never find assurance while reading any man if you are looking for comfort or assurance while reading them. However, you must also remember that the work of Christ continues through His Spirit. The Spirit is not the Holy Spirit for nothing, which is to say He works holiness in His people. If there is no pursuit of holiness, then there is not the work of the Spirit in that soul. If there is no work of the Spirit in that soul, then one wonders if Christ purchased the Spirit for that soul. I am simply saying that when Sproul examined his works, it could have been that he was not just looking to see if he had worked hard enough, but for the work of the Spirit in him.
For some reason it is popular to think that as long as a person believes certain historical facts are true then one is saved. The devil believes and knows that those historical facts about Christ are true, but Christ did not die for the devil. But Colossians 1:27 gives us a vital part of the mystery of thye Gospel: “to whom God willed to make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.” The hope of the believer is not the historical facts in and of themselves, but at the text says it is Christ in you. If Christ died and was resurrected for person A in history, then person A will have Christ living in that person.
LikeLike
Richard – If your system, which I assume is based on Edwards & The Puritans, is so great, why did so many Puritan churches become Unitarian and why is the Northeast so secular (and full of blue state Obama voters) today? You seem to be some kind of dinosaur relic of glory days that are long since past. Who is practicing what you are espousing in the 21st Century? Where do I find a Richard Smith church in my area?
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: Richard, I’ve been through this before, but I do believe it sounds down right silly to say that the Bible speaks about plumbing but never mentions it. Is that Edwardsian Haiku?
RS: Sounding silly is different than being silly. I would argue that when the Scriptures speak to each person and gives them a direct command to love God with all of his or her being and to do all for His glory, that is saying something about how to do plumbing. When the Scriptures speak to slaves and tell them to do their work unto the Lord and not just do the eye-service thing, it is speaking to all plumbers about how to do plumbing as well.
D.G .Hart: I understand your point and you may have one. But it is not helped by saying that the Bible speaks about everything, especially since the Bible says just the opposite — that’s how Paul gets to Christian liberty.
RS: Notice in the text below the context and basic idea of what Christian liberty is. The perfect law of God is the law of liberty. It is by living in obedience to that perfect law that one is blessed in what s/he does. Again, we are liberated from the Law as a means of salvation in order that we may have Christ and be obedient to Christ. The truth sets us from from bondage to sin, but freedom in Christ is to love Christ and have His love in us. Notice from the I Peter 2 passage (given below) what liberty and freedom are to be used for and what they are not to lead to. Then see the passage in Romans 6. Every person is either a slave to sin or a slave to Christ and righteousness. Human beings have no liberty as in the libertarian view of the will, but they are always slaves of sin or of Christ. True Christian freedom is to be free from the bondage of sin and of the devil to be a willing and loving slave of Christ. There is no middle ground.
James 1:21 Therefore, putting aside all filthiness and all that remains of wickedness, in humility receive the word implanted, which is able to save your souls.
22 But prove yourselves doers of the word, and not merely hearers who delude themselves.
23 For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks at his natural face in a mirror;
24 for once he has looked at himself and gone away, he has immediately forgotten what kind of person he was.
25 But one who looks intently at the perfect law, the law of liberty, and abides by it, not having become a forgetful hearer but an effectual doer, this man will be blessed in what he does.
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.
John 8:32 and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.”
33 They answered Him, “We are Abraham’s descendants and have never yet been enslaved to anyone; how is it that You say, ‘You will become free ‘?”
34 Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin.
I Peter 2:16 Act as free men, and do not use your freedom as a covering for evil, but use it as bondslaves of God. 17 Honor all people, love the brotherhood, fear God, honor the king. 18 Servants, be submissive to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and gentle, but also to those who are unreasonable. 19 For this finds favor, if for the sake of conscience toward God a person bears up under sorrows when suffering unjustly.
Rom 6: 15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? May it never be!
16 Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness?
17 But thanks be to God that though you were slaves of sin, you became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching to which you were committed,
18 and having been freed from sin, you became slaves of righteousness.
LikeLike
Erik Charter: Richard – If your system, which I assume is based on Edwards & The Puritans, is so great, why did so many Puritan churches become Unitarian and why is the Northeast so secular (and full of blue state Obama voters) today?
RS: Because of their rejection of Scripture and the Finney burned over district contributed to that.
Erik C: You seem to be some kind of dinosaur relic of glory days that are long since past.
RS: You mean like the Bible?
Erik C: Who is practicing what you are espousing in the 21st Century?
RS: Which is not an argument for the truth at all. I would argue that the fact that so many people are blinded enough to vote for Obama is a sure sign of judgment on our nation. Another sign of judgment is when people settle for external religion (as did Israel) rather than what is true.
Erik C: Where do I find a Richard Smith church in my area?
RS: Look for a church that preaches the living God and looks for Christ to be the life in the soul rather than settling for external things. Look for one where the living Christ really lives in His people rather than one out there that can be served through rituals and rote behavior.
LikeLike
Richard, you would not want to put a section of biblical teaching on plumbing in a course on plumbing at a vo-tech school, would you?
As for the Bible, you missed all the Pauline texts that talk about Christians having freedom from the law (Rom. 14; Gal. 3-4).
LikeLike
DG,
Chalk it up to bipolar license.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: Richard, you would not want to put a section of biblical teaching on plumbing in a course on plumbing at a vo-tech school, would you?
RS: Actually, I would. I had a guy who taught drivers ed ask me one time about things like that. He was surprised at how practicing biblical principles would help people and their driving.
D. G. Hart: As for the Bible, you missed all the Pauline texts that talk about Christians having freedom from the law (Rom. 14; Gal. 3-4).
RS: But have you dealt with all the Pauline texts which teach about our slavery to Christ and to righteousness? The two do not contradict. The Bible has to be treated as a whole and not just people liking one side better than another. Indeed we are free from the law as a way of salvation, but that does not mean that we are free from slavery to Christ and to righteousness. Of course we are free from the law as a way of salvation, but that does not mean we are every free from the Greatest Commandment to love God with all of our being. Again, we may be free from the law, but we are not free from the command to be holy as He is holy. I might also note that these commands should drive us to Christ rather than look to our own strength for the ability to carry these out. But our liberty should never be interpreted as liberty to sin.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: Richard, by the way, if you use Google, why don’t you get those automatic fill-ins in the name and email boxes?
RS: I have not had to do that before but on a rare occasion. Now it is every single time. A few other people noted that as well.
LikeLike
The unbeliever also glorifies God in all he does, but he glorifies God in a different way.
No, he doesn’t, Richard. Without faith one cannot glorify God. All he can do is a good job. Which is why the believer can glorify God even when he does mediocre work.
LikeLike
Richard,
Now your just being obtuse. It seems as if you are asserting that because Jesus doesn’t deal with the subject matter of Ecclesiastes, that he has somehow abrogated the reality of futility of life under the sun — kind of sounds like the Red Letter Christianity of liberalism, pretty sure you don’t want to go there. But the fact of the matter is that Paul does pick up on the language of futility in Romans 8 specifically, and elsewhere implicitly.
Sure, there are elements of futility that the Christian sees past and endures, because we straddle not only this age but the coming one as well. However, the present age is subject to futility, and Christian and unbeliever alike must toil for our livelihoods, and often it is the wicked, not the righteous who prosper – this will not change until the eschaton. I know many believers who have worked their entire lives, only to have their labor fall through their hands for reasons beyond their control – disease, a fire destroying all they own, unscrupulous financial advice. Yet the abundant life in Christ is held out to us in spite of and in the midst of the vanity of this life, not in a way that supersedes it. We enter into and experience life in Christ through faith.
It smacks of arrogance to suggest that life will be anything other than this. The history of Christian interpretation of Ecclesiastes has been rather unanimous in affirming the reality that Believers too will experience, to varying degrees the futility of life. It seems that only in my discussions with Edwardsians and some Kuyperians is there reticence to admit what is nearly universally affirmed and experienced. I am not familiar with Edwards’ own treatment of Wisdom lit in Scripture, or Ecclesiastes specifically, so I am not sure if this is a product of his teaching directly, or the sheer triumphalism of his disciples.
LikeLike
Jed,
I still consider you a ‘friend’ even if Darryl now hates you with every fiber in his being.
LikeLike
Sean,
I have a sneaking suspicion that the Dude’s undying hatred can be assuaged with a few Cohiba’s, and maybe a snifter of nice Armangiac.
LikeLike
Jed, that plan is a fargin swiss watch. You might wanna throw in an El Duderino, or even a toe. Just to make sure the anger is assuaged.
LikeLike
sean,
What can I say, I am more into the brevity thing man, I’ll stick with Duder, or his Dudeness.
LikeLike
Some time ago John Armstrong (federal visionist) published Mcdermott’s defense of Edwards on justification. I mean, don’t you know that Thomas Aquinas also believed in grace and was not a Pelagian? If you want a decent response, read Reymond’s answer to Gerstner.
Click to access 14-1_mcdermott.pdf
LikeLike
Richard, I agree we are slaves (I thought slavery was wicked) to Christ, bought with a price as we are. But I am free from Edwards. I am bound where Christ speaks, not by inferences from Christ by Edwards.
LikeLike
Jed – Good luck on getting Richard to see that he is being obtuse. It won’t work any better for you than it did for Andy Dufresne with the Warden. Some people just get off on being contrary.
Richard – I assume you have been a minister for decades now. How many parishioners do you have who have sat under your teaching for at least ten years? I am not saying you are all wet, but I suspect your approach just plain wears most people out. You might be the prophet crying out in the wilderness who has it all figured out, but maybe not.
LikeLike
I hear you Erik, I can see why you changed your Avatar to Kip, conversing with Richard has the tendency to wear on one’s neck meat, if you catch my drift.
LikeLike
Where does one find Reymond’s answer to Gerstner?
LikeLike
Erik Charter: Richard – If your system, which I assume is based on Edwards & The Puritans, is so great, why did so many Puritan churches become Unitarian and why is the Northeast so secular (and full of blue state Obama voters) today? You seem to be some kind of dinosaur relic of glory days that are long since past.
RS: Was in a rush earlier, and still am. However, something for you to ponder. You ask, in order to make a point, “why did so many Puritan churches become Unitarian”? The implication is that there was something wrong with the doctrine of the Puritan churches to begin with and that is what happened later on. Allow me to ask you a question. Why did so many NT churches depart from the faith before the apostles left the scene? Was it because the apostles did not teach the truth?
LikeLike
Zrim: The unbeliever also glorifies God in all he does, but he glorifies God in a different way.
No, he doesn’t, Richard. Without faith one cannot glorify God. All he can do is a good job. Which is why the believer can glorify God even when he does mediocre work.
RS: No, the unbeliever glorifies the justice, judgment, and wrath of God in what s/he does. The unbeliever does not intend to glorify God, but does so anyway. The unbeliever is judged for his or her sin and intent to sin, and so the glory of God’s justice shines forth.
LikeLike
Erik Charter: Jed – Good luck on getting Richard to see that he is being obtuse. It won’t work any better for you than it did for Andy Dufresne with the Warden. Some people just get off on being contrary.
RS: “Luck” is the word pagans use to describe the sovereignty of God.
Erik Charter: Richard – I assume you have been a minister for decades now. How many parishioners do you have who have sat under your teaching for at least ten years? I am not saying you are all wet, but I suspect your approach just plain wears most people out. You might be the prophet crying out in the wilderness who has it all figured out, but maybe not.
RS: It is true, declaring the glory of God and the inability of man does wear unbelievers out.
LikeLike
Here’s the link for Reymond’s response to the disciple of Edwards. If you need to always be uncomfortable in order to be comfortable, that dialectic will wear you out.
http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=121
LikeLike
Jed Paschall: Richard, Now your just being obtuse. It seems as if you are asserting that because Jesus doesn’t deal with the subject matter of Ecclesiastes, that he has somehow abrogated the reality of futility of life under the sun — kind of sounds like the Red Letter Christianity of liberalism, pretty sure you don’t want to go there.
RS: A close reading of Ecclesiastes might help. There is a distinction between life under the sun as if that is the only thing there is as compared to the sovereign God over all. If God is sovereign, then nothing is futile and meaningless. The assertion that life is meaningless is a direct attack on the sovereignty, wisdom. and holiness of God. In other words, there is a lot more to reality than what is under the sun.
Jed Paschall: But the fact of the matter is that Paul does pick up on the language of futility in Romans 8 specifically, and elsewhere implicitly.
RS: Do you mean where he said that our sovereign God causes all things to work together for good to those who love Him? How is that futility? How Peter who said that we have been redeemed from a futile way of life?
1 Peter 1:18 knowing that you were not redeemed with perishable things like silver or gold from your futile way of life inherited from your forefathers,
Jed Paschall: Sure, there are elements of futility that the Christian sees past and endures, because we straddle not only this age but the coming one as well. However, the present age is subject to futility, and Christian and unbeliever alike must toil for our livelihoods, and often it is the wicked, not the righteous who prosper – this will not change until the eschaton.
RS: But if one is doing those to God, how is it futile to do so?
Jed Paschall: I know many believers who have worked their entire lives, only to have their labor fall through their hands for reasons beyond their control – disease, a fire destroying all they own, unscrupulous financial advice.
RS: But if they lived for God, then they did not really lose anything of eternal significance.
Jed Paschall: Yet the abundant life in Christ is held out to us in spite of and in the midst of the vanity of this life, not in a way that supersedes it. We enter into and experience life in Christ through faith.
RS: But of course, but God can grant contentment in the midst of great trials. So is it really futile if God works these things for true good?
Jed Paschall: It smacks of arrogance to suggest that life will be anything other than this.
RS: It smacks of arrogance to think that life can be futile for those whom Christ redeemed from futility and those whom the sovereign God works all things for good. Indeed it may seem futile under the sun, but when looked at from an eternal perspective it is far from futile.
Jed Paschall: The history of Christian interpretation of Ecclesiastes has been rather unanimous in affirming the reality that Believers too will experience, to varying degrees the futility of life.
RS: I would deny that in an ultimate sense. The history of Christian interpretation is that God is sovereign and works all things for good and that is not futility. It may be true that believers have hardships that the world may look upon as futility under the sun, but that is with the eyes of flesh and not the eyes of faith.
Jed Paschall: It seems that only in my discussions with Edwardsians and some Kuyperians is there reticence to admit what is nearly universally affirmed and experienced.
RS: Or they simply confirm what the rest of the Bible teaches. We are redeemed from a futile way of life.
Jed Paschall: I am not familiar with Edwards’ own treatment of Wisdom lit in Scripture, or Ecclesiastes specifically, so I am not sure if this is a product of his teaching directly, or the sheer triumphalism of his disciples.
RS: Call it what you will, but God works all things for good to those who love Him. That is the opposite of futility. Jesus said to rejoice and be glad when you are persecuted. He said that those are blessed when they are insulted and persectued for His name’s sake. That is not futility in the slightest, though the world and fleshly eyes may think of it as such.
LikeLike
I need to clarify my remark about progressive sanctification. I could very well be wrong in regards to progressive sanctifiction being a pipedream. There may be such a thing as progressive sanctification but Lutherans certainly don’t think of the concept the same way Edwardsians and Calvinists do. Lutherans do not look upon it as a synergistic and cooperative effort between both God and man. That is what I am objecting to and how I interpret Richard’s conception of progressive sanctification. I believe that Richard thinks I don’t believe in the work of the Spirit in a believers life. That is not true. We have disagreed before on the subject of regeneration preceeding faith or faith preceeding effectual call (I equate effectual call with regeneration but I think they occur simultaneously in a temporal sense). The real points of disagreement are in regards to when the imputation of Christ’s righteousnees occurs in a logical sense. I think, as a result of God placing us into the death of Christ, we are enabled to hear the Gospel and enabled to receive the gift of faith. The believer receives the reconciliation, justification and adoption by God transfering Christ’s righteousness and then declaring the person justified forensically. It is a forensic union by transfer and declaration. The Spirit is then given as a result of the transfer and declaration of righteousness. There is biblical warrant for this most clearly in three separate verses.
1) Galatians 3:13-14: “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by
becoming a curse for us, so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of
Abraham would come…, so that we would receive the promised Spirit
through faith.”
2) Romans 8:10–”but if Christ
is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is
life because of righteousness.”
3) As II Peter 1:1 starts, “To those who have obtained a faith of equal
standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus
Christ.”
So, we receive the Spirit by faith because of the righteousness imputed by God. The righteousness imputed is the grace of God given to the ungodly before the Spirit is given because of the righteousness. Without the righteousness imputed, there is no hearing of the Gospel, effectual call or faith. Again, it is because of Christ’s righteousness imputed that the Spirit is sent, ie., the Spirit is life because of righteousness. If one is already declared perfectly righteous becuase of the imputed righteousness how does this square with the concept of progressive sanctification? I think we often get confused ideas of how we conceive of progressive sanctification. That is the point I was trying to get at. If holiness is a similiar concept as righteousness then how can we progress in holiness when we are already considered perfectly righteous by Christ imputed righteousness?
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: Richard, I agree we are slaves (I thought slavery was wicked) to Christ, bought with a price as we are. But I am free from Edwards. I am bound where Christ speaks, not by inferences from Christ by Edwards.
RS: You are not free from Edwards. He still haunts you and you are afraid he is right.
LikeLike
mark mcculley: Some time ago John Armstrong (federal visionist) published Mcdermott’s defense of Edwards on justification. I mean, don’t you know that Thomas Aquinas also believed in grace and was not a Pelagian? If you want a decent response, read Reymond’s answer to Gerstner.
RS: Read/hear Edwards’ own words on justification.
Romans 4:5
Justification respects a man as ungodly. This is evident by the words “that justifieth the ungodly,” which cannot imply less than that God, in the act of justification, has no regard for anything in the person justified, such as godliness or any goodness in him, but that immediately before this act God sees him only as an ungodly creature. So that godliness in the person to be justified is not so antecedent to his justification as to be the ground of it. When it is said that God justifies the ungodly, it is absurd to suppose that our godliness, taken as some goodness in us, is the ground of our justification…Therefore, no only works of the ceremonial law are excluded in this business of justification, but works of morality and goodness.
It is evident that the subject of justification is looked upon as destitute of any righteousness in himself.
[speaking of imputed or reckoned righteousness] It is as much as if the apostle had said, “As for him who works, there is no need of any gracious reckoning or counting it for righteousness, and causing the reward to follow as if it were a righteounsness; for if he has works, he has that which is a righteousness in itself, to which the reward properly belongs.”
What can here be meant by “imputing righteousness without works” but imputing righteousness to him who has none of his own?
LikeLike
Richard, I have about hit my limits for how much time I want to devote to this exchange, so I’ll be brief. What it seems like you are doing here at an interpretive level is taking a very true principle, namely asserting that we have an abundant life in Christ, and that we are even now participants in the age to come where nothing is futile, and from there using this to flatten out the thorny dilemas of life presented to us in wisdom lit. I think that Scripture presents with a pluriform of truth, and that it is possible for us to experience these truths in a contradictory or dynamic fashion – wherein we can affirm both the abundant life in Christ as John 10 teaches, and we can also affirm “Vanity, vanity, all is vanity” with the preacher in Ecclesiastes. When the age to come is consummated, vanity and futility end, but not until then, otherwise we deny that we live in a present evil age, or that Christians are immune from it’s suffering and struggling against it’s futility.
I did run a web search on Edwards and Ecclesiastes, and my own suspicion was confirmed – you are espousing views on the validity of Ecclesiastes (and the experience of vanity, or even theodicy) that even he wouldn’t espouse. It’s hard to pin Edwards down since he was an occasional writer, and rarely treated anything systematically – but nothing I was to dig up this afternoon would fly against a traditional reading of Ecclesiastes – in fact, he sounds rather similar to Calvin. For example, at ccel.org, in Vol. 2 of Edwards collected writings he comments on Ecc.:1:9 (typical to other Ecc. citations of his I was able to find):
LikeLike
Jed Paschall: Richard, I have about hit my limits for how much time I want to devote to this exchange, so I’ll be brief. What it seems like you are doing here at an interpretive level is taking a very true principle, namely asserting that we have an abundant life in Christ, and that we are even now participants in the age to come where nothing is futile, and from there using this to flatten out the thorny dilemas of life presented to us in wisdom lit.
RS: No, I am not doing that at all. I am not saying that life is not hard and that hard things do not happen, but I am saying that they are not meaningless or futile. We are redeemed from a futile way of life. That does not mean that we are redeemed from a hard life, but that the hard life is not futile or meaningless. When God works all things for good to those that love Him, whatever happens is not futile.
Jed Paschall: I think that Scripture presents with a pluriform of truth, and that it is possible for us to experience these truths in a contradictory or dynamic fashion – wherein we can affirm both the abundant life in Christ as John 10 teaches, and we can also affirm “Vanity, vanity, all is vanity” with the preacher in Ecclesiastes.
RS: But again, it was life under the sun (as if no God existed or not taken into account) that was vanity.
Jed Paschall: When the age to come is consummated, vanity and futility end, but not until then, otherwise we deny that we live in a present evil age, or that Christians are immune from it’s suffering and struggling against it’s futility.
RS: There is no meaningless in this age because all things work together for good to those that love God. Of course Christians are not immune from suffering and the struggles of life, but their suffering and struggles are not meaningless and futile. As for the Edwards quote, he is speaking of unbelievers. He would never assert that the lives of the children of God are futile and meaningless.
LikeLike
quoted recently in the Christian Curmudgeon’s blog: justification must at every point not only accompany but take precedence over sanctification: This inborn and incurable disease is treated by God first, not by attacking the disease’s controlling power, but by addressing its condemning power. This is where the Christian gospel differs from the standard treatment of addictions. It is true that people are powerless over the disease and that they cannot change themselves. But the next word to the person in despair is not that “God could and would if he were sought.”
When I was at my lowest I found a ray of light, first in this: “When iniquities prevail against me, you atone for our transgressions” (Psalm 65:3).” Would others forgive? Maybe, maybe not. How genuine was my desire to change. I was pretty sure I was about as sincere as I have ever been, but others, with reason, had their doubts. What I knew was that someone else (the Psalmist) knew the experience of being overwhelmed by sin yet believed God for atonement.
What the disease of sin requires, no matter its particular manifestations, is atonement and forgiveness. We cannot atone for our own sins; nor can we or others do the forgiving. Others may not be able to forgive us; we cannot declare or will ourselves forgiven. As Pharisees said, when Jesus pronounced a man’s sins forgiven, none but God can forgive sins.
To put the gospel in grammatical terms, the indicative must precede the imperative. To put the gospel in theological terms, justification always goes before sanctification…Nothing save forgiveness can deal with daily struggle. In fact, in some way I do not fully comprehend you must never forget that the struggle, even the successful struggle, does not get you God’s favor. Nothing but the forgiveness of sins received by faith in Jesus and based on his atoning death can get God to smile at you….
LikeLike
Richard,
I agree that for the believer, nothing is ultimately meaningless, as God sovereignly works all for good, but again, this is in the final reckoning, we do not and cannot know how all these things work for our own good in the due course of our lives. There are indeed certain kinds of suffering where we may glimpse resolution, and see God’s good purposes in it on this side of glory, however there are other instances of suffering, wounds we receive, mistakes made which will not ultimately find resolution until we are in the presence of the Lord, and he “wipes every tear” from our eyes. So we can maintain confidence in the face of the futility of this world, knowing that futility will not have final say, but we hold this truth by faith, because our experience of futility in this life might not be resolved here and now.
Otherwise, why would Paul acknowledge in the same chapter, preceding his glorious conclusion in 8:28-29:
If your only point is God is ultimately going to work all things out for good, fine. But if you are arguing that just because all things ultimately work for good that we do not experience the futility that the present age has been subjected to, then I don’t think that you are seriously dealing with Paul’s broader point. But, if you are understanding me to say that the vanity we experience in the present age is permanent or final, I am not explaining myself well enough. By faith we hold on to the promises that God will work all for good on our behalf, even as we groan with the rest of the created order under the futility of the present age.
LikeLike
Mark Macculley says: To put the gospel in grammatical terms, the indicative must precede the imperative. To put the gospel in theological terms, justification always goes before sanctification…
Me: Huh? Didn’t God sanctify King David (during his life) before he was ultimately justified at Calvary’s cruel cross? Redemption was accomplished in time, to be sure, but I don’t see how it’s wise to place the saving benefits of Christ (in temporal order.)
Moreover what difference does it make in our walk with God and the local body? Why argue over things we can’t prove, or that have any practical value?
LikeLike
Richard,
nah
nah nah
nah nah
nah
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: Richard,
nah
nah nah
nah nah
nah
RS: You really need to stop drinking.
LikeLike
McMark: What the disease of sin requires, no matter its particular manifestations, is atonement and forgiveness. We cannot atone for our own sins; nor can we or others do the forgiving. Others may not be able to forgive us; we cannot declare or will ourselves forgiven. As Pharisees said, when Jesus pronounced a man’s sins forgiven, none but God can forgive sins.
RS: But the forgiveness of God indicates that the power and love of sin will be removed as well. There is no power over sin apart from the blood of Christ. So how can a person be justified and not be growing in holiness? How can a person be justified, be in union with Christ, and have the Holy Spirit and not grow in sanctification? Sin brings hardness of heart, but forgiveness brings softness of heart. I simply cannot see how it is that Christ died to take away the guilt and power of sin for His people and they cannot grow in sanctification in some way. It simply cannot be.
LikeLike
RS, but I was sober (just back from a Bible study no less). How do you like them apples?
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: RS, but I was sober (just back from a Bible study no less). How do you like them apples?
1. Adam and Eve were into apples as well.
2. All Bible studies were not created equal.
LikeLike
Jonathan Edwards, m, 1354—-“Our obedience is the most proper condition of the covenant of works”
Doug: what difference does it make in our walk with God and the local body? Why argue over things we can’t prove, or that have any practical value?
mark: indeed, who cares about faith alone, or even about grace alone, as long we we obey God and faith works by love. Why were those Reformers arguing about things we can’t know? Don’t we know that God saves Roman Catholics without knowledge of the gospel?
And also, how can we prove what the gospel is? Maybe the gospel is ultimately about the grace which enables us to merit continuing in justification, so that we obtain a second justification? Maybe the gospel is not about faith alone, because maybe faith alone is never alone, and since faith is not a work, then perhaps faith is one of the conditions for staying justified while others for whom Christ died perish. Who knows, and what does it matter, especially at a time like this when so many immoral people have taken over our country?
Edwards, 568—“What is real in the union between Christ and the foundation of His people is the foundation of what is legal; that is, there is something that is really in them that is the ground of the suitableness of their being accounted as one by the Judge….”
LikeLike
Edwards, 568—”What is real in the union between Christ and the foundation of His people is the foundation of what is legal; that is, there is something that is really in them that is the ground of the suitableness of their being accounted as one by the Judge….”
So there is some Gospel in Edwards- see Richard, no one is totally against what you are saying. It is just that Edwards seems to distort and cleverly twist the Gospel when he starts inferencing his philosophical beliefs onto the doctrine of sanctification.
LikeLike
Although Mark may be up to something with that last quote from Edwards- “there is something that is really in them that is the ground of the suitableness of their being accounted as one by the Judge” Is Edwards talking about an ontological change within the person- this is what Bruce McCormack might be arguing against when arguing for a complete forensic understanding of the doctrine of justification, ie., what is that something that is really in the believer?
LikeLike
John Yeazel: Edwards, 568—”What is real in the union between Christ and the foundation of His people is the foundation of what is legal; that is, there is something that is really in them that is the ground of the suitableness of their being accounted as one by the Judge….”
So there is some Gospel in Edwards- see Richard, no one is totally against what you are saying. It is just that Edwards seems to distort and cleverly twist the Gospel when he starts inferencing his philosophical beliefs onto the doctrine of sanctification.
RS: There is a context to M568 where things are made much clearer than the little snippet does. If you read that little bit very carefully and then in its own context, you will see that God is not declaring anyone just because there is something suitable in them. Edwards was saying that it is suitable for a person to have faith and so be united to Christ. People are only declared just on the basis of Christ alone. He goes on to say that people are not declared just because of their faith in and of itself, but because they are united to Christ. It was not Edwards that was twisting things here. In fact, if you read Romans 4:16, that is one of the points drawn from that text. The reason justification is by faith alone is in order that it may be by grace alone. In other words, it is suitable for God to save by faith because He saves by grace alone.
LikeLike
John Yeazel: Although Mark may be up to something with that last quote from Edwards- “there is something that is really in them that is the ground of the suitableness of their being accounted as one by the Judge” Is Edwards talking about an ontological change within the person- this is what Bruce McCormack might be arguing against when arguing for a complete forensic understanding of the doctrine of justification, ie., what is that something that is really in the believer?
RS: The something suitable in the believer is faith. The reason that is suitable is because one is united to Christ by faith. The faith earns nothing at all and there is no merit involved in the sinner at all, but faith is suitable in the sinner because that way and that way alone is the sinner saved by grace alone and Christ alone.
LikeLike
mark mcculley: Jonathan Edwards, m, 1354—-”Our obedience is the most proper condition of the covenant of works”
RS: What else would fulfill a covenant of works? Christ fulfilled the Law in our place by a perfect obedience.
LikeLike
Jed Paschall: If your only point is God is ultimately going to work all things out for good, fine. But if you are arguing that just because all things ultimately work for good that we do not experience the futility that the present age has been subjected to, then I don’t think that you are seriously dealing with Paul’s broader point.
RS: Paul said this in 2 Corinthians 12:10 about the same type of things: “Therefore I am well content with weaknesses, with insults, with distresses, with persecutions, with difficulties, for Christ’s sake; for when I am weak, then I am strong.” He also said the same thing (more or less) in Philippians 4:11 “Not that I speak from want, for I have learned to be content in whatever circumstances I am.” The world goes through vanity and meaninglessness in all it does because it interprets all things according to fleshly eyes. But those that walk by faith “see” that all that is happening is according to the Divine plan and is for His glory both now and forever.
WCF ch III: I. God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass.
RS: I have a very hard time seeing that things are futile and meaningless both now and forever in light of that statement of the WCF which I think is accurate in light of Scripture. The believer is able to know that God has ordained whatever happens to happen and that from all eternity and He did so out of perfect wisdom. That cannot be futile and that cannot be meaningless. In other words, all that happens here under the sun has reasons on the other sides of the sun that they happened. If you look at the events as if under the sun is all there is, then they will be seen as vanity, vanity, all is vanity. But if you see them in the context of eternal wisdom ordaining them to happen for the glory of God, then vanity is not allowed.
Jed Paschall: But, if you are understanding me to say that the vanity we experience in the present age is permanent or final, I am not explaining myself well enough. By faith we hold on to the promises that God will work all for good on our behalf, even as we groan with the rest of the created order under the futility of the present age.
RS: I am arguing that through the eye of faith one can see that all that has the appearance of vanity is not really vanity and all is happening to the glory of God. When Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead He said this to Martha, “”Did I not say to you that if you believe, you will see the glory of God?”
LikeLike
Edwards was not talking about Christ’s obedience, but about our obedience. But it becomes confusing because of his talk about “real” union. Edwards is saying that the “personal union” between Christ and the elect who are justified (based in part on their future perseverance) means that they are “really” one so that what Christ does in them is no different from what Christ did for them. What Christ does in them makes them fit for what Christ did for them, so in the end there will be no “justification of the ungodly”.
McDermott: “for Edwards,God has decided that at the moment when a person trusts in Christ, that person becomes so really united with Christ’s person, that imputation is not merely (or sola) legal but based on God’s perception of a new real fact, which is the new moral character of the person called Christ who now includes (by real union) what used to be the sinner.”
Edwards seems to agree with Osiander (and the early Luther) that the righteousness of Christ which justifies us is not foundationally or really legal but the presence of Christ indwelling.
And platonists like RSwould say “IN the soul”.(Because they simply do not agree with Genesis 2:7) I would ask, is this “inner soul” one big soul which we have in common now that we are all really united to Christ? One big “over-soul” perhaps?
Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit indwell each other
Jesus and the Spirit fill us
but we don’t fill Jesus and the Spirit
and we don’t even fill each other
we in the Spirit, but we don’t fill the Spirit
we dipped in the Spirit, but we don’t indwell the Spirit
we in Christ, but we don’t fill Christ
LikeLike
mark mcculley: Edwards was not talking about Christ’s obedience, but about our obedience.
RS: While I went through the 40 pages or so in that quote, I couldn’t find that exact quote. However, in that M he was dealing with Israel and the OT a lot. So of course the covenant of works if fulfilled by obedience. There are still only two ways of salvation, though only one is possible. Either be perfect yourself or be perfect in Christ.
McMark: But it becomes confusing because of his talk about “real” union. Edwards is saying that the “personal union” between Christ and the elect who are justified (based in part on their future perseverance) means that they are “really” one so that what Christ does in them is no different from what Christ did for them. What Christ does in them makes them fit for what Christ did for them, so in the end there will be no “justification of the ungodly”.
RS: Mark, that is complete and total nonsense. If you will simply read the first few pages of Edwards’ work on Justification you will see that he clearly declares that. I even posted a quote of his here (somewhere) on that. Yes, he believed in a real union as opposed to a fake union or a pretend union. But of course there is a real difference between what Christ did in history and what He does in His people, though those things are not totally separate. You are misreading/misinterpreting Edwards quite badly. Have you taken a class from Dr. Hart on how to misread Edwards?
It is fitting for salvation to be by faith alone because it is by grace alone and Christ alone (see Romans 4:16). That is not the same thing as saying that faith makes us fit for Christ. Faith is what unites us to Christ or is what God uses to unite us to Christ or… But it does not make us fit, though it is a fitting thing (or suitable) for God to do it that way. That does not appear to be much different than what Romans 4:16 says below.
Romans 4:16 For this reason it is by faith, in order that it may be in accordance with grace, so that the promise will be guaranteed to all the descendants, not only to those who are of the Law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all,
LikeLike
mark mcculley: McDermott: “for Edwards,God has decided that at the moment when a person trusts in Christ, that person becomes so really united with Christ’s person, that imputation is not merely (or sola) legal but based on God’s perception of a new real fact, which is the new moral character of the person called Christ who now includes (by real union) what used to be the sinner.”
RS: But of course it is a fact and of course imputation is based on the sinner being united to Christ and one with Christ. But perhaps it is not exactly as McDermott says. God has decided from all eternity to regenerate a soul and make it a believing soul. A believing soul will believe in and on Christ and as such that soul is united to Christ. Yes, legal union is based on real union. In fact, apart from a real union there is no legal union.
McMark: Edwards seems to agree with Osiander (and the early Luther) that the righteousness of Christ which justifies us is not foundationally or really legal but the presence of Christ indwelling.
RS: Which is not exactly the issue. When the two become one in reality that is the basis for a legal imputation. Can God declare something as true that is not true? Will God declare a person just on a basis where the person cannot be legally declared just? But if a person is married or in union with Christ, then what Christ has done can be considered as that person’s. It is not just the fact of the presence of Christ makes the person righteous in imputation, but the legal declaration that a person is just based on the Person (Christ) that the person is united to. It is in that union that a legal transaction is actually made.
McMark: And platonists like RS
RS: I am not a platonists, but go ahead.
McMark: would say “IN the soul”.(Because they simply do not agree with Genesis 2:7) I would ask, is this “inner soul” one big soul which we have in common now that we are all really united to Christ? One big “over-soul” perhaps?
RS: Genesis 2:7 Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.
RS: But of course I believe Genesis 2:7. Your question is simply beside the point. Jesus Christ in His Divine nature is infinite. The Divine nature of Christ was united to the human nature of Christ in the second Person of the Trinity. What is so hard, then, to think of human beings being brought into some type of union with the triune God through Christ? Jesus Christ is the husband and the bride is the Church. In fact, the picture given is that believers are one with Him. The unity is so close that when Christ loves Himself He loves His bride because she is one with Him.
Eph 5: 28 So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; 29 for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church, 30 because we are members of His body.
LikeLike
McMark:
Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit indwell each other
Jesus and the Spirit fill us
but we don’t fill Jesus and the Spirit
and we don’t even fill each other
we in the Spirit, but we don’t fill the Spirit
we dipped in the Spirit, but we don’t indwell the Spirit
we in Christ, but we don’t fill Christ
RS: Which is not a denial that one can be united to Christ. You want a legal union with Christ (whatever that may be) without a real union. But as in marriage, a legal union and a real union go together. Of course we cannot fill Christ, but when believers are united to them He fills them and manifests His glory through them. Legal union apart from real union is kind of like living together without marriage. One needs to be united in reality and united in love by the Spirit so that God will look upon His Son and the bride (Church) will be hidden in His beloved. One receives all spiritual benefits by really being in Christ and Christ really being in the person rather than just being said to be in Christ.
LikeLike