The better half and I are in the middle of a week-long trip to Ireland that now has me working away as part of a visiting-faculty assignment at Trinity College in Dublin. We began the week in Northern Ireland with new and old friends. The new ones are officers and members of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (no relations to the communion of the same name in the U.S.) who were eminently kind and hospitable hosts during a day of interactions, both formal and informal. On Monday night I had the privilege of speaking at a rally to honor the 85th anniversary of the EPC. My topic was “Principle Presbyterianism Today.”
One of the curious features of Presbyterianism in Northern Ireland is that the conservatives (the Evangelical Presbyterians) who have the most affinities with Orthodox Presbyterians also seem to be a bit despondent about their prospects. The EPC began in 1927 during a theological controversy which saw the Presbyterian Church of Ireland fail to discipline a professor at the church’s theological college for teaching views that were clearly outside the Confession of Faith and heterodox more generally. The EPC has always struggled as a small denomination. But now that the Presbyterian Church of Ireland has become increasingly evangelical itself (though it still ordains women — which would make the PCI more like the U.S. Evangelical Presbyterian Church), the Irish EPC lacks the rationale and clarity of vision that once animated the church. If your target no longer exists, you may appear to be shooting blanks.
Although the EPC is small — it has about 400 members with another 350 regular attenders — its size is proportionally much larger than the OPC. If Northern Ireland has approximately 1.6 million people, compared to a U.S. population of close to 300 million, the EPC within a U.S. numerical setting would account proportionately for almost 225,000 people (if my math is correct). That means that the EPC is almost seven times as large proportionately as the OPC which has a membership of roughly 30,000. Since Americans are never at a wont for overestimating their influence, the smallness of the OPC has not left the denomination with a sense of insignificance. Mark Noll’s image of the Pea Beneath the Mattress has generally typified the mindset of Orthodox Presbyterians. I hope the Evangelical Presbyterians of Ireland can find a similar diminutive vigor.
One other set of reflections worth making for now is the lack of a Dutch Reformed influence on Scotland and Ireland. On Monday morning I had a “lovely” time describing Calvinism in the United States to a small (how could it be large) group of EPC ministers and elders. I went through the classic threefold division of Reformed Protestants in North America — the doctrinalists (Machenites), culturalists (Kuyperians), and experimental Calvinists (Whitefieldians and Edwardsians). My EPC interlocutors were quick to point out that the Kuyperian tradition of transformationalism has never been a presence in Irish Presbyterianism.
Of course, that does not mean that the Scots and Irish don’t have other resources for trying to do what Kuyper did. Thomas Chalmers and the Free Church of Scotland have maintained a notion of the establishment principle that affirms in a different way what Kuyper tried to express when he spoke about every square inch. And not to be missed are the incredibly complicated relations in Northern Ireland between religion and politics, hence the sheesh in the title of this post. I had thought after visiting Turkey that the notion of a secular Muslim state was sufficiently complex to merit further consideration. But to read as I am this week about the various Presbyterian versions of church-state relations, not to mention the endlessly fascinating and troubling history of Protestant-Roman Catholic relations in Northern Ireland since the initial push for Home Rule, makes my head explode (in a good way, of course).
What is interesting to observe at this point, though, is that for all of their claims about the Lordship of Christ, whether over the church or over the state, the Scots and their Irish Presbyterian cousins have never seemed to put much stock in epistemological self-consciousness. Why do you need philosophy and the arts when law and authority are hard enough to conjure?
Old Life 
“since Americans are never at a wont for overestimating their influence,” – Nice.
“I went through the classic threefold division of Reformed Protestants in North America — the doctrinalists (Machenites), culturalists (Kuyperians), and experimental Calvinists (Whitefieldians and Edwardsians).” – I’ve met them all on the internets.
I’m a nicer, gentler version of my former self this week so that’s all I’m going to say about that.
LikeLike
You’ve learnt so much on your first visit that it would be a shame not to follow up the ecclesiological emphasis of Machen’s battle with liberalism with a healthy explanation of 2K next time. As someone sympathetic to the EPC (but outside), I wonder whether a stronger link could be formed between the OPC and the EPC, to encourage them? Is there any way this could be explored?
LikeLike
http://www.cprf.co.uk/
LikeLike
Presumably you and the Mrs. will be jetting off to Aruba or some similar exotic destination for the holidays. Who knew P&R church historians were part of the 1% I have been hearing so much about lately…Meanwhile here I am toiling away on the day before Thanksgiving (and on my birthday, no less).
LikeLike
I like to think we are more than a pea under the mattress. How about a pebble in the shoe?
LikeLike
Mikelmann: I like to think we are more than a pea under the mattress. How about a pebble in the shoe?
RS: Burr under the saddle?
LikeLike
M&M and Richard, how about pain in the neck (as part of the body of Christ)?
LikeLike
Keith, good to meet you Monday night. I didn’t pursue 2k because I didn’t want to bring up a possibly controversial and odd subject. But I will be talking to folks in the OPC about your other questions when I return.
LikeLike
I like to think we are more than a pea under the mattress. How about a pebble in the shoe
I’d say that it is more than that. I’d say lighthouse in a storm. The USA has a 300 year + history of all sorts of wacky religious experimentation. While I’m often pointing out how much Presbyterianism has changed over the last 500 years, it changes much more slowly than the mainstream faiths and culture you all are having to interact with. It is quite possible that without Presbyterianism American revivalist movement, Spiritualism, New Age… would have made America a non Christian country.
Look at where the SBA was in the 1970s and where it today. The entire call back over the last generation and a half has been from conservative presbyterians demanding a return to historic ideas of Christianity. The evangelical movement today is far more orthodox than the one from two decades ago and Presbyterian influences are a huge driver of that.
You can at least consider yourself a gigantic spike in the shoe.
LikeLike
DGH: On 2K; because of the strong involvement in politics over the years there does seem to be a kind of natural tendancy to believe that the church (including officers) must speak out – and take the lead in many ways (Hence your wisdom was indeed wise!). Interestingly, the baptists (in general) have a much stricter separation of church and state view, and so whilst there may be a quiet transformationalist perspective (we wish things could be different – like they used to be!), generally it is not for the local church itself to get involved. Anyway we’re all autonomous so who speaks for all of us? (Certainly not our Association!)
On OPC/EPC: thanks for doing that!
LikeLike
Ah, if I’d known!
I’m not EPC but the church runs a good bookshop in Belfast I’ve been to more than once.
It’s a pity the EPC doesn’t have more congregations. I was raised in the Free Presbyterian Church, which I still attend, but I’ve been considering more Presbyterian options. This presents some difficulty because the PCI has issues (ordination of women etc) and there is no EPC (or RPC, for that matter) congregation close by.
LikeLike
Here’s the problem I have with the “worldview” issue: I think we already have a worldview we should be working from and it is defined by our confessions.
Let me give you an example of how I think our churches can go awry when we depart from that notion. We currently have a family in our church that I believe is considering membership. Great family. Husband, wife, four grown kids, two of whom attend regularly. The family is a big believer in the concept of “family centered churches”. They do not attend Sunday School because they disagree with how we segregate by age groups. These are great people and I respect their beliefs, but these beliefs go beyond the Confessions. They have a family-centered “Worldview”, but I don’t want that worldview binding me or my church because it is extraconfessional. I would make the same case about Neocalvinism, Theonomy, Some of the Postmillennial folks in the CREC, etc. I think it is in our nature to want to “one-up” each other with our expressions of piety and religious devotion and the Confessions provide a safeguard against that in our churches.
LikeLike
MM – The OPC needs to stick with “the best church around if you can stand it.” Catchy…
LikeLike
D.G. – “I didn’t pursue 2k because I didn’t want to bring up a possibly controversial and odd subject.”
And, hey, you were on vacation and we talk about around the clock around here…
LikeLike
Andrew, where do you live?
LikeLike
Keith
‘Andrew, where do you live?’
In and around the Craigavon area.
LikeLike
Erik, we get the familolaters from time to time. They stay with grumpy faces for 3-18 months then leave if the church won’t affirm their familocentrism. Hope yours are an exception.
CD, praise like that makes us uncomfortable. Or maybe it’s just me.
LikeLike
Andrew: EPC have a congregation in Richhill – too far away?
LikeLike
Erik & M&M, not to be a pebble or pain, but from my own recent experience within the Dutch URC the familiocentrism seems to coincide with a homeschooling culture (with a touch of modesty movement). Along with that tends also to come a patriarchalism. The silliest expression was recently on the education committee a fine fellow expressing concern that a woman had written the instructional materials for high school catechism, Because, you know, there are boys in that class.
LikeLike
Zrim,
I’ll see your modesty movement and raise you hats in worship and exclusive psalmody. O.K., now I might be stepping on some toes.
LikeLike
That being said, there are people with idiosyncratic views who keep to themselves about it, are in no way obnoxious, and are really fabulous Christian people so I don’t want to react too strongly. As long as differing consciences are being respected I’m o.k.
LikeLike
Keith and Andrew, Killicomaine Evangelical Church in Portadown would be a 1689 confession baptist church, if that comes anywhere close to helping.
LikeLike
“My EPC interlocutors were quick to point out that the Kuyperian tradition of transformationalism has never been a presence in Irish Presbyterianism.”
There might be a fourth kind of Reformed Protestantism, perhaps peculiar to Northern Ireland, which is vociferously political and aggressive, with tends to identify the local safety of the kingdom of God with the preservation of the place of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom, sometimes to the extent of adopting British-Israel rhetoric, and which has sometimes been much to close to the Irish tradition of political violence.
LikeLike
Erik, of course. But do offerings in stated worship for Christian schools count as beyond idiosyncratic and in some way obnoxious? There I go again, getting all wound up.
LikeLike
OPC members,
So would someone who imbibes on the likes of Bob Dylan, Neil Young and some other folk musicians be foder for an accusation of “worldviewism.” Or, is that just considered immature, worldly or perhaps just downright rebellious?. Maybe I’m just a pebble in the shoe. I’m not sure how much God needs any group in Christendom to accomplish what He wants to get done. I have been involved in about 5 different “movements” in my life as a believer and they all ended up having their own sets of doctrinal problems. At the time, I was convinced that they all had a corner on the truth and knew exactly how God would bring about his purposes and plans. I now choose to have no clue about how it all will come about. I’m tired of being wrong all the time.
LikeLike
Erik, I am working my eyes to the bone in the library here and I’m giving up my favorite holiday of the year (even more coveted than my all about me birthday) for Irish Presbyterians. And you think I’m on holiday?!
LikeLike
C Gribben, no trolling for Baptists here.
LikeLike
C Gribben, and it would be interesting to see how that brand travels to the New World, such as, who were the folks marching in Kennsington, Philadelphia, in 1844 when the Protestants burned down the RC building?
LikeLike
John Y., only if the group required you to listen to Neil Young. Oy.
LikeLike
John – I salute where you are at. That is probably the best place to be. Focus on Christ and his humble work on our behalf.
D.G. – I stand corrected. At least take a break to enjoy a Guinness (If those are available in the North). I am looking forward to giving thanks and watching Megatron accumulate lots of fantasy points for my Altamira Black Cows.
I just taught Sunday school on U.S. Catholicism in the 19th century. I had a hard time believing “Gangs of New York” could be realistic, but it may be.
Zrim – Lots of thoughts on that question in the discussion on Nelson Kloosterman’s blog.
LikeLike
It’s all very confusing. I assume there’s still a kindred spirit among the Celtic and nobody is english but British and the Celts are still booing God save the queen.
LikeLike
Zrim, yes, I have only seen it in home schooling families, and the patriarchal aspect can get way out of hand. A doctor won’t let his family come to church unless he is there, but he’s on call so they get to church about 1/3 of the time. A father beams with pride because his son “gets it” enough to ask if his mother really ought to be out in the world making decisions while grocery shopping. Then a female always has to be under headship, so she needs to go directly from the home to marriage. No marriage = stay at home.
It’s a position which seems to be best explained by personality or psychology rather than details of theology.
LikeLike
MM,
I’m sure you wouldn’t be, but I bet others might be surprised at how often that psychology at work in the patriarch is a criminal psychology.
LikeLike
Someone asked about relationships or contact between the EPC Of Ireland & the OPC…
Check out opc.org. The OPC and EPC Ireland are in relation of ecclesiastical fellowship..That’s the same level as the OP and the Covenanters (RPCNA) and the PCA, among others. It’s the closest formal relationship the OPC has. No doubt distance ( or di$tance) factors into a difference in how he relationship differs practically between the OPC-EPC and the OPC and PCA. The Atantic puts a real crimp on pulpit exchange and ministerial cross over. Although I believe the minister in Rockport, ME may have been in the EPC.
LikeLike
Been busy moving from ATL to Senior living for wife and me—Alexian Village,Signal Mountain, TN. 37377. Sorry to comment on old (2012 Election aftermath) topic, Nov.8 posting. 365 Comments, WoW! Amother problem, been off line until now. In sampling those many comments, still seems to me that most OLTers and leader, DGH don’t seem to care whether the country we live in is led by Jefferson, Carter, Clinton, Obama, Julius Caesar, Stalin or Hitler. God will care for His people. Love Old Bob, who is thankful, along with scads of descendants, for Gog’s gift of our U.S.A.
LikeLike
M&M, I suppose if theonomy is the Christian version of political Islam then it makes sense to have a Christian version of familial Islam. I just wish it all wouldn’t show up as much as it does in Reformed Christianity.
LikeLike
Zrim: M&M, I suppose if theonomy is the Christian version of political Islam then it makes sense to have a Christian version of familial Islam. I just wish it all wouldn’t show up as much as it does in Reformed Christianity.
RS: But there is no Christian version of political Islam. The theology of true Christianity does not allow for a Christian version of Islam at any point. The Word of God is the Bible and not any other book. A Christian version of a political state should never be anything like a political Islam.
LikeLike
Bob, you really don’t get it. 2kers care about who is president. Some of us even care more about who’s in Congress. But we don’t care as much about presidents as we care about pastors (sorry to sound so pious). Why do you make it seem as if your eternal destiny depends on a prince (in whom we are not supposed to trust)?
LikeLike
Richard, if you’re saying that theonomy in whatever variation isn’t biblical then I am this day very thankful.
LikeLike
El Duderino,
It’s Thanksgiving and all, and I am uber thankful for the forum to debate the merits of living in the 2k. But, as mushy as I am, I was wondering if we could celebrate Festivus (as a this world activity), because I have a lot of grievances to “shout from the mountains”,
LikeLike
Happy Thanksgiving.
By the President of the United States of America.
A Proclamation.
The year that is drawing towards its close, has been filled with the blessings of fruitful fields and healthful skies. To these bounties, which are so constantly enjoyed that we are prone to forget the source from which they come, others have been added, which are of so extraordinary a nature, that they cannot fail to penetrate and soften even the heart which is habitually insensible to the ever watchful providence of Almighty God. In the midst of a civil war of unequaled magnitude and severity, which has sometimes seemed to foreign States to invite and to provoke their aggression, peace has been preserved with all nations, order has been maintained, the laws have been respected and obeyed, and harmony has prevailed everywhere except in the theatre of military conflict; while that theatre has been greatly contracted by the advancing armies and navies of the Union. Needful diversions of wealth and of strength from the fields of peaceful industry to the national defence, have not arrested the plough, the shuttle or the ship; the axe has enlarged the borders of our settlements, and the mines, as well of iron and coal as of the precious metals, have yielded even more abundantly than heretofore. Population has steadily increased, notwithstanding the waste that has been made in the camp, the siege and the battle-field; and the country, rejoicing in the consiousness of augmented strength and vigor, is permitted to expect continuance of years with large increase of freedom. No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy. It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently and gratefully acknowledged as with one heart and one voice by the whole American People. I do therefore invite my fellow citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are at sea and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next, as a day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens. And I recommend to them that while offering up the ascriptions justly due to Him for such singular deliverances and blessings, they do also, with humble penitence for our national perverseness and disobedience, commend to His tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife in which we are unavoidably engaged, and fervently implore the interposition of the Almighty Hand to heal the wounds of the nation and to restore it as soon as may be consistent with the Divine purposes to the full enjoyment of peace, harmony, tranquillity and Union.
In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the United States to be affixed.
Done at the City of Washington, this Third day of October, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and of the Independence of the Unites States the Eighty-eighth.
By the President: Abraham Lincoln
William H. Seward,
Secretary of State
LikeLike
Cris says. “The Atantic puts a real crimp on pulpit exchange and ministerial cross over.”
When the URC was planting a church in Hawaii on the Island of Kauai my pastor from Des Moines, Iowa flew over to preach two services one Sunday — roughly 4600 miles! Of course that becomes difficult to pull off every Sunday. Thankfully the Kauai church has their own pastor now. I think he moved his family from Michigan.
LikeLike
Bob – Good to have you back. Is Jefferson still an option?
LikeLike
Blessed Thanksgiving, Darryl +fans, Glad you didn’t mention my Gog thing. Thought it might help me know if an OLTer was reading my comment. Hey, Maybe I should be offended by your put down, the mean thing about Old Bob being kinda stupid— he doesn’t GET IT”. Please, being a new resident @ Alexian Village with other old and wise new mature friends makes me resent a bit such a charge! Now, we (wife of 60 years, 4 “kids” and mates, 25 grands, (4 g.grands, will GET IT if they listen to their many elders.) Darryl, We assure you— (1) We all care who is our prez. We are all still crying since Nov.7 AM. We know, we know— God will take care of us no matter WHO leads us on earth! (2) We care deeply who are in Congress and even more the Supreme Court. We love our 4 Senators from GA and TN. Sorry about result in MI ! (3) Love Larry Arnn, most Hillsdale folks and Constitution 101 and 201. (4) Love our US Constitution and its great intro. (Dec. of Ind.) (5) Alert and informed, Biblically and Politically, we care about pastors and flocks. (Watch out for wolves!) (6) Just as much as DGH, we care about our eternal destiny, this aided by our blessing of citizenship in the far from perfect, yet happiest (Language of Dec.of Ind. sense) nation of earth. Sadly the US is slipping, with help from sleepy Christians who seem to think that our Creator will take care of everything without any involvement by us His image bearers. ‘Nuff said, Love Old Bob from his new location high in the Tennesse mountains.
LikeLike
Don – You reminded me to open up my “Wall Street Journal” from yesterday. Since 1961 they have run two editorials, “The Desolate Wilderness” and “And the Fair Land” on the day before Thanksgiving.
LikeLike
Don, to continue with my “pebble in the shoe” motif, I would prefer it if my President would refrain from giving his theological interpretation of history.
A day devoted to giving thanks – I’m glad we have it. My favorite holiday.
LikeLike
Jed, I second that. Airing grievances around an Xmas tree is beginning to look a little silly.
Erik, from here in overcast Jenison, to be precise. That must’ve been a really hard decision to make.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, if you’re saying that theonomy in whatever variation isn’t biblical then I am this day very thankful.
RS: Well, that wasn’t exactly the point. I am just saying that making analogies between true Christianity and false Islam is something one needs to be very, very careful about.
LikeLike
Really enjoyed the talk on Monday night – any similar engagements planned in Dublin?
LikeLike
Gerry, Thanks. I’ll be giving a talk tomorrow at Trinity College as part of Crawford Gribben’s project, “Radical Religion in the Trans-Atlantic World, 1500-1800”.
LikeLike
Dr. Hart,
I am so glad to read your thoughts over the influence of Presbyterian history in beautiful Ireland. My guess over the lack of Dutch influence in their past is that such church practise was largely transplanted by Scotch settlers in the Knox tradition. Or am I off target? As one who grew up on the UK mainland in the 70’s and 80’s I still am deeply thankful for the relative peace now known in Northern Ireland, but I do wonder if a ‘One Kingdom’ theology backed up with the earnest and sincere belief of “For God! For Ulster!” of past days fuelled much of the fighting for a Protestant future. Maybe I am completely wrong on that one.
Is there much history of Presbyterian practise in England, or is it a Scotch and Irish domain? And finally Dr. Hart on a completely different subject perhaps next time you head this way you will make it across the Irish Sea and visit the Lake District in Cumbria which I think you would like to see. Maybe the treats of Jennings Ale from their brewery in Cockermouth may be to your taste, and you may want to sample local fayre like Borrowdale teabread, Grasmere gingerbread, and even some Cumberland sausage or Herdwick lamb. You will get a welcome and hospitality nearly as warm as you no doubt have experienced in the gorgeous Emerald isle.
LikeLike
Richard, the point isn’t make analogies between true and false religion. It’s to say that both have sinners as adherents, all of whom share the natural inclination to politicize faith. The difference is that true religion stands opposed to that inclination, which poses more problems for adherents of true rather than false religion.
LikeLike
All these international commenters got me thinking – aren’t we about ready for an Old Life cruise? We would just have to keep from throwing each other overboard.
LikeLike
Paul, can a blogger from Iowa get that same deal?
LikeLike
By the way Dr. Hart I hear you ran into my good friend Daniel Ritchie. Heard good reports about you. 🙂
LikeLike
Zrim – It reminds me of when I applied for a job as an accountant in Hollywood earlier in my career. Someone followed up with me and I remember thinking, “What the heck am I going to do now? I can’t move my wife & kids from Iowa to Hollywood!”
LikeLike
Paul, I’ll be glad to visit the Lake District, especially without M&M.
Yes, Irish Presbyterianism is largely the product of Scottish migrations to the Ulster Plantation (and beyond). No need for the Dutch to get mixed up in that.
As for English Presbyterianism, what few remained after the Restoration became Unitarian. Given all that nastiness of the 1640s and 1650s, my sense is that the English weren’t to keen on life without bishops or monarchs.
BTW, the movie The Trip is as good a reason as any to dine and drink in the Lake District.
LikeLike
Michael Mann,
Of course the offer to visit is extended to folks like yourself from Iowa and elsewhere. I am keen to show folks that England has so much more to offer than just London and other favoured places like Scotland. What Presbyterian visitors from the USA may find interesting from a church perspective is the lack of Reformed churches today as no doubt Dr. Hart is correct in his concise comment that in the 1640’s 1650’s England did indeed go back to the apparent stability of bishops and Kings rather than Presbyterian practise. The sad legacy of Cromwell’s brief ‘reign’ is the tenacious belief in England today of non conformity and lack of doctrinal backbone nutred through the regular use of the creeds and confessions. So for me it is all the more encouraging to read in this post of the good folks in Northern Ireland in the EPC – may they prosper in the work the Lord has called them to.
LikeLike
Erik, I like the idea of an Old Life cruise. It might go something like this:
– Early in the cruise Yeazel’s behavior alerts the security team. Thereafter they tail him; Yeazel tells them they have too much law, not enough gospel.
– To everyone’s surprise, Zrim talks exactly the way he comments.
– MMc arrives on the boat with a trunk full of books heavily tabbed with “stickies.” He sets up a makeshift library by the pool and reads quotes to whomever is around.
– Three couples at the bar start talking, put their stories together, and discover that Erik has been knocking on all of their doors every ten minutes with yet another joke. They wonder how that is possible.
– Richard repeatedly has to tell people that, yes, it’s his real name. He prefaces all conversations with “So I hear you saying that…” while making quotation marks with his fingers.
– The medical staff treats several people with minor wounds inflicted by the same man. Thereafter they engage in a running series of jokes involving derivations of “reaper” and “Sower.”
– Jed decides to make it a working vacation and begins to wait on tables. He deftly and profoundly intervenes in conversations at his tables. His input is appreciated but service slows down – the result is a “wash” on his tips.
–DGH walks around the boat holding his cat. The consensus is, yes, there is likeness between the two. There is lively discussion about which is stronger, the physical resemblance or the personality likeness.
LikeLike
MM,
Why am I getting accused as the antinomian? I uphold the Law- Christ fulfilled it perfectly. It is just that I am not under the delusion that I come close to fulfilling the Law or that the Holy Spirit is mysteriously making me more Law abiding.
Eminem is helping the security team pin me down and find me in order that I can be adequately punished and disciplined properly for my sins. The problem lies in determining a fitting punishment. What is a more serious offence- behavioral sins or doctrinal errors? Since you’re the lawyer Eminem you get to decide right? Do you Calvinists ever consider he possibility that you may be wrong about certain doctrines and issues?
LikeLike
MM – Hilarious.
You forgot Old Bob, Doug Sowers, & CD-Host though.
LikeLike
JY – it s a caricature, lighten up. I’m sure I omitted a few people, like Sean. But maybe I should wait to see if everyone is as upset as you.
LikeLike
Erik, I have Sower(s) in there.
LikeLike
Now I need to go muster the courage to watch 4 hours of football in 30 degree weather in a windtunnel of a stadium. Can anyone loan me a flask?
LikeLike
Ahhh, he who has ears, let him hear….
LikeLike
John Yeazel: MM, Why am I getting accused as the antinomian? I uphold the Law- Christ fulfilled it perfectly. It is just that I am not under the delusion that I come close to fulfilling the Law or that the Holy Spirit is mysteriously making me more Law abiding.
RS: But the real question is do you keep the Law by grace rather than just saying you can’t do it and so why try.
John Yeazel: What is a more serious offence- behavioral sins or doctrinal errors?
RS: All behavior is linked with bad doctrine in some way. So, yes.
John Yeazel: Since you’re the lawyer Eminem you get to decide right? Do you Calvinists ever consider he possibility that you may be wrong about certain doctrines and issues?
RS: Why would we even consider that as a possibility which is in fact impossible? “So I hear you saying” that you think a Calvinist can be wrong about doctrine. If what we say lines up with what John Calvin says, then how could it be wrong? Have you ever considered the alternative reality that a Lutheran could be wrong about certain doctrines?
LikeLike
MM,
I’m all good with it. I just want to use the bowels of the ship as a holding tank/interrogation room for all the CTC RC’s and Theonomists who sneak on board thinking to scuttle the ship. Ya’ll just nevermind the screams(diesel engines should drown out most the noise), just a little nouthetic counseling going on down below.
LikeLike
Christ suffered because he was a “light” who exposed “good deeds” as being “evil deeds”. John 3:18-20. People hated Christ because Christ told them that that they could not keep the law even with grace. Christ had no respect for their law-keeping, even though they claimed to have done it by grace. Christ had do no respect for their keeping the law by grace, even though they were careful to testify that what they did was not enough by itself. Those who claimed to keep the law by grace would have respected Christ as Messiah if only He had been partial to their good deeds, and factored these deeds into the assurance equation. But Christ was not.
John 7: 7: “The world” HATES me,. The world that claims to keep the law by grace hates the true God who tells us that we must hate our come to hate our lawkeeping or else hate God .There is no “balance” here: no place for moderation, no “in between”. To not hate God, we have to take sides with God against ourselves, and not expect to ever by grace keep God’s law.
John 7:7 “they hate me because I testify of the world that its works are evil.” Its good works are evil. John 7:24 “Do not judge by outward appearances, but judge with righteous judgment.” Judge yourself and others by knowing that God requires a perfect righteousness and that only those who submit to the gospel have that perfect righteousness.
Why are the Galatians tempted to try to keep the law by grace? If they, they will be respected for their sincerity and intention and THEY WILL NOT SUFFER PERSECUTION from others trying to do the same thing.. To say that cross is the only difference is to suffer. To add keeping the law by grace on to the cross will cause the suffering to go away.
To say that those who add on are under the curse (as Paul says) is to make lots of enemies. It will not flatter the people who pay your salary if you tell them that paying your salary (by grace) plays no part in satisfying God’s law.
LikeLike
M&M, as they say in the isles over hear, brilliant.
LikeLike
MM,
The only way they would let me on the boat is with a server uniform, and the promise I would stay on my pills and a steady dose of Dramamine.
LikeLike
So, yes, Sean is down near the boiler interrogating the CTC infiltrators, an event he would later, with a wry smile, describe as the “Old Life Inquisition.”
CD Host – not one for small talk – sits alone most of the time, silently crafting his next excellent argument.
Mikelmann goes from person to person with his iPod, offering the right earphone to anyone who will join him in listening to Blind Willie McTell.
Old Bob rocks back and forth with a smile, except to occasionally chastise anyone who criticizes the Gospel Coalition Cruise.
I think that does it.
PS. Jed, seasickness is minimized if you get to the lowest level. So you might have to join Sean.
LikeLike
. McMark says: Christ suffered because he was a “light” who exposed “good deeds” as being “evil deeds”. John 3:18-20. People hated Christ because Christ told them that that they could not keep the law even with grace.
Me: That is absolute balderdash! The Bible calls you a liar!
Luke 1:6 “and they were both righteous before God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and statues of the Lord”.
Earth to McMark! When the Bible says that both Zechariah and Elizabeth walked *blamelessly*, in all of God’s commandments; that mean their works were not considered evil. Your comment is the most outrageous comment I’ve ever heard at Old Life. You need to quit posting unothodox balderdash!
LikeLike
McMark says: Why are the Galatians tempted to try to keep the law by grace?
Huh? The Bible never uses the language “keeping the law by grace”. Why are you? Your understanding of Galatians is so twisted, one almost doesn’t know where to begin, BUT I’ll just say, the concept of keeping the law by grace is not Biblical. Keeping the law faithfully, and blamelessly, is. In fact, anytime a believer walks by faith, it’s a sweet, beautiful thing to God. Just like it was in the Old Testament; see Luke 1:6 There is no difference! Why? The just shall live by faith!! It was true during the time of Abraham, and it’s true in 2012.
LikeLike
Moreover McMark, if you read Hebrews 11, you will read of many, many, many, many, many, good works done *in faith* by the Saints of old. God approves of these works, done in faith. How can you even argue the fact? When the Bible says that John the Baptists parants walked blamelessly in all the commandments of God, how can you call their works evil? Wake up McMark! You are NOT being faithful to the Bible!!!
LikeLike
But, M&M, what about you? Maybe dueling banjos with Yeazel. But an OLTS cruise is sort of oxymoronic–cruises are what eeeevangelicals do. How about a robust but relaxed day on the links? After all, golf was invented in the land of Presbyterians and is the perfect pilgrim sport–a good walk ruined.
LikeLike
mark mcculley: People hated Christ because Christ told them that that they could not keep the law even with grace. Christ had no respect for their law-keeping, even though they claimed to have done it by grace. Christ had do no respect for their keeping the law by grace, even though they were careful to testify that what they did was not enough by itself. Those who claimed to keep the law by grace would have respected Christ as Messiah if only He had been partial to their good
Doug Sowers: Huh? The Bible never uses the language “keeping the law by grace”.
deeds, and factored these deeds into the assurance equation. But Christ was not.
RS: But the Bible does speak of keeping the Law by grace as that is the only way we can keep it. While I will undoubtedly give more verses than appreciated, there are many more that deal with the life of Christ in the soul and things like that. The two Great Commands, from which the Ten Commandments flow from, have never been done away and never will. There is nothing that the believer does that is acceptable apart from the Royal Law of love, and yet the love of God only dwells in His people by grace. So anything that a person does is either in accordance with the Law or against the Law. If what the person does is in accordance with the Law, then it is done by the love of God in the soul and so it is by grace.
John 1:14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.
RS: Jesus Christ was the very tabernacle of the glory of God and that glory is a glory full of grace and truth. As Jesus went through His whole life on earth His life displayed the grace of God and yet He also fulfilled the Law of God.
Acts 14:26 From there they sailed to Antioch, from which they had been commended to the grace of God for the work that they had accomplished.
RS: The apostle(s) had to have the grace of God to do the work that God set out for them to do.
Acts 20:32 “And now I commend you to God and to the word of His grace, which is able to build you up and to give you the inheritance among all those who are sanctified.
RS: It is the word of His grace that is able to build people up and those people are those who are sanctified. Can a person be built up while breaking the commands of God?
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,
RS: Anything that is done through faith is done through faith so that it may be done by grace.
Romans 5:20 The Law came in so that the transgression would increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, 21 so that, as sin reigned in death, even so grace would reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
RS: Grace reigns through righteousness and what standard of righteousness do we have other than Christ Himself who kept the Royal Law?
2 Corinthians 1:12 For our proud confidence is this: the testimony of our conscience, that in holiness and godly sincerity, not in fleshly wisdom but in the grace of God, we have conducted ourselves in the world, and especially toward you.
RS: Can one have holiness that is not in accordance with the commands of God? No, but here we see that holiness and the grace of God are things that go together.
2 Corinthians 9:8 And God is able to make all grace abound to you, so that always having all sufficiency in everything, you may have an abundance for every good deed;
RS: The ability to do a good deed requires the grace of God.
Titus 2:11 For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men, 12 instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age,
RS: One thing that grace does is to teach us (both inwardly and in conduct) to deny ungodliness and to live righteously and godly. Grace teaches that.
2 Peter 1:2 Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord; 3 seeing that His divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness, through the true knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and excellence. 4 For by these He has granted to us His precious and magnificent promises, so that by them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world by lust.
RS: Just read the passage and see how grace comes in the knowledge of God and of how His divine power gives us all we need for holiness. Then notice how this is connected to becoming partakers/sharers of the divine nature (attributes, not essence) and how that is connected with escaping the corruption that is in the world. Grace and true holiness go hand in hand. It takes grace in the soul to love and it takes love to do the smallest of good works.
LikeLike
Zrim: But, M&M, what about you? Maybe dueling banjos with Yeazel. But an OLTS cruise is sort of oxymoronic–cruises are what eeeevangelicals do. How about a robust but relaxed day on the links? After all, golf was invented in the land of Presbyterians and is the perfect pilgrim sport–a good walk ruined.
RS: I think you have missed this one, Zrim. M&M would be handing out his shark (business) cards to all those on board. After, all cruise ships have a lot of insurance.
-So, first. he would be contacting the people that Sean was giving counsel to as their rights would have been violated.
– He would give his card MMc who be quite annoyed when his books get wet and wants to sue for damages.
– He would give his card to the three couples at the bar talking about Erik and his bad jokes and tell them that the owners are liable for their being harrased. He tells them to be careful, however, and be sure not to say anything about Erik’s church or their church leaders would be contacted about their false accusations.
– He would not give Richard a card because he would not be sure who he really is and so he might not be able to obtain his fees.
– He would give all the people cards who had suffered the minor medical wounds because the owners were obviously negligent in letting someone like that one board. Of course some thought that the wounds looked like the claw marks of a cat and yet noticed that the likeness of DGH’s fingernails with those of his cat might be a clue.
– He would give all the people that Jed was supposed to wait on a card because they could not get the service they were promised when they paid for their cruise and so that is breach of contract.
– He would sue DGH because he walked around the boat holding his cat and so many people were annoyed by the constant meowing and the incessant K-itty 2 talk.
LikeLike
MM – You forgot Darrell Todd Maurina, who used his media credentials to get on board and proceeded to send alarming reports about the dangers of the 2K movement from ship to shore. He is also able to confirm that 2k adherent Jed is indeed still waiting tables, thus further discrediting the movement.
LikeLike
Richard, your doing it again! I have no idea if you agree with McMark or me? Deal with my Scripture first! The Bible says:
“and they were both righteous before God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and statues of the Lord”.
This means that it was possible to walk by faith, (which is a grace) in a pleasing way before God in the Old Testament. To say otherwise, is to contradict Scripture.
The Bible instructs us to walk by faith. It doesnt say walk by grace, even though faith is a grace. I say this being careful to use language the way the Bible uses language. Yes I know that faith is a gift of God, a grace “if you will”. But, both Saints of old and today walked in the law the same way, BY FAITH. It an attitude of the heart! And Jesus never said walkling in his commandments by faith is evil. That is outrageous!!!!
LikeLike
Doug Sowers: Richard, your doing it again!
RS: Thank you. I keep trying to be biblical.
Doug Sowers: I have no idea if you agree with McMark or me? Deal with my Scripture first! The Bible says:
RS: I am not agreeing with either you or McMark. Doug, I am surprised at you not remembering the Scriptures on this.. If you wish to be first, you will be last.
Doug Sowers: “and they were both righteous before God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and statues of the Lord”.
This means that it was possible to walk by faith, (which is a grace) in a pleasing way before God in the Old Testament. To say otherwise, is to contradict Scripture.
RS: If a person is able to walk in a way that pleases God apart from grace, then that person is pleasing God in his or her own strength. The “job” of faith is to receive grace, so to walk by faith is to really walk by grace.
Doug Sowers: The Bible instructs us to walk by faith. It doesnt say walk by grace, even though faith is a grace.
RS: But if faith is not by grace then faith is a work of the human flesh. Yet if we walk by faith and we are not obtaining our strength to spiritually do what we do by grace, then our walk is by our own strength. Jesus said very clearly that apart from Him we can do nothing (John 15:5). Galatians 5:6 teaches us that faith works by love, yet we know that the love of God in the soul is by grace. So the very work of faith has to be by grace. Telling us to walk by faith is teaching us to walk by faith in Christ and not self, and the Christ who lives in us is the same Christ who while living on earth lived in perfect accordance with the Law.
Doug Sowers: I say this being careful to use language the way the Bible uses language. Yes I know that faith is a gift of God, a grace “if you will”. But, both Saints of old and today walked in the law the same way, BY FAITH. It an attitude of the heart! And Jesus never said walkling in his commandments by faith is evil. That is outrageous!!!!
RS: If one walks in His commandments by faith is self and the strength of self that is evil. I Cor 13 tells us that whatever we do that is apart from love is of no benefit, so we know that a person must have true love to do anything to the glory of God. But if a person walks in the commandments by a true faith in Christ, then that same Christ dwells in that person and that person is working by love (since faith works by love) and that love only comes in the soul by grace. Whatever a soul does that is in accordance with the commands of God and they reflect who He is in Himself, then that person has the grace of God in him or her. One cannot keep the Law apart from grace. Doug, don’t be so outraged.
LikeLike
Who’s to say Erik’s jokes are always bad? I bet Erik and I would hit it off famously, and by the end of the cruise, he would become a theonomist. I’d bring my gutair and freak DGH out by breaking off into praise and worship.
LikeLike
Doug Sowers: Who’s to say Erik’s jokes are always bad?
RS: I am not sure that those he tells in his dreams are bad.
Doug Sowers: I bet Erik and I would hit it off famously, and by the end of the cruise, he would become a theonomist.
RS: Are you repeating a bad joke?
Doug Sowers: I’d bring my gutair and freak DGH out by breaking off into praise and worship.
RS: You would have claw marks from both DGH and his attack cat if you did that. He might argue that your guitar noise and “singing” sound a lot like his cat when it is screeching. M&M would argue in court that DGH’s cat simply thought your “music” was a mating call from a screeching cat and it operated according it its own regulative principle.
LikeLike
If one walks in His commandments by faith is self and the strength of self that is evil.
Richard that is impossible! If someone walks by faith, that can not be considered walking in your own strength, according to the Bible. Show me (in the Bible) where someone walked by faith, and God called it evil.
LikeLike
Richard, would you slap yourself out of it? lol
The whole point, is that according to Scripture the saints of old like John the Baptists parents walked in all of God’s commandments, *blamelessly*. That means they kept the law blamelessley. That means they walked by faith. That means they were not evil.
Just agree with that, and we will be done. McMark needs to be taken to the woodshed!
LikeLike
Doug Sowers: (quoting RS) If one walks in His commandments by faith is self and the strength of self that is evil.
Richard that is impossible! If someone walks by faith, that can not be considered walking in your own strength, according to the Bible. Show me (in the Bible) where someone walked by faith, and God called it evil.
RS: The Pharisees walked in faith, but they walked in faith in themselves. Every single person in the world walks in faith in something or someone. The Pharisees prayed, gave alms, and fasted (see Matthew 6) and yet sinned because they did this things trusting in themselves. Walking by faith in Christ demands love and grace. A few verses for you reading pleasure.
Luke 18: 9 And He also told this parable to some people who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and viewed others with contempt: 10 “Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 “The Pharisee stood and was praying this to himself: ‘God, I thank You that I am not like other people: swindlers, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector.
Luke 10:29 But wishing to justify himself, he said to Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”
Luke 15:29 “But he answered and said to his father, ‘Look! For so many years I have been serving you and I have never neglected a command of yours; and yet you have never given me a young goat, so that I might celebrate with my friends;
Luke 16:15 And He said to them, “You are those who justify yourselves in the sight of men, but God knows your hearts; for that which is highly esteemed among men is detestable in the sight of God.
Romans 7:9 I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin became alive and I died;
Romans 10:3 For not knowing about God’s righteousness and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God.
Philippians 3:4 although I myself might have confidence even in the flesh. If anyone else has a mind to put confidence in the flesh, I far more: 5 circumcised the eighth day, of the nation of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the Law, a Pharisee; 6 as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to the righteousness which is in the Law, found blameless.
LikeLike
@Richard, I”ve already admitted that true faith is of grace; and amen.
This is the offensive statement from McMark :People hated Christ because Christ told them that that they could not keep the law even with grace.
Go sick him Richard!!!
LikeLike
Richard says: The Pharisees walked in faith, but they walked in faith in themselves.
Me: You couldnt find one verse that said the Pharisees walked by faith, (becasue there isnt one) you just asserted it. I would even agree that the Pharisees faith was in there own strength. But the Bible never calls that walking by faith!! Repent Richard!
LikeLike
Doug Sowers: Richard, would you slap yourself out of it? lol
RS: But if I did I would be trusting in myself to slap my depravity out.
Doug Sowers: The whole point, is that according to Scripture the saints of old like John the Baptists parents walked in all of God’s commandments, *blamelessly*. That means they kept the law blamelessley. That means they walked by faith. That means they were not evil.
RS: “What I hear you saying”, which is to say, your position as I understand it implies that a person can keep the law perfectly (absolue blamelessly) apart from grace which means that a person is doing it in his own strength and also not have any depravity left in them (they were not evil at all).
Doug Sowers: Just agree with that, and we will be done. McMark needs to be taken to the woodshed!
RS: But I cannot agree with your position and the Bible at the same time. I must have the work of the Holy Spirit in me to do one thing that has any good in it at all, yet the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Christ and has been obtained for me by grace and only works in me by grace. For me to do one things in a spiritual manner (as opposed to a fleshly manner) I must have the Spirit working that in me, yet that can only happen by grace. When a human being keeps the Law blamelessly in an outward manner, that does not mean that the Law is being kept in the soul in an utterly blameless way. Paul thought of himself as blameless according to the Law, but then he began to see the Law as having a spiritual sword and he saw what it meant to covet. Then Paul died to his ability to keep the Law.
John 15:5 “I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing.”
LikeLike
Doug Sowers: (quoting) Richard says: The Pharisees walked in faith, but they walked in faith in themselves.
Doug Sowers: You couldnt find one verse that said the Pharisees walked by faith, (becasue there isnt one) you just asserted it. I would even agree that the Pharisees faith was in there own strength. But the Bible never calls that walking by faith!! Repent Richard!
RS: I also cannot find one verse in the Bible that tells me that Jesus died for Doug Sowers or Richard Smith. I also cannot find one verse in the Bible that uses the word “Trinity” or the word “theonomy.” When the Pharisees trusted in themselves that they were righteous, I cannot see how that means anything other than that they had faith of some kind in themselves and they did not trust in Christ. They trusted in themselves to interpret the Law and then to live the Law they interpreted as their righteousness and they did not trust in Christ. A person has to trust in something for his or her righteousness. The conclusion is obvious. If you want to be biblica by your own standards in this case, then you have to quit thinking of theonomy as being biblical. Now why would you want to convince Erik of being a theonomist when that is not in the Bible and so is not biblical?
LikeLike
@Richard; Are you really this stubborn? The word theonomy means “God’s law”. That is all through the Bible!! My point is simple, when the Bible declares that someone walked by faith, in Holy Scripture, that *ALWAYS* means they were pleasing to God. McMark attempted to say the opposite, why are you arguing this point?
I’m not referring to people having faith in their own strength! That is not what the Bible means, when it talks about walking by faith as in; “The just shall live by faith”.
When people lacked faith, as in Israel, the Bible says just that. The Bible doesn’t say Israel had faith, in themselves. So I think your playing un-Biblical word games. Walking by faith is pleasing to God!!!!
LikeLike
RS: “What I hear you saying”, which is to say, your position as I understand it implies that a person can keep the law perfectly (absolue blamelessly) apart from grace which means that a person is doing it in his own strength and also not have any depravity left in them (they were not evil at all).
No!!!!!!! That is not what I am saying!!! I am merely agreeing with Luke 1:6 That Saints in the Old Testament could walk in all the commandments blamelessly, becasue they walked by faith. Of course it was all by grace. I’ve said that too many times for you to miss.
LikeLike
MikelMann,
Made my week. Thank you.
LikeLike
Hi Jeff! Long time no see! I hope you had a nice Thanksgiving, and keep pressing on!
LikeLike
Jeff, I kept on thinking I had forgotten someone and now I think it was you. I may have had you on the deck, deep in theological conversation, about to untie a Gordian knot, only to have your eyes open wide and move left to right before jumping out of your chair to chase a butterfly.
LikeLike
Doug Sowers: @Richard; Are you really this stubborn?
RS: Yes, but most likely worse than that.
Doug Sowers: The word theonomy means “God’s law”. That is all through the Bible!!
RS: But the word itself is not there. I would argue that my concept is most clearly in the Bible though the word itself is not.
Doug Sowers: My point is simple, when the Bible declares that someone walked by faith, in Holy Scripture, that *ALWAYS* means they were pleasing to God. McMark attempted to say the opposite, why are you arguing this point?
RS: The point, however, goes back to my original statement that McMark reacted to and then you reacted to his remark. My position is that people “keep” the Law, though not perfectly, by grace. I am not certain that McMark is really saying the opposite, though it may appear to be that way. McMark comes at things a little differently and is focused in a different direction, so even when he appears to be in direct opposition it may be that he is speaking from a different angle.
Doug Sowers: I’m not referring to people having faith in their own strength! That is not what the Bible means, when it talks about walking by faith as in; “The just shall live by faith”.
RS: But my original point was that people are able to keep the Law (once again, not perfectly) by the grace of God that works in them. They always need the blood of Christ and they never do one thing perfectly, but when they do it by grace through faith that does please God because He beholds His own glory/Son in and through them.
Doug Sowers: When people lacked faith, as in Israel, the Bible says just that. The Bible doesn’t say Israel had faith, in themselves. So I think your playing un-Biblical word games. Walking by faith is pleasing to God!!!!
RS: My use of words to describe things is no more unbiblical than using the words “word games.” It is a necessary condition for a car to have gas in order to run, but it is not a sufficient condition to have a car run. A car can have gas without a motor or transmission. So faith is a necessary condition to pleasing God, yes, but that faith must be a faith that works by love, a faith that is in Christ, and be a faith that receives grace. As far as people trusting in themselves if they do not trust in Christ, all people have a primary love and a primary trust in themselves or in God.
II Tim 3: 2 “For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, revilers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3 unloving, irreconcilable, malicious gossips, without self-control, brutal, haters of good, 4 treacherous, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God,”
RS: The bookends, so to speak, of men who are unbelievers is that they are lovers of self ( first of v. 2) and not lovers of God (last of v. 3). Unbelief in God is seen by love of self. Sin flows from those who love themselves and not God. I cannot understand how a person cannot see that a person that does not love God will love self and how one that does not trust Christ will trust self. Faith and love go hand in hand and cannot be separated. What one trusts the most one loves the most. Faith, hope, and love are the three things that cannot be separated. So what one has faith in and loves, one has hope in and so on.
LikeLike
Doug Sowers quoting RS: “What I hear you saying”, which is to say, your position as I understand it implies that a person can keep the law perfectly (absolue blamelessly) apart from grace which means that a person is doing it in his own strength and also not have any depravity left in them (they were not evil at all).
Doug Sowers: No!!!!!!! That is not what I am saying!!! I am merely agreeing with Luke 1:6 That Saints in the Old Testament could walk in all the commandments blamelessly, becasue they walked by faith. Of course it was all by grace. I’ve said that too many times for you to miss.
RS: Doug, the statement that I responded to is below. Remember, my argument started off and has not changed that faith must be in Christ as opposed to self and that a true faith is one that receives grace. In other words, a person must walk by grace and work by love in order to walk by faith.
RS quoting Doug Sowers: “The whole point, is that according to Scripture the saints of old like John the Baptists parents walked in all of God’s commandments, *blamelessly*. That means they kept the law blamelessley. That means they walked by faith. That means they were not evil.”
RS: The word “blameless” means something. Does it mean absolutely without blame in the inner man as well as keeping it outwardly? If so, then blameless is the same thing as perfect. But if a person can keep it in a blameless way both inwardly and outwardly, then a person must be delivered from all sin to do so and keep that law both inwardly and outwardly in his own strength or by grace.
One of my points is that the Bible uses the word “blameless” not to mean perfection in the inner man, but as Paul who said he was blameless in reference to the external law, “as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to the righteousness which is in the Law, found blameless” Phil 3:6). But according to Paul, even though he was blameless in terms of the righteousness which is in the law, he was still a persecutor of the church and still evil.
For a person to have faith it takes grace to give a believing/faithing heart and for a person to live by faith is to say that a person lives in love and by grace. No one can do the slightest thing without faith and have it be acceptable and pleasing to God, but the person that does the slightest thing by faith is also one that has done it in love and by grace. When God beholds the person that has faith He does not behold that person and think what a good person that is, but instead that person is united to Christ by faith and so the Father is pleased with a person because that person is united to Christ and so because of the righteousness of Christ.
LikeLike
RS: Remember, my argument started off and has not changed that faith must be in Christ as opposed to self:
No kidding lol! Why belabor the obvious?
I really hope you’ll try to do a better job of reading what I write in the future, because you were talking right past me. And as for McMark saying the opposite of what he really believes well, all I can say is ouch. Why even talk to him? Plus, even when I clearly explained my position, you didn’t comprehend what I was saying. So I started to get frustrated, anyway God bless.
Rest in his completed work,
LikeLike
Doug Sowers: quoting RS: Remember, my argument started off and has not changed that faith must be in Christ as opposed to self:
Doug Sowers: No kidding lol! Why belabor the obvious?
RS: In words that is obvious, but in practice it does not come across that way. So many seem to think that if one has faith, regerdless of anything else, then that is what it takes. So the obvious does need to be set out over and over again. For the Arminian system to work or stand it has to assert that faith is a free choice of a free-will and yet that salvation is by grace alone. The two cannot stand together. Many who think of themselves as Reformed don’t want to go to the roots of faith either and simply say that if a person has faith then God gave them the faith. While that is true enough, that is built on the idea that a person does not really need to know where the faith came from as long as the person has faith. That ends up with many people having faith, but they have a faith in themselves that they have faith in Christ. Luther argued that a person must deny his own so-called free-will before s/he was ready to be saved by grace alone.
Doug Sowrers: I really hope you’ll try to do a better job of reading what I write in the future, because you were talking right past me.
RS: Yes, it is a lot easier to blame the other person for my misunderstanding. I just thought you were sidestepping the obvious, direct, and clear point of the whole issue. There, I blame you with it. Doug, my point is that a true faith will always walk by true grace. It certainly appeared that you were arguing against the grace part.
Doug Sowers: And as for McMark saying the opposite of what he really believes well, all I can say is ouch. Why even talk to him?
RS: I didn’t say that McMark says the opposite of what he truly believes. Like all other people what he reads goes through his own grid. I think he understands me as being against the justification which is the lense through which all else goes, but I don’t think so. I am just saying that the way people interpret and the way people hear can sometimes make them seem to disagree in a far greater way than they actually do. You know, two people looking at an accident from different angles don’t always see it the same.
Doug Sowers: Plus, even when I clearly explained my position, you didn’t comprehend what I was saying. So I started to get frustrated, anyway God bless.
RS: Perhaps you were very clear to yourself and not so clear to at least me. Another option is that perhaps I did comprehend what you wrote and saw that it led to other positions that were not clearly explained and yet your position led to them. I am sorry to read that you were frustrated, but that is only a nice way of saying that you were impatient. Some of us are rather thick between the ears and others need to have patience with us.
Doug Sowers: Rest in his completed work,
RS: Which, of course, includes walking by grace.
LikeLike
Pardon me for butting in. Just caught some of the last comments.
Faith in God, and not faith ‘in faith’, is critical in Lutheran theology.
That is why the ‘external Word and sacraments (Baptism and Holy Communion) are so important to us.
So that we can know that we are saved, without having to feel that we are saved. ‘Saved’ totally apart from anything that we do, say, feel, or think.
Thanks, much. Off to the salt mine.
LikeLike
Steve Martin: Pardon me for butting in. Just caught some of the last comments.
Faith in God, and not faith ‘in faith’, is critical in Lutheran theology.
That is why the ‘external Word and sacraments (Baptism and Holy Communion) are so important to us.
So that we can know that we are saved, without having to feel that we are saved. ‘Saved’ totally apart from anything that we do, say, feel, or think.
RS: The last two sentences certainly caught my eye. Can one really be saved from sin if they live without restraint in sin? Can one be saved from sin and still sin without restraint in what they say? Can one really be saved if they love sin (feel) and their thoughts are always on sin? Perhaps that is not what you meant by what you said, but if we are “‘saved’ totally apart from those things then it seems that the conclusion is warranted. Perhaps what you mean is that we are saved without any dependence on those things but by Christ alone?
LikeLike
But I was just responding in a light-hearted manner and then trying to think of some caricature that would be fitting about you and Calvinists in general. After all you guys do have a corner on behavioral truth and what is fitting and orderly- don’t you? Perhaps that is why you attract so many people to your churches. Oh, I forgot, you guys are the remaining remnant.
LikeLike
Richard, you got the dynamic off quite a bit. MM is more a Consigliere in these environs. He helps us know not so much where the lines are, but which lines we can obliterate without anyone caring much. So, in that vein, there won’t be anyone complaining or suing, because people who can’t talk don’t say much. Everyone knows people get ‘lost’ in ports of call, disappear from the Lido deck, jump overboard, all sorts of tragic and legally fuzzy things happen out at sea and in international waters. Plus pirating has come back in vogue, this cruising on the open sea is dangerous business. Particularly if you’re one of those who’s forever talking Sinai and getting it wrong. It’s just annoying, and on this cruise really deleterious to other’s good time. Don’t worry too much about it, Jed will be there to help with the ‘re-conditioning’ and give them a good start on their way to becoming Stepford 2kers, after their initial resistance has been broken down and they’ve become compliant.
LikeLike
RS,
I am well aware of the doctrinal errors of Lutherans- although they are not aware of them (or, rather, don’t believe they hold any errors). I cannot believe in universal atonement anymore nor their views of the possibility of apostacy, nor their conception of faith among other things. I do think the Lutheran view of sanctification is much more accurate than the Calvinist view though. And I have problems with the Calvinist views of perseverance, ie., looking for evidences of regeneration in something within the believer or in outward conduct. I also think their is a lot of confusion about union with Christ in Calvinist circles. I think I have stated such things in posts before. Not that I think anyone really reads others posts that discerningly or closely. I know I don’t a lot of the time.
LikeLike
And I don’t know what to think about the sacraments anymore.
LikeLike
John,
You might consider Nevin’s _The Mystical Presence_. He discusses how the Lutheran position evolved before taking on the “puritan” position at length, using the term mostly for Nevin’s contemporaries and New Englanders like Edwards while giving Owen and the Divines a pass (mostly). It’s available free at Google Books.
LikeLike
John Yeazel: RS, I am well aware of the doctrinal errors of Lutherans- although they are not aware of them (or, rather, don’t believe they hold any errors). I cannot believe in universal atonement anymore nor their views of the possibility of apostacy, nor their conception of faith among other things. I do think the Lutheran view of sanctification is much more accurate than the Calvinist view though. And I have problems with the Calvinist views of perseverance, ie., looking for evidences of regeneration in something within the believer or in outward conduct. I also think their is a lot of confusion about union with Christ in Calvinist circles. I think I have stated such things in posts before. Not that I think anyone really reads others posts that discerningly or closely. I know I don’t a lot of the time.
RS: I try to read the posts of others quite closely at times, but maybe that is because your are so full of errors. By the way, and just to be sure, that was an attempt at humor (full of errors part). There were several things in your post that got my interest level up, but I will only ask you a few.
1. What is it about the Lutheran view of sanctification (since they think final apostacy is possible and you don’t) that you find more accurate than Calvinism?
2. If a person does not look for evidences of regeneration, then how could the person take the Supper since we are told to examine ourselves before we take it? Not to mention that Paul and John both tell us that we should examine ourselves in some way.
3. What confusion/error are you speaking of in reference to Calvinists and union with Christ? Don’t you know that if you are elect you are elected to have the right view of that?
LikeLike
Richard Smith,
Yes. One can be saved totally apart from anything that they do, or don’t do. That’s called grace, alone…and that is what we believe in.
If it was something that we do, or don’t do, that would be the deciding factor then Jesus could have skipped the cross altogether and just lined us all up and and started comparing us.
No. It’s all up to Jesus. Does the Lord lead us to repentance? Of course! Does He work in our lives? Sure He does! But He saves us when “we were dead in our sins and trespasses”. He came for the sick…not the healthy. And nothing that could ever do could add one iota to the “finished” work of the cross.
Thank you, RS.
LikeLike
@Mike K:
“…You might consider Nevin’s _The Mystical Presence_. He discusses how the Lutheran position evolved before taking on the “puritan” position at length, using the term mostly for Nevin’s contemporaries and New Englanders like Edwards while giving Owen and the Divines a pass (mostly)…”
I wouldn’t mind reading this myself, but it’d have to be a bound copy. However, a Web search and reader reviews on it indicate to look for the Wipf and Stock (publishers) copy, only, the rest being inferior in quality. Any idea where the best place might be to buy one? Otherwise, I’ll get one through ILL.
LikeLike
“Richard, you got the dynamic off quite a bit. MM is more a Consigliere in these environs. He helps us know not so much where the lines are, but which lines we can obliterate without anyone caring much.”
Yes, exactly. When the Old Lifers go to MM for advice, they step into his smoke-filled cabin where MM invariably offers them a cigar and some single malt and he begins to talk about the blues recording playing at the time. The “client” tries to talk about his issue, but MM keeps babbling on about the impact of trains and prohibition on the early blues. Eventually the client makes MM focus enough to give some half-distracted advice. The client walks away in doubt, but, oddly, MM’s advice works. Every time.
MM isn’t an ambulance chaser and he has no interest in stirring up controversy. He just wants to make enough to support his cigars, single malt, and blues.
(Hey, if I’m writing the story, I can give myself a good part.)
LikeLike
“… MM keeps babbling on about the impact of trains and prohibition on the early blues…”
Don’t forget about the impact of religion, too. In particular, I’m thinking Son House and the Preachin’ Blues ….
“Oh, I’m gonna get me a religion, I’m gonna join the Baptist church/
You know I’m gonna be a Baptist preacher, and I sure won’t have to work..”
Hmmmm…
LikeLike
That’s a fun song, George, Remember proper pronunciation: Baptist “choich,” so he won’t have to “woik.”
Charley Patton was an interesting character who lived the life of a blues man but did some religious songs with apparent conviction. His “prayer of death” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYKRnWSJT10 is special.
Blind Willie McTell seems to have started with a cockiness about life, then, perhaps humbled by time, did an increasing number of spirituals, most of which were not convincing.
LikeLike
John Yeazel,
The Scriptures say in many places and in many ways that Christ Jesus died for and loves “the whole world”. We believe that. We would have a very difficult time telling someone that “Christ may have died for you”. And it’s not true. He did die for them (whomever it is).
Here’s the Lutheran party line and we believe it is biblical:
If we come to faith in Christ, God gets ALL the credit. If we do not, we get ALL the blame.
LikeLike
We believe the sacraments are pure gospel. Pure gift…from Christ Jesus, to us.
He commanded them, so we believe He is in them. Because He never commanded us to do anything where He would not be present in it, for us. We do not believe our Lord was into empty religious ritual, just for kicks.
The sacraments are an external Word, to us, from outside of ourselves. Sao that we might trust in God’s action for us and His promises, totally apart from our feelings of being saved or anything that we do, or say, or think. No internalizing the faith for Lutherans. Well, at least some of us old time Lutherans who haven’t fallen off of either side of the horse.
Thanks.
LikeLike
This may be helpful:
[audio src="http://theoldadam.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/two-huge-issues-in-a-proper-understanding-of-the-christian-faith.mp3" /]
Or, at least you’ll have a better understanding of why we believe what we believe…even if you don’t agree…which is fine.
LikeLike
Steve, your—“good, on God; bad, on us” soundbite might everything nice for you, but it’s not biblical. God does not need any defense which would represent God differently than God has revealed Himself.
It is wrong to say that non-election is conditioned on sin. Both the elect and the non-elect are sinners–if sin were the cause/condition of non-election, then all sinners would be non-elect. The reason for non-election is like the reason for election. God’s justice is no less sovereign than God’s grace. God’s glory is also revealed in His sovereign love and in His sovereign wrath. To know His name as it is revealed in Romans 9 is to know Him as the one who has mercy on some and who hardens others.
I deny that non-election is conditioned on sin. But this does not mean that I think that sin is conditioned on non-election so that God only makes sinners (ordains and predestines them to sin) in order to not elect them. God also makes some sinners in order to save them.
As a more consistent supralapsarian, following the lead of Robert Reymond, I agree that sin is included in God’s purpose . But I also that see that God’s very first concern is to manifest His glory in discriminating between sinner and sinner, so that election in Christ from the beginning is an election of sinners. To be outside Christ from the beginning is to be non-elect sinner.
God does not wait for sinners to sin, and then decide to pass some of them by. In the very purpose to elect and to not elect for His glory, God is the Subject and sinners are His objects. God’s choice is the first thing. Sin is not the first thing, and then God reacts. Neither is creation the first thing, and then God reacts. Sin is necessary if God is to choose between sinners. Only because of God’s choice to choose between sinners, does God ordain sin.
LikeLike
What are those outward promises? That everyone watered will persevere in faith in the gospel and be saved from God’s wrath in the end? If not, then what are the outward promises? Is one of the objective promises that those who sin in certain ways for so long without repentance will be cut off? Are the external promises that some will be saved? Or do the external promises comfort the subjects that themselves will certainly be saved from God’s wrath? Is Jesus a “gnostic” because He baptized externally with the Spirit rather than water?
1. God didn’t elect all of us
2. It’s not clergy nor sacrament which make a church
3.God’s law applies even to those that God does not love
4. Law is not grace, and there is no grace for the non-elect
5. God’s creation includes much that will never be redeemed but will instead be destroyed
6. “Union with Christ” doesn’t mean “inclusive substitution” in which those redeemed also “get in on the act of redemption as instruments of the Holy Spirit”. Nor is it the Holy Spirit who gives us Christ, because Christ also gives us the Spirit.
7.. It is the death of Jesus and not at all something we do which satisfied God’s legal demands
8. Christ never died for those who are not elect and Christ’s death is not sufficient for the non-elect
9 God made promises to Abraham that God never made to anybody else
10. Not all the children of Abraham are the children of Abraham
LikeLike
mark mcculley,
Why do you choose to ignore what Holy Scripture says on the matter?
“Christ died for the sins of the whole world.”
“Do this…” Jesus commanded the sacraments.
“God desires that ALL would believe and come to Him.”
I think it is reason and the theology of glory which demands that human reason figure it all out. Some things are above us and are not for us to know. Why some hear the gospel and come to faith and others do not, is a mystery. But don’t put our rejection of God onto God. That makes a good God into a monster. And it definitely is not biblical.
LikeLike
You like Bible, Mark?
Here’s some Bible that preserves the goodness of God:
“Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do” (Luke 23:34).
“Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other” (Isaiah 45:22).
“The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance” (2 Peter 3:9).
“. . . God . . . desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all . . .” (1 Timothy 2:3-6).
“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it!How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not” (Matthew 23:37)
___
This is true and this is biblical:
If we come to faith, God gets ALL the credit. If we are lost, we get ALL the blame.
That is what the Bible actually says on the matter (without our putting any slant on it).
Thanks.
LikeLike
We’ve been needing a Lutheran around here to spice things up. My daughter is attending a Missouri Synod Lutheran Church (and getting married in one in August).
LikeLike
Thanks, Erik.
And congratulations on the upcoming marriage of your daughter!
LikeLike
RS,
Actually, all of your questions have been answered (except the way you changed the question in #1 to put an apostacy twist on it) in previous posts numerous times. I guess you are not reading the posts as closely and discerningly as you think. All of us tend to see what we want to see and disregard the rest (I include myself in that cliche).
#1- What is it about the Lutheran view of sanctification (since they think final apostacy is possible and you don’t) that you find more accurate than Calvinism?
The Lutheran view of sanctification, as articulated by Forde and Seinkbeil (although they have sleight differences), is getting used to living by justification priority, and not thinking that anything happening internally has anything to do with sanctification. There is a lot more to the doctrine of sanctification but that is a general summary. In my understanding, the only way Lutherans believe someone can apostacize is if they lose faith in what Christ did for them in his perfect law-abiding life, atonement for their sin, resurrection from the dead and ascension into heaven. And this is why I believe they have misconceptions of faith rather than in the doctrine of sanctification itself. If you want to read a good description of the Lutheran view of sanctification I think this essay by Forde explains it well:
Click to access Forde_Sanctifcation.pdf
#2. If a person does not look for evidences of regeneration, then how could the person take the Supper since we are told to examine ourselves before we take it? Not to mention that Paul and John both tell us that we should examine ourselves in some way.
I know this one has been answered numerous times, or, the implications of what me and others have said should be obvious, ie., one examines oneself to see if they are trusting in any false gospels or in anything besides Christ’s work for the sinner. You examine yourself for any kind of inherent self-righteousness based on anything within yourself or in what you do. Christ died for schmucks like you and me. And don’t accuse me of having a worm theology. I am a worm and don’t deserve the grace of God at all (the imputed righteousness of Christ is the grace of God).
#3. What confusion/error are you speaking of in reference to Calvinists and union with Christ? Don’t you know that if you are elect you are elected to have the right view of that?
This one has been explained to you ad infinitum also. You believe that union occurs because of regeneration and McMark and I believe that regeneration occurs because of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. Forensic union has priority. Calvin and most Calvinists agree with you Richard. Mark has explained this thoroughly over and over again. He has even written a lot of short essays about this topic and posted them at oldlife on numerous occasions too.
LikeLike
Here is one of McMark’s finest essays, in my opinion, on the union topic:
http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fmarkmcculley.wordpress.com%2F2012%2F11%2F22%2Fthanks-for-the-person-or-thanks-for-the-works-or-thanks-for-the-benefits%2F&h=uAQH56NEQ
LikeLike
“If a person does not look for evidences of regeneration, then how could the person take the Supper since we are told to examine ourselves before we take it? Not to mention that Paul and John both tell us that we should examine ourselves in some way.”
We examine ourselves. if we believe that we are not worthy of it, then it is for us. If we believe that He is in it, and actually doing something for us, then it is for us. If we think it’s just symbolism, then why bother?
__
Yes. We do believe that” God will bring to completion the work (sanctifies us) that He started in us.”
Yes. We do allow that a person can fall away from the faith. God let some Jews go, in the OT, and we have to allow for the possibility, to preserve God’s freedom to be God. But we also have the assurance that Christ will never leave us nor forsake us. But we never want to take that assurance for granted.
LikeLike
John Yeazel: Here is one of McMark’s finest essays, in my opinion, on the union topic:
RS: Nail it down for me, please. What is the very heart of what you think is the best argument for his position?
LikeLike
Steve Martin: We examine ourselves. if we believe that we are not worthy of it, then it is for us. If we believe that He is in it, and actually doing something for us, then it is for us. If we think it’s just symbolism, then why bother?
RS: But no one is worthy of taking it, but that cannot be the qualification for it. Surely the Lord’s Supper is for the Lord’s children. Paul told us to examine ourselves to see if Christ is in us.
LikeLike
We invite all baptized Christians who believe Christ to be actually present in the Supper, to come and receive it.
How does one know that Christ is in them? Some look at their works. Some look to their faith, wavering or strong. Some look to their church. We look to our Baptisms. The external Word, done to us and good and valid no matter how strong or weak our faith might be. So we have faith in God, and what He has done for us, apart from any internal measurement.
LikeLike
George,
Sorry, I’ve been reading Nevin via Google. The convenience outweighed my own preference for dead trees. It’s like having a Star Trek replicator for out-of-copyright books. Good luck finding a nice copy.
LikeLike
One of the better things for Reformed/Lutheran/Baptist relations is “The White Horse Inn”. Rod Rosenbladt (Dad Rod) and Ken Jones are both sharp guys. I need to listen to that show more often. It’s hard to keep up. I think I might start supporting them financially next year. It’s a worthwhile endeavor.
LikeLike
”Kosmos” is used of the Universe as a whole: Acts 17: 24 – “God that made the world and all things therein seeing that He is Lord of heaven and earth.” is used of the Universe as a whole:
“Kosmos” is used of the world-system: John 12:31 etc. “Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the Prince of this world be cast out”— Matt. 4:8 and I John 5:19,
“Kosmos” is used of the whole human race: Rom. 3: 19, etc.—”Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.”
“Kosmos” is used of humanity minus believers: John 15:18; Rom. 3:6 “If the world hate you, ye know that it hated Me before it hated you.” Believers do not “hate” Christ, so “the world” here must signify the world of unbelievers in contrast from believers who love Christ. “God forbid: for then how shall God judge the world.” Here is another passage where “the world” cannot mean “you, me, and everybody,” for believers will not be “judged” by God, see John 5:24. So that here, too, it must be the world of unbelievers which is in view: John 15:18; Rom. 3:6 “If the world hate you, ye know that it hated Me before it hated you.”
“Kosmos” is used of Gentiles in contrast from Jews: Rom. 11:12 etc. “Now if the fall of them (Israel) be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them (Israel) the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their (Israel’s) fulness.” Note how the first clause in italics is defined by the latter clause placed in italics. Here, again, “the world” cannot signify all humanity for it excludes Israel.
“Kosmos” is used of believers only: John 1:29; 3:16, 17; 6:33; 12;47; I Cor. 4:9; 2 Cor. 5:19. We leave our readers to turn to these passages, asking them to note, carefully, exactly what is said and predicated of “the world” in each place. is used of believers only
aw pink
LikeLike
Gaffin suggests that Lutherans put “union” after justification, and that Calvinists should put “union” before justification. But the definition of “union” tends to keep changing as needed. If “faith” is the “indwelling personal presence of Christ”, and if this faith is before the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, and if this faith is defined as “union”, then perhaps the difference Gaffin assumes is not correct.
But I prefer the wise words of Berkhof (systematic, p452)
“It is sometimes said that the merits of Christ cannot be imputed to us as long as we are not in Christ, since it is only on the basis of our oneness with Him that such an imputation could be reasonable. But this view fails to distinguish between our legal unity with Christ and our spiritual oneness with Him, and is a falsification of the fundamental element in the doctrine of redemption, namely, of the doctrine of justification. “
“Justification is always a declaration of God, not on the basis of an existing (or future) condition, but on that of a gracious imputation–a declaration which is not in harmony with the existing condition of the sinner. The judicial ground for all the grace which we receive lies in the fact that the righteousness of Christ is freely imputed to us.”
LikeLike
Some new to oldlife don’t realize we have been having debates about the union with Christ issue for the last 3 to 4 years. As I see it there are two major camps or schools of thought in this debate. In one camp are those who give union with Christ by the Spirit the logical priority in how the benefits of Christ’s work are applied to the believer. In the other camp are those who give the declaration and transfer of God the logical priority when God places the believer into Christs death. This is described in Romans chapter 6 where the scriptures claim the believer is baptized into Christ. Those in the declaration and transfer camp claim there is no water in Romans chapter 6 but this is what the believer has to constantly look towards for his assurance. The forensic has priority in this school of thought not the work of the Spirit. The work of the Spirit is contingent on the declaration and transfer of the work of Christ by God Himself. So, this school of thought has problems with this statement by Calvin:
“But I disagree with John Calvin that the Holy Spirit must join the elect to Christ’s person before they are imputed with Christ’s righteousness. Here’s the famous (Barth, Torrance, Gaffin) quotation from Calvin (3:11:10): “I confess that we are deprived of justification until Christ is made ours. Therefore, that joining together of Head and members, that indwelling of Christ in our hearts—in short, that mystical union—are accorded by us the highest degree of importance, so that Christ, having been made ours, makes us sharers with him in the gifts with which he has been endowed.. We do not, therefore, contemplate him outside ourselves from afar in order that His righteousness may be imputed to us but because we put on Christ and are engrafted into His body—in short because he deigns to make us one with Him.”
Of course you can say this is all much about nothing, but Calvin seems to think it is very important, and so do the academics who seem to write every essay so that they can get to that quotation. They quote 3:11:10 often, as that which trumps anything else Calvin wrote.
As long as Christ is outside us, they say, His righteousness is not yet imputed to us, therefore faith in Christ comes before justification. Of course all agree in theory that there is an eternal election, but there’s hardly any need to ever talk about the sins of the elect having already been imputed to Christ before His death. The important thing “Gaffin has in common with Arminians (who he defends as his brothers and sisters) who don’t believe in election is that they both agree that faith is the condition of union with Christ and that this union with Christ is the condition of justification.”
What makes this all very confusing is that most all of the reformers during the reformation and those 2nd generation reformers went back and forth on this issue of union with Christ and what had the most logical priority when applying the benefits of Christ’s death to the believer. Hence, all the confusion with all the debates going on today about union with Christ. Bruce McCormack called it the most important debate going on in theological circles today.
LikeLike
And, I might add, this confusion about union with Christ is apparent in most of the confessions of faith written during the reformation and shortly thereafter. So, the issue has vast implications for everyone involved. I think it has implications in how systematic and dogmatic theologies are written too.
LikeLike
Erik,
The White Horse Inn is a pretty good resource for Christ centered learning.
I have another one for you:
http://theoldadam.com/category/pastor-mark-anderson/
This is my pastor’s teaching and preaching. There are some really wonderful, Christ centered teaching and preaching there.
Type into the search box, “I believe that I cannot believe”..and “Jesus’ last day on earth…”
Two of my favorites. I’m sure will enjoy them.
LikeLike
Steve Martin: We invite all baptized Christians who believe Christ to be actually present in the Supper, to come and receive it.
RS: So all who are baptized and believe that Christ is actually present in the Supper are invited. This assumes that all who are baptized are Christians, which is to go beyond the teaching of the Scriptures. Jesus said that unless one is born from above one will not enter the kingdom and according to John 1:12-13 that new birth is not from the will of any human being but is of God. John 3:8 teaches us that this new birth if the work of the sovereign Spirit who blows as He pleases.
Steve Martin: How does one know that Christ is in them? Some look at their works. Some look to their faith, wavering or strong. Some look to their church. We look to our Baptisms. The external Word, done to us and good and valid no matter how strong or weak our faith might be. So we have faith in God, and what He has done for us, apart from any internal measurement.
RS: But the Word of God tells us that the believer has eternal life now, the life of Christ in the soul now, and is the temple of the Holy Spirit. You can look to your baptism, but you will see nothing but water. You can look to your church, but the NT never said to do that. You can look to anything else but Christ and His work in history and in the human soul and you will find nothing but deception. Christ said He dwells in His people and works in His people. Is it so wrong to look for Christ where He said He would be found?
John 17: 24 “Father, I desire that they also, whom You have given Me, be with Me where I am, so that they may see My glory which You have given Me, for You loved Me before the foundation of the world.
25 “O righteous Father, although the world has not known You, yet I have known You; and these have known that You sent Me;
26 and I have made Your name known to them, and will make it known, so that the love with which You loved Me may be in them, and I in them.”
LikeLike
MM – Are you familiar with the syndicated radio program, Blues Before Sunrise, hosted by Steve Cushing? It originates here in the Chicago area, but is carried around the country on various PBS affiliates. And, of course, it is also available as a podcast.
Steve has what must be the world’s most extensive collection of blues musicians, comedians, interviews, etc. dating as far back as the origination of sound recording up through more modern times. I listen to his program whenever I get the chance.
George
LikeLike
RS,
“You can look to your baptism, but you will see nothing but water.”
As Luther said, “It is not water only. But water attached to the Word of God and His promises.”
This is something tangible, that occurs in our personal history, where God acts…for us. So this we can trust. Much more than anything that emanates from within ourselves, or that is weak, such as our faith can often be.
Thanks.
LikeLike
Thank you Steve.
LikeLike
We have been talking about Westminster Shorter Catechism 29 & 30 recently in family Bible study:
Q. 29. How are we made partakers of the redemption purchased by Christ?
A. We are made partakers of the redemption purchased by Christ, by the effectual application of it to us by his Holy Spirit.[83]
Q. 30. How doth the Spirit apply to us the redemption purchased by Christ?
A. The Spirit applieth to us the redemption purchased by Christ, by working faith in us,[84] and thereby uniting us to Christ in our effectual calling.[85]
Q. 31. What is effectual calling?
A. Effectual calling is the work of God’s Spirit, whereby, convincing us of our sin and misery, enlightening our minds in the knowledge of Christ,[86] and renewing our wills,[87] he doth persuade and enable us to embrace Jesus Christ,[88] freely offered to us in the gospel.[89]
LikeLike
Steve and Eric, I am still waiting for your answers to my questions.
Do your local pastors ever talk about election and non-election?
Do your pastors teach that all for whom Christ died will be saved from God’s wrath, or do they teach that Christ died for more than will be saved?
If Christ died only to make an offer to some sinners, how can it be said that His death saves any sinner?
If some sinners are condemned for not accepting Christ’s death, how can it be said that His death is what saves any sinner?
What are those outward promises attached to water baptism?
Is everyone watered promised that they will persevere in faith in the gospel and be saved from God’s wrath in the end?
Is one of the objective promises attached to water baptism that those who sin in certain ways for so long without repentance will be cut off?
Do the external promises attached to water baptism comfort the subjects of baptism that they themselves will certainly be saved from God’s wrath?
Is Jesus a “gnostic” because He baptized with the Holy Spirit rather than water?
I Corinthians 1:14 I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 so that no one may say that you were baptized in my name. 16 (I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.) 17 For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. 18 For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
Acts 2 39 For the promise is for …as many as whom the Lord our God calls to himself.”
LikeLike
Norman Shepherd: The covenant is not founded on or governed by election. God makes His covenant with all the baptized infants alike but conditionally. Baptism does not merely bring people into the pale of the gospel. Baptism effects union with God in Christ. Baptism is not just the offer of union.
Norman Shepherd: The New Testament as well as the Old makes our eternal welfare contingent in some way and to some extent on what we do.
Not of Works (Shepherd and His Critics), 2012, Ralph Boersma
LikeLike
mark mcculley,
Our pastor does teach that Christ died for everyone (because it is in the Bible). And He does teach that not everyone will come to faith and that many will be lost (because it is in the Bible).
RS,
We know that Christ is in Baptism because it is in the Bible. Acts 2:38 …we receive the forgiveness of sins and the Holy Spirit in Baptism. Galatians 6:25-27 All “those who have been baptized have put on Christ.”
Christ commanded that we do it. Then He is in it. Same for the Lord’s Supper.
LikeLike
So, Steve, it’s not Christ’s death that saves even those who are saved? If Christ died for everyone but not everyone will be saved, what makes the difference? Is it Lutheran water? But if not all who get Trinitarian water are saved, then what makes the difference? If you don’t want to say that the sinner’s “living by grace” makes the difference (and I don’t think you do) , you also certainly can’t say that Christ’s death makes the difference. So you will have to retreat to “mystery”. You certainly can’t say that God’s love makes the difference, because you have already claimed that God loves every sinner.
II Thessalonians 2: And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will kill with the breath of his mouth and bring to nothing by the appearance of his coming. 9 The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders, 10 and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11 Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they believe what is false, 12 in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth.
LikeLike
George, thanks for the heads-up. I guess I must be pretty particular about my blues, because his stuff basically doesn’t resonate with me. Big band blues doesn’t do it. How blue can a guy be when he’s backed up by all that brass? That would be like Jesus preaching the Semon on the Mount in a palace.
Take someone like Louis Armstrong. His Hot Fives and Hot Sevens are great, but I don’t listen to them when I want to listen to the blues. His trumpet is way too happy.
Then I’m not really into Diva Blues either. A glittery women over whom everyone swoons – now how blue can she be?
But December – with its cold weather and high commercial pressues- is a great time to listen to the blues and maybe download a couple new albums. Thanks for the reminder.
LikeLike
mark mcculley,
It’s the Word, Mark. Attached to ANY water, my friend. God can save apart from Baptism (the thief on the cross) or He can save in Baptism (1st Peter).
Why some come to faith, and others do not…IS a mystery.
When we get there (heaven) we can ask God to let us in on it.
LikeLike
can i say mose allison?
LikeLike
Go a little deeper, MMc: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YS9gQeOzQMk (John Lee Hooker)
LikeLike
Hooker is the truth.Hooker is also why Rome can’t be true.
LikeLike
McMark: Gotta agree with you on that one. I have an extensive collection of Mose Allison’s material. But it’s kind of hard to classify, even though some of his songs are the work of other blues artists like Willie Dixon. He’s in a world by himself. As one interview source remarked on an American Routes program, “…they may prefer rock or jazz or anything else, but when Mose comes to town everyone buys tickets…”
MM: But what about Jimmy Rushing or Big Joe Turner? They both sang in front of big bands (Basie) and their blues can knock you off your feet. Besides, many a bluesman has remarked that singing blues when you’re in a funk is supposed to make you feel better. How this oxymoron can be true is unknown, but it works!
Hooker was good – early Hooker, that is, like the one in that YouTube, but as he aged he kind of lapsed into that weird stuttering mode that took some of the vigor out of his blues. It’s like listening to the young jazz singer Betty Carter vs. the old Betty who constantly fell back into that strange meowing; or the younger Bobby Bland who was polished and smooth when he injected his “Ow’s” vs. the old and tired Bobby who made sounds like someone being strangled to death. They just didn’t know when to quit.
LikeLike
George, I’ll try to be open minded to see if I can expand my horizons, but I don’t know if I can. But, right, the same blues that takes you down lifts you right back up. Much better then denial, which can cause nervous tics and worse.
Mose just seems so, umm, pale? Hooker’s deep blue, while Mose is some kind of light pastel blue – the kind you would use to decorate your baby boy’s room.
Sean, I would ask you to explain that, but it looks so deep it would probably be ruined by the explanation, so maybe it’s best to just let it echo.
LikeLike
Mark,
Do you have any suggestions for further reading on this subject? I was recently denied membership to a PCA church because I was unable to articulate a point in life when I “experienced regeneration.” The session, which consists entirely of former Southern Baptists, insisted that they cannot be sure that someone is truly regenerate unless that person can point to some warming-of-the-heart experience that worked an indelible change in one’s life. I’m not really interested in debating the session on the topic; I’m just interested in it for purposes of personal edification.
LikeLike
“…they cannot be sure that someone is truly regenerate unless that person can point to some warming-of-the-heart experience that worked an indelible change in one’s life.”
They sound like Mormons, and that “burning in the bosom” BS.
__
We cannot trust in our feelings. We have them, feelings, but as far as assurance of our faith, we cannot rely on our feelings of being saved. St. Paul reminds us that “the devil can come all dressed up as an angel of light.”
We trust in the external Word, and in the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Places where God acts, for us. So that we might have assurance, totally apart from anything that we do, say, feel or think.
LikeLike
Steve,
I hadn’t thought about the connection with Mormonism. But that makes sense. Harold Bloom long ago made the case that there’s not really much difference between revivalistic Southern Baptists and Mormons.
LikeLike
Bobby, I am not that interested in some personal experience. Whenever I talk to PCA elders, I attempt to talk about the gospel. I try to do this by talking about what I believe (and don’t believe) in the Westminster Confession. What I believe tends not to show up in the sermons. Those Southern Baptist elders have never repented of Arminianism. But they don’t like Fanny Crosby tunes anymore.
Westminster Confession, Chapter 3: VI. Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.
Chapter 8, V. The Lord Jesus, by his perfect obedience, and sacrifice of himself, which he, through the eternal Spirit, once offered up to God, hath fully satisfied the justice of His Father; and purchased, not only reconciliation, but an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven, for all those whom the Father hath given unto him.
Some call a death of Christ which does not save a “mystery”. I call it a fraud.
LikeLike
one of my favorites from Mose Allison
I don’t want much in this world
It’s the simple things I treasure
‘Till I die I would get by on fame, riches and sensual pleasure
I don’t ask much in this life
No special consideration
Just treat me like His Majesty
Of a friendly OPEC nation
Some people
Just don’t know when to stop
Some people
Just won’t quit until they reach the top
But I’m so easy going
I’d make my way through life
On love and understanding
From a rich and beautiful wife
But I’m so easy going
I don’t even keep the score
All I want is plenty, but I will take more
If you ask me
I will take more
LikeLike
McMark, what does Mose Allison have to do with the doctrines of grace? You almost come off flippant, or Norman Bates crazy, when you quote that imbecilic nonsense.
How is listening to those lyrics cause you to praise God? How does it inspire you to walk by faith? How is meditating on shallow (third grade) poetry renew your mind?
LikeLike
@Steve Martin:
2nd Peter 1:5-10 talks about making our election sure. It’s called walking by faith.
For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they keep you from being ineffective or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Verse ten:
(Therefore brothers, be all the more diligent to make your calling and election sure)
The Bible teaches we can have assurance by walking in faith and love. We rest in the completed work of Christ, true enough, YET the Bible also teaches that we should be diligent to make our election sure. Both are true.
Press on brothers!
LikeLike
Steve Martin quoting RS, “You can look to your baptism, but you will see nothing but water.”
Steve Martin: As Luther said, “It is not water only. But water attached to the Word of God and His promises.”
This is something tangible, that occurs in our personal history, where God acts…for us. So this we can trust. Much more than anything that emanates from within ourselves, or that is weak, such as our faith can often be.
RS: But Scripture tells us that that faith sees what is unseen. Scripture tells us that we can see the glory of Christ (2 Co 3:18). Scripture tells us that God regenerates souls apart from any human descent, and human action, and any human will. Instead, He regenerates according to His own sovereign will. If God saves in accordance with baptism (infant baptism included), then He saves according to human descent, human will, and human action.
LikeLike
The jewish grandmothers who scold you for liking the blues tend to read II Peter 1 as teaching that we must (by grace) add works to our lives in order to gain and maintain assurance. I agree with Walter Marshall and others who point out that II Peter 1 teaches that we have to make our calling and election sure in order to even know if our added virtues are acceptable and pleasing to God.
In other words, we need to think about what gospel it was by which we were called. Were we called by a gospel which conditioned our future on our having works? Or were we called by the true gospel which says that we must be accepted by God in Christ’s righteousness before we can do anything good or acceptable to God?
The scolds of course are careful to say that their works are the evidence of Christ’s work in them. Nevertheless, these scolds do not test their works by the gospel doctrine of righteousness. Most of them think you can be wrong about the gospel doctrine, and nevertheless still show off your salvation by your works and acts of piety.Folks like Paul Washer raise doubts about those who don’t do what they do, but they don’t have these same doubts about “sincere and hard-working” Arminians .
Romans 4:4 Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due.
II Peter 1 For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they keep you from being ineffective or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. …Therefore, brothers, be all the more diligent to confirm your calling and election,
LikeLike
Doug,
Meh. When you got all the NC applications for OT statutes figured out and ready for dissemination, then you can come waste your time here, ’till then you’re wasting the time God has given you, and your diversions here are little more than slothfulness and waving your finger at God, telling Him you’ll get to it when it’s convenient for you. Go repent.
LikeLike
Steve Martin: We cannot trust in our feelings. We have them, feelings, but as far as assurance of our faith, we cannot rely on our feelings of being saved. St. Paul reminds us that “the devil can come all dressed up as an angel of light.”
RS: Can we trust our thinking? Can we trust in our desires? Are people totally depraved (all parts) and if so does Christ save all parts of sinners? True enough that we are not to trust in our feelings since we are to trust in Christ alone. But since the Holy Spirit does work love and joy (etc.) in His people, there are sanctified feelings as well. There is a difference between the joy that we are commanded to have in the Lord and the sinful passions of those who are in slavery to them.
Steve Martin: We trust in the external Word, and in the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Places where God acts, for us. So that we might have assurance, totally apart from anything that we do, say, feel or think.
RS: But Scripture tells us to trust in Christ HImself. If you are looking for places where God acts, I would say look in His temple. But the temple of the Holy Spirit and the place where Christ lives is the heart of the believer. The place where the Holy Spirit works His fruit is in the heart and life of the believer. The life of the believer is to be Christ. It would be far better and biblical to look where God says He acts and that is in the human soul. When the writers of Scripture wrote Scripture, they were writing the words of God. When a saved human being loves, that human beings is only loving with the love that God has worked in and through Him. As you can see from the verses below, affections are commanded by God. There is no true assurance apart from what you think and feel since Christ works in the thinking and feeling of His people and sanctifies those as part of sanctifying the whole soul.
2 Corinthians 6:12 You are not restrained by us, but you are restrained in your own affections.
Philippians 1:8 For God is my witness, how I long for you all with the affection of Christ Jesus.
Philippians 2:1 Therefore if there is any encouragement in Christ, if there is any consolation of love, if there is any fellowship of the Spirit, if any affection and compassion, 2 make my joy complete by being of the same mind, maintaining the same love, united in spirit, intent on one purpose.
Colossians 3:12 So, as those who have been chosen of God, holy and beloved, put on a heart of compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience;
LikeLike
mark mcculley: The jewish grandmothers who scold you for liking the blues tend to read II Peter 1 as teaching that we must (by grace) add works to our lives in order to gain and maintain assurance. I agree with Walter Marshall and others who point out that II Peter 1 teaches that we have to make our calling and election sure in order to even know if our added virtues are acceptable and pleasing to God.
RS: Nevertheless, the text does say what it does say.
McMark: In other words, we need to think about what gospel it was by which we were called. Were we called by a gospel which conditioned our future on our having works? Or were we called by the true gospel which says that we must be accepted by God in Christ’s righteousness before we can do anything good or acceptable to God?
RS: But we are called by a Gospel which gives a new heart, the wrath of God satisfied, a perfect righteousness in Christ, and a God who will work perseverance in His people. A grace that cleanses the heart and gives a new heart is also the grace that makes the believer the temple of the living God. The heart that is a child of the devil will be changed when it becomes a child of the living God. The heart that is so changed results in a changed life as well. No, nothing that changed heart and life results in anything that contributes to the righteousness that Christ has earned, but it manifests the grace that Christ has worked in it as well as the life of Christ Himself in the soul.
McMark: The scolds of course are careful to say that their works are the evidence of Christ’s work in them. Nevertheless, these scolds do not test their works by the gospel doctrine of righteousness. Most of them think you can be wrong about the gospel doctrine, and nevertheless still show off your salvation by your works and acts of piety.Folks like Paul Washer raise doubts about those who don’t do what they do, but they don’t have these same doubts about “sincere and hard-working” Arminians .
RS: We can agree with the folks who have no doubt about working “Christians” and not having doubts about those “sincere and hard-working Arminians.” However, do you not see the problem with those that claim to have been saved from sin by Christ and yet still seem to live in the love of sin and of the world? I John speaks very clearly to the issue of those who claim to love God and still love the world. It is not that people are saved by not loving the world, but when God saves a soul from its bondage to sin part of that salvation is a salvation from love for the world.
LikeLike
mark mcculley: Some call a death of Christ which does not save a “mystery”. I call it a fraud.
RS: I would give a hearty amen to that. I would also say that the soul saved by the death of Christ by grace alone which is not truly changed by that same grace alone is a fraud as well.
LikeLike
Eminem,
I think you need to tell Doug Sowers to lighten up a bit- talk about sanctimonious! BTW, I am enjoying your off topic blues comments.
LikeLike
Eminem again,
Along with being Darryl’s agent I thought you were his website cop too- I am trying to get you to laugh and be my friend again.
LikeLike
For anyone who does not know, Eminem is the alias of MikelMann- rapper, lawyer, climatologist
LikeLike
changed, how much? for the better? always? sometimes? 25%?
and what is the “soul”? is it something on your inside?
in the Bible, the soul that sins shall die
does that mean it was alive on the inside and then it died?
when Christ poured out His soul even unto death (Isaiah 53), was that only His inside?
so ever day, you’ve got to keep changed enough to convince yourself that you are not a fraud?
how are you doing with that?
Those who will be condemned were born condemned already, but their wicked attempts to establish their own righteousness with “good deeds” will also be condemned. Those who have been justified have not been been justified by their right attitudes about works and faith. But those who have been justified have also been born again and as result they all now know that they are not working to get God’s blessings and assurance. They have assurance.
LikeLike
Galatians 3: 3. Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh? 4. Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain. 5. He therefore that gives you the Spirit, and works miracles among you, does he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
You can say “blood, blood, blood”, but still not know Christ. Most of those who did many bloody animal sacrifices did not receive Christ as crucified. The Arminians and Lutherans who say that Christ died for those who will perish do not believe in the true Christ and His precious blood.
To know Christ, you must know that God requires a righteousness that sinners cannot produce and that God in Christ established for the elect a righteousness that demands justification for the elect. The law demands death, even the death of One who was never a sinner, but who was imputed with the sins of the elect.
Those who killed Christ thought they could do God some additional service. John 16:1-3. If you think you can add to or complete your righteousness by your changed life, then you are as guilty as those who killed Christ.
To judge by the gospel is to examine if we confess and agree with God’s testimony. It is the Holy Spirit who convicts the justified elect that God requires a righteousness that we cannot produce even with the help of grace John 16:8-13. It is the Holy Spirit who takes away our confidence so that we have NO confidence that we ever did or ever will do anything (even with God’s help) to make ourselves better than anybody else. Phil 3:3. The reason the justified elect are different from others before God is that Christ died for them and not for others.
LikeLike
John Y,
Never give up your power. Always negotiate from a position of strength, particularly with lawyers and clergy. They need no help diminishing you if it helps their position. Pastor ;”I’ve never heard anyone talk to a pastor that way?!’ Me: ‘Ummm, hmmm, why?!’
LikeLike
Doug, “brothers”? Women read Old Life too.
LikeLike
mark mcculley: changed, how much?
RS: From totally depraved to one that now feeds and lives on Christ,
McMark: for the better? always? sometimes? 25%?
RS: Yes, always for the better because God works all for good to those that loves Christ.
McMark: and what is the “soul”? is it something on your inside?
RS: It is the immaterial part of man that thinks, wills, and loves. It is the part of the thief on the cross that went to paradise while his body was dead on the cross. It is the part of Paul that the moment he died he found out the truth that to die is gain.
McMark: in the Bible, the soul that sins shall die
RS: Adam and Eve found out the truth of that and then ever person since then was born dead in sins and trespasses.
McMark: does that mean it was alive on the inside and then it died?
RS: It means that when a soul is converted it has eternal life even when the body dies. It means that when a person dies that person is present with the Lord. It means that the unconverted soul goes to a place of punishment until judgment day. It means that on judgment day the unconverted soul will experience the second death which is hell.
Matthew 10:28 “Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
2 Corinthians 5:1 For we know that if the earthly tent which is our house is torn down, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.
McMark: when Christ poured out His soul even unto death (Isaiah 53), was that only His inside?
RS: Primarily the soul because only the connection with the Divine could suffer an infinite amount of punishment that sins deserved.
McMark: so ever day, you’ve got to keep changed enough to convince yourself that you are not a fraud?
RS: Of course not. Christ is the one does the changing. That is why Paul told people to examine themselves to see if Christ was in them. That is why I John 4 gives us ways to see if the love of God is dwelling in us. So it is not a matter of changing self, but in being changed.
McMark: how are you doing with that?
RS: It is God doing the changing since Christ is the life in me.
McMark: Those who will be condemned were born condemned already, but their wicked attempts to establish their own righteousness with “good deeds” will also be condemned. Those who have been justified have not been been justified by their right attitudes about works and faith. But those who have been justified have also been born again and as result they all now know that they are not working to get God’s blessings and assurance. They have assurance.
RS: You are making a false step, however. Paul panted and longed to know Christ even after he was converted, but it was not so that he could establish his own righteousness. He wanted to know and love God and so the glory of God would shine through him. Unbelievers want to work hard to establish their righteousness, but believers know that they have no righteousness and have no way to obtain any on their own. So they live out of love for God and His glory because of the life of God in them. It is known as the preservation by God in the perseverance of the saints.
LikeLike
mark mcculley: Galatians 3: 3. Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh? 4. Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain. 5. He therefore that gives you the Spirit, and works miracles among you, does he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
RS: The obvious conclusion, then, is that God works in His people of faith by the Spirit. They started by the Spirit and so it is the Spirit who works in them. This happens by faith.
McMark: You can say “blood, blood, blood”, but still not know Christ. Most of those who did many bloody animal sacrifices did not receive Christ as crucified. The Arminians and Lutherans who say that Christ died for those who will perish do not believe in the true Christ and His precious blood.
RS: All of that is true. However, remember the words of Jesus in Matthew 7:
21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 22 “Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ 23 “And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.
McMark: To know Christ, you must know that God requires a righteousness that sinners cannot produce and that God in Christ established for the elect a righteousness that demands justification for the elect. The law demands death, even the death of One who was never a sinner, but who was imputed with the sins of the elect.
RS: All of that is correct and does not contradict anything I intend to say.
McMark: Those who killed Christ thought they could do God some additional service. John 16:1-3. If you think you can add to or complete your righteousness by your changed life, then you are as guilty as those who killed Christ.
RS: But again, why do you continue to think of the work of Christ in sinners by His Spirit as if someone is doing God a service? It is God working this in them. A changed heart and life is what God does in the soul and contributes precisely zero to the righteousness that Christ earns for His people.
McMark: To judge by the gospel is to examine if we confess and agree with God’s testimony. It is the Holy Spirit who convicts the justified elect that God requires a righteousness that we cannot produce even with the help of grace John 16:8-13. It is the Holy Spirit who takes away our confidence so that we have NO confidence that we ever did or ever will do anything (even with God’s help) to make ourselves better than anybody else. Phil 3:3. The reason the justified elect are different from others before God is that Christ died for them and not for others.
RS: But if Christ died for them, He purchased the Holy Spirit who works His fruit in them. It is Christ who changes people by His Spirit. All the works that believers do should be done out of love for God and His glory rather than an attempt to add righteousness to their acount. How can it be that Jesus Christ would live in people and they would not be different? How can a believer live by the Divine power and not be different? Grace makes the difference and the work of the flesh does not.
LikeLike
Sean,
Yeah, you’re probably right. I was never much for the negotiating power tactics though. They seem to slick and slimy for my tastes. I’ll just admit I’m a sinner and a schmuck upfront. I can’t say it is really working for me though.
LikeLike
John Y,
You’re alright man. I’ve learned when I take it out on others, MM, or whomever, I feel better. So, since NPD is what I have going for me, I like to stay in my wheelhouse so to speak and swing away.
LikeLike
Sean; when are you going to comprehend that theonomy is a starting point, not a final solution? There are good theonomists, bad theonomists, and thousands, if not millions in between. But all true Christians *must* be theonomists, if we are to be consistent. We all should echo Kind David’s prayer, “oh, how I love thy law; it’s my meditation all through the day and night”!
LikeLike
@McMark; I didnt say you should *hate* the blues, I aksed *how* the blues renew your mind?
LikeLike
@ McMark says: Were we called by a gospel which conditioned our future on our having works?
No.
“We are his workmanship created *for* good works which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them”.
The good news is that God saved us *FOR* good works, (that he predestined) not *BECAUSE* of good works. Can you comprehend the difference?
How should you know you’re the elect? Look to your baptism in faith, see Romans 6; and also see 2 Peter 1:5 *make your election sure*!
Or as Luther once said, “Man, say your prayers”!
I hope that helps,
LikeLike
Doug,
I’ll give it up when they stop reading ‘misuse of the law’ in romans 9 and Galatians and start reconciling to the salvific principle that the Law is not of Faith or simply abandon the church I’m a member of, for more like-minded communions. I’ll say this though, I get along with the one’s at church(probably cuz I can ‘learn ’em’ better in person or in class or over a game of poker) better than what I encounter on-line. Which tells me part of it is the medium, but still most of it is them being wrong.
LikeLike
@Sean: Are you one of *those* who feel Romans 9:32 was mistranslated? LOL! I heard McMark echo the same nonsense. That is mind boggling!
Doesn’t that illustrate the tenuousness, of your perspective on the covenant of grace? You must insist that thousands of English translations *all* got it wrong, for *you* to be right. Ouch! Your view of the law grace, paradigm is based on a translation err?
On the other hand, if one believes that all English translations are correct, on Romans 9, then you can’t be right.
Now who’s being silly?
LikeLike
Yeow, Doug, really? A mark of true Christian piety is theonomic persuasion? I thought we were the radicals.
#theogonewild!
LikeLike
@Zrim, we are not discussing theonomy. I know you tend to be Johnny one note, and can’t leave the theonomy debate alone, BUT young Sean thinks Romans 9:32 is translated wrong! LOL! And for Sean to be right, (theologically) the Bible has to be wrong LOL!
Zrim, back up a few posts, and read before you pop off; please 🙂
LikeLike
Actually Doug I’m happy to hang it on Galatians and Romans. The LAW is NOT of Faith. It’s a contrast of working principle.
“BUT young Sean thinks Romans 9:32 is translated wrong! LOL! And for Sean to be right, (theologically) the Bible has to be wrong LOL!”
Well despite the fact that we don’t declare translations INERRANT, I half expect you to start selling KJV-only any moment now.
–
LikeLike
@Sean, my OPC prefers the ESV which says the same thing, “as if it were by works”. What translation do you prefer? Or have you written your own? LOL!
In the ESV Paul says in Galatians 3:21
“Is the law against the promise? May it never be!
The law contained the gospel in shadow form, in that it pointed too Christ; but once Christ came in the flesh, the shadows needed to be laid aside. To force Christian Gentiles to keep the ceremonial law was not of faith, and amen. But to suggest that the law was against faith, or antithetical to faith, is ludicrous! Just read what David said about the law.
Here are some select verses taken from Psalm 119
The sum of your world is truth, and every one of your righteous rules endures forever.
Me: Sounds like God’s penal sanctions are still valid.
Open my eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of your law.
Me: Notice David recognized that he needed grace to understand the law, aright.
I will run in the way of your commandments when you enlarge my heart!
Me: Notice David understands the only way he can obey the law, is when God enlarges his heart, it’s all grace!
Give me understanding that I may keep your law and observe it with my whole heart.
Me: Notice David relies on God’s grace to give him understanding to obey the law.
Let your steadfast love come to me, O LORD, your salvation according to your promise.
Me: This is huge!!! David knows that salvation did not come through the law; it’s according to the promise!
At midnight I rise to praise you because of your righteous rules.
Me: Doesn’t sound like David thought the law was legalistic. He loved everyone of God’s righteous rules, wow!
Your hands have made and fashioned me; give me understanding that I may learn your commandments.
Me: Notice David recognized that he needed grace to even understand God’s commandments! So give us theonomists a break if were not able to apply all of God’s law in a proper new covenant context.
God bless you,
LikeLike
17 This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. 18 For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise.
Click to access romans_932.pdf
Doug,
read, meditate, try to repudiate, and then ultimately reconcile.
LikeLike
Daniel Fuller (Unity of the Bible, 143) focuses on commands of God to those “already in the covenant” and explains that people don’t need to be exactly perfect to meet the conditions of “staying in the covenant”. But the true gospel teaches that all saving faith is the fruit of the righteousness obtained for the elect AND that justification is NOT a future thing dependent on future works of faith.
Calvin is correct and Dan Fuller is wrong. Gal 2:16-3:13 are NOT about a “misunderstanding” of works. Galatians puts works in antithesis to faith in a way that Daniel Fuller will not allow. Doug also seems to think that a certain kind of works is faith and that a right understanding of law is gospel.
Calvin: The consciences of believers, in seeking assurance of their justification before God, should rise above and advance beyond the law, forgetting all law righteousness…For the question is not how we may become righteous but how, being unrighteous and unworthy, we may be reckoned righteous. If consciences wish to attain any certainty in this matter, they ought to give no place to the law. Nor can anyone rightly infer from this that the law is superfluous for believers, since it does not stop teaching and exhorting and urging them to good, even though before God’s judgment seat it has no place in their consciences (3.19.2).
LikeLike
McMark says, I agree with Walter Marshall and others who point out that II Peter 1 teaches that we have to make our calling and election sure in order to even know if our added virtues are acceptable and pleasing to God.
Not so fast, that is a very inadequate answer! Please consider 2 Peter 1:9
Verse 9: “For whoever lacks these qualities is so nearsighted that he is blind, having forgotten that he was cleansed from his former sins”.
Me: Clearly Peter is warning us that by *not* walking by faith, and by *not* being diligent, and by *not* practicing godliness, and by not practicing self control, and by not practicing brotherly love, one can forget he’s been forgiven. This goes to the heart of the assurance question. Sin can entangle believers, so that we can waver. How can you even argue this McMark?
Verse 10: “Therefore brothers, be all the more diligent to make your calling and election sure, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall. For in this way there will be richly provided for you an entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ”.”
Trust and obey! For there’s no other way, to be happy in Jesus, but to trust and obey.
Isn’t that simple but true? McMark I think you’re seeing ghosts that aren’t there. No one thinks our good works can add to our salvation, but good works are *essential* in the playing out of our salvation. In other words, if you don’t have good works, then you’re not saved. And if you want to know if your of the elect, then follow directions is 2 Peter 1 and read the whole chapter.
Rest in his completed work,
LikeLike
Galatians 3 does not say that “the misunderstanding of law” is not of faith. It says the law is not of faith.
Romans 6:14–”for sin shall not have the dominion over you, for you are not under the law but under grace.” Doug chokes on any idea that “not under the law” is good news. But Romans 6 clearly teaches that sin shall not reign over a justified person, because that person is no longer under the law. Even though he was 2k, Jason Stellman agreed with Doug about this.
(Dual Citizens, Reformation Trust, 2009, p143): “According to this view, under law means under the condemnation of God’s moral law, and under grace speaks of the deliverance from this condition. Some problems arise from this view…. When Paul wrote that Jesus was born under the law, did he mean that Christ was born under the condemnation of the law? Furthermore, if under law and under grace are existential categories describing an individual’s condemnation or justification, then Paul’s argument is a non-sequiter. It is not justification but sanctification that frees us from the dominion of the sin.”
Doug cannot agree that “freed from sin” in Romans 6:7 means “justified from sin” because he thinks grace is about being able to do the law .Think about Stellman’s question—-”When Paul wrote that Jesus was born under the law,did he mean that Christ was born under the condemnation of the law?
My answer to both Stellman and Doug is yes. Yes, Christ was born under the condemnation of God and God’s law. To see this, we need to attend to the first part of Romans 6 before we rush to the second part and conclude that it has to be about grace helping us to keep the law so that it will be ok for God to have justified us. Romans 6:10 says that “the death He died to sin”.
We need to focus on Christ’s death to sin. Does Christ’s death to sin mean that Christ got a new soul and with it more grace to keep the law better? NO. What then did it mean that Christ died to sin? It means that the law of God demanded death for the sins of the elect imputed to Christ. As long as those sins were imputed to Christ, He was under sin, He was under law, He was under death.
Now death has no more power over Him? Why? Because the sins are no longer imputed to Him, but have been paid for and satisfied. The gospel is not only about God justifying with grace, but also about how God causes the ungodly elect to no longer be under the law because of Christ’s death by the law.
LikeLike
McMark, please quit using my name on what you *think* I believe about various Bible verses. And tying me with Stellman isn’t fair. Moreover, Mark, you didn’t interact with my posts. I took your own words, and tried to interact with you. All you’re doing now is falsely extrapolating what you think my views are.
At least use my words, PLEASE.
I would like to hear you interact with 2nd Peter 1 verse 9
LikeLike
McMark says: Galatians 3 does not say that “the misunderstanding of law” is not of faith. It says the law is not of faith.
McMark, if you’re not ready to concede that Paul uses *law* in different senses in the New Testament, then we will never get anywhere. It’s impossible for you to hold to the stance if I push you hard enough; there are too many examples of Paul using law different senses. Sometimes Paul says the law tells us, and he quotes a minor prophet. Sometimes Paul clearly means the whole Old Testament, but in Galatians 3 it’s clear that Paul is using *law* in the Jewish ceremonial sense with its days, moons, ordinances and circumscion. What do you think Judiazer means? To be Jewish!
It was the Jewish ceremonial law that was the shadow of Christ, not the moral law, or the penal sanctions. To cling to the shadow was to deny Christ’s completed work, which is not of faith. To say that the Mosaic Law in the main was not to be appropriated by faith is absurd and laughable. I just don’t get that. Just a quick reading of the Psalms puts the lie to the absurdity that the law was against faith. David was a man after God’s own heart, and he loved the law. Since the law is not against faith, your understanding of Galatians 3 makes no sense.
LikeLike
Doug, popping off? I’m simply wondering about your own words that “all true Christians *must* be theonomists.” Has any 2ker said anything remotely similar? Why are we the radicals when you make theonomy a litmus test for true piety? Are you theonomy’s version of Gilbert Tennent?
LikeLike
Weird that Doug thinks I am unresponsive. My questions have been ignored.
The law is not the gospel. The gospel is not the law. The gospel, however, IS ABOUT THE SATISFACTION OF GOD’S LAW.. Though law and gospel are not the same thing, they are not opposed because they never claim to have the same function.
Law says what God demands. Gospel says how Christ satisfied that demand for the elect. The antithesis between law and gospel does NOT understand Romans 10:4 in terms of abrogation. The “end of the law” is Christ completing all that the law demanded, so that there is no remainder left for the Spirit enabled Christian to do. The gospel says DONE. The gospel does not say “to be done by the life of Christ in the elect”. But neither does the gospel say– “no need for Christ to have ever satisfied the law or done anything.”
Christians sin, and therefore their “fulfillment of the law” (see for example, Romans 13) cannot ever satisfy the law. But the law will not go unsatisfied. There is no antinomian bypass around the law.
The law, once satisfied by Christ, now demands the salvation of all the elect, for whom the law was satisfied. God the Father would not be just, and God the Son would not be glorified, if the distribution of the justly earned benefits were now conditioned on the sinners in the new covenant. Yes, faith is necessary for the elect, but even this faith is a gift earned by the righteousness of God in Christ’s work. II Peter 1:1
This is how the law/gospel antithesis explains Romans 3:31 (no, we uphold the law). The law is not nullified but honored by Christ. The only way that its requirements will ever be fully satisfied in the elect (Romans 8:4) is by the imputation of what Christ did.
If the law were the gospel, even saying that there’s law (in the garden and now) would be “legalism”. But God has told us that the law is not the gospel and that it never was the gospel. Romans 11:5—“So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace. But if it is by grace, it is not on the basis of works; otherwise grace would not be grace.”
Monocovenantal theonomists identify law and gospel, and then expand (and thus also reduce) the demand of the law to including what the Spirit does in the elect. But what God does in us (by grace) must be excluded from the righteousness, which is Christ’s satisfaction of the law.
There can be no “balance” in a “sola”. . Christ alone. Apart from works. Merely Christ. Only what Christ did.
LikeLike
McMark, can you read English? I never said the law was the gospel, I do maintain, the Mosaic Law contained the gospel in figures. Hint, the Mosaic Covenant was a redemptive covenant! Their sins were covered! (And you can’t see gospel?) Take your blinders off bro! How can you miss the gospel when men were allowed to offer sacrifices for their sins to be forgiven? What did vicarious sacrifices point too? I am baffled that you could be so blind, to such an obvious truth.
Let’s see if I can flush you out.
So having ones sins covered is not good news to McMark?
The author of Hebrews calls you a liar:
Hebrews 4:2
“For good news came to us just as to them, but the message they heard did not benefit them, because they were not united by faith with those who listened”.
Earth to McMark! We received the gospel just like they did! What was their problem? Does the author of Hebrews blame the law? LOL! No, they lacked faith! Right here on the surface of the text, the Bible destroys your truncated view of salvation. Hebrews says they heard the gospel, just like we did!!!
Until you deal with these obvious texts, I don’t feel the need to prove much more. Your whole perspective (law gospel antithesis) has been demolished by the Rock of God’s Word.
LikeLike
McMark, listen to a man after God’s own heart:
Psalm 119
34“Give me understanding, that I may keep your law and observe it with my whole heart”.
97“Oh how I love your law! It is my meditation all the day”.
77“Let your mercy come to me, that I may live; for your law is my delight”.
King David read “Do this and live” and he cries out with true christian evangelical faith,
“Let your mercy come to me, that I may live; for your law is my delight”!
See how David cries out for mercy, so that he can live, for the law delighted him? You act as if the Mosaic covenant was a bummer. If that’s really your heart felt belief, maybe you should question the teachers you’re listening too. When looking at the law through eyes of faith, you see the character of God. All his his statutes are good! David loved the law!
McMark, have you asked yourself, why you see an antithesis between grace and law, over against David delighting in both the law and the promise? King David approached the law with true Christian faith. And his joy for God’s good law is brimming out of his pours! You act as if the law was against faith. Can you imagine saying that the law is against faith to King David, back in the day? He’d probably cut you’re………… I won’t finish the thought.
LikeLike
Zrim, you said: Doug, popping off? I’m simply wondering about your own words that “all true Christians *must* be theonomists.”
Zrim, I believe that every “true” Christian should echo this Psalm in our heart of hearts:
“Oh, how I love your law, it is my meditation all the day”.
King David was called a man after God’s own heart, by God no less! We know that David’s assessment of the law is right, true, and unimpeachable. Theonomy literally means God’s law. God’s law is called good in the Bible, when only God could be called good. Yet Paul called the law both holy and good.
I see the law as a perfect reflection of the character of God. No true Christian should be bashful about saying we love the law of God; “if we have a heart like David”, which has been circumcised by the Holy Spirit.
And in that sense, we’re all theonomists, amen? After all, one of the promises of the new covenant is God putting his law on our hearts, amen? So in that sense, we’re all theonomists. Now, as far as debating rather or not the penal sanctions should still be respected today, I’ll admit that I’m in the minority for the time being. But overall we should all echoes King David’s prayer. Zrim let me ask you directly, do you love the law? Do you meditate of God’s law? If not, why not?
I would love to hear you, not you quoting people, just what you think of the law, please.
LikeLike
Doug, it’s not a little disingenuous to claim that affirming the law of God is synonymous with being theonomic. 2kers and theos both affirm the inherent goodness and perfection of law of God the way you have, but how we each understand the function of the law is where there is a vast difference.
And so you keep sounding like the revivalist who wants to claim that only those who truly have the Spirit are those who also affirm the altar call. Just as 2kers believe that theos affirm the law of God, confessionalists believe that revivalists are indwelt, even if the former think the latter are seriously misguided. But it’s the latter who tend so strongly not to exercise the same judgment of charity. So try a thought experiment: when a revivalist questions your piety because you oppose the altar call, remember us poor 2kers the next time you’re tempted to question our piety because we oppose the theonomic error.
LikeLike
Sean, I read Gordon’s attempt at reconciling Romans 9, but remain unconvinced. Thanks for shooting me the url anyway. But I will stand with the ESV, “as if it were by works” which says it all. That verse blows your speciouis theory to smithereens! It nukes the notion that the law was against faith, yea just the opposite. Maybe it’s time for Sean to find a church that is doctrinally sound, rather than exploiting old folks at poker LOL!
LikeLike
Galatians 3: 10 For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” 11 Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.” 12 But the law is not of faith, rather “The one who does them shall live by them.”
LikeLike
Galatians 3: 17 The law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. 18 For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise.
19 Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made… Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law.
LikeLike
Romans 3:28 For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law. 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30 since God is one—who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. 31 Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.
For those who are interested in something more than doug’s bully rhetoric, check out this discussion of covenants of works. http://historiasalutis.com/2010/11/16/has-the-covenant-of-works-been-abrogated/
Romans 4: 13 For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith. 14 For if it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void. 15 For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression.
Romans 10: 5 For Moses writes about the righteousness that is based on the law, that the person who does the commandments shall live by them. 6 But the righteousness based on faith says, “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’” (that is, to bring Christ down) 7 “or ‘Who will descend into the abyss?’” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead)…
10 For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. 11 For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.”
LikeLike
McMark, I give a hearty amen! to every verse you just quoted! Amen and amen! ”
Who wouldnt agree with those verses? I know I do. How about dealing with 2nd Peter chapter one verse nine. You know, the verse about losing assurance when you sin. Please expound.
LikeLike
McMark, now your pulling a “Richard Smith”! Quoting a plethora of verses, as if that somehow bolsters your point, is not helpful. The devil is in the details. How do you understand those verses? What do they mean, in the context of our discussion?
Why do you refuse to deal with Christ’s stern warnings, to the chruches in Revelatons? Do you just pretend that Revelatons isnt in the Bible?
LikeLike
McMark says: For those who are interested in something more than doug’s bully rhetoric,
LOL! LOL! LOL!
Bully rhetoric? Poor Mark, does it feel like I”m beating you up? LOL! Me thinks your fighting Scripture not a mere mortal.
BTW, you’re not off the hook! You still need to deal with Christ’s evauation of the seven (new covenant) churches. Did Jesus require good works of his churches? Did Jesus threaten to curse them if they didnt repent of their evil? How does that jibe, with your perspective?
Please explain………………
LikeLike
Doug Sowers: McMark, now your pulling a “Richard Smith”! Quoting a plethora of verses, as if that somehow bolsters your point, is not helpful. The devil is in the details. How do you understand those verses? What do they mean, in the context of our discussion?
RS: Doug, I thought you loved the Word of God since it gives us the Law of God. Are you growing sower on the Word? One can expect others to read the verses and for the Spirit to enlighten as He pleases. NOOOO, the devil is not in the details when the Word of God is given. In a medium such as this, one does not have the space, time, nor the patience of others to give a detailed explanation of many verses. So giving them is the best one can do.
LikeLike
2 Peter 1: Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ,To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ: 2 Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord.3 His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence, 4 by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world because of sinful desire. 5 For this very reason, make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue, and virtue with knowledge, 6 and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with steadfastness, and steadfastness with godliness, 7 and godliness with brotherly love. For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they keep you from being ineffective or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 For whoever lacks these qualities is so nearsighted that he is blind, having forgotten that he was cleansed from his former sins. 10 Therefore, be all the more diligent to confirm your calling and election, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall.
With its emphasis on “knowledge” and “calling”, 2 Peter One reverses Doug’s legalism by commanding us to examine our works by making our calling and election sure. Those who know Christ are commanded to become effective They are not commanded to become fruitful in order to find out if they know Christ (or are known by Christ).
But Doug (with many others) assumes a “practical syllogism” in which assurance of calling is based on our works. To do that, he attempts to isolate one verse and ignore the context, which begins in the very first verse with the idea that faith is given because of Christ’s righteousness. Doug makes his works of faith the assurance. In effect, his assurance of Christ’s atonement is only as good as his confidence in his works. His “faith” turns out to be assurance in works, not assurance in Christ’s atonement. Because it can’t be both. There is no “balance” in this “sola”.
By what gospel were we called? Was it the gospel of “characteristic obedience” or was it the gospel of “Christ paid it all for the elect”? Many (not all) theonomists are trying to follow Christ as Lord without first submitting to salvation only by God’s perfect and sufficient alone righteousness.
We do not work to get assurance. We must have assurance before our works are acceptable to God. But many puritan “experimental” Calvinists, along with the Arminians, think of faith as the “condition” that saves them.. Yes, they disagree about the cause and source of faith, but they both are way more concerned about the condition faith leaves you in than they are in the object of faith.
Though the true gospel knows that the justification of the ungodly does not happen until righteousness is imputed and faith is created by hearing the gospel, the true gospel also knows that it is the righteousness ALONE (apart from the works of faith created) which satisfies the requirement of God’s law. (Romans 8:4)
The experimentalist wants to say that her imperfect works are the evidence of Christ’s work in them. But way too often this moralist does not test her works by the gospel doctrine of righteousness. Walter Marshall teaches us, as Hebrews 9:14 and Romans 7:4-6 teach us, that a person not yet submitted to the righteousness revealed in the gospel is still an evil worker, bringing forth fruit unto death. Those who work for assurance not justified, and any assurance they have is a deceit.
Indeed, unless we are universalists or fatalists (some Primitive Baptists are both), we cannot avoid the search for evidence. But we need to see that the evidence is submission to the gospel, which involves knowledge about election, imputation and Christ’s satisfaction. It is a waste of time to talk about “obedience to law as evidence” unless a person knows what the gospel is. A person who finds evidence in works shows that they don’t know what the gospel is.
Moralists stress the nature and quality of faith, but not the righteousness COMPLETED by Christ which should be the only object of faith. It is Christ (not us) who satisfies God’s law.
There are many false gospels and only one true gospel. The only way not to be self-righteous is to know that the law demands perfect righteousness and that the gospel proclaims how Christ satisfied that demand for the elect. One certain result of the righteousness earned by Christ is that the elect will believe this gospel and not any false gospel.
Most theonomists are Pharisees who thank their false god for enabling them to keep meeting the conditions so they won’t be “broken off the covenant”. The workers who came before the the judgment in Matthew 7 were sure that they had satisfied the conditions. And Doug also is sincere. He does not deny that election is the reason that people like him meet the conditions to stay in and to be sure. But instead of pleading Christ alone who got done a perfect righteousness, he also pleads something else.
These moralistic theonomists have flattered themselves about their obedience being acceptable. But those for whom Christ died will came to repent of that false gospel.
Scot Hafemann (p60): “ Sandwiched between what God has done for us and what God promises to do for us in the future, we find the commands of God for the present as the necessary link between the two.” This false gospel makes everything conditional, not on Christ, but on us—- if you do enough right, then God promises not to break you off…
LikeLike
Richard, praise God for you! I love the fact that you’re Bible-centric! However, there are times in debate when you unload a slew of verses, as if that settles the dispute. I think you should build your case slower, percept by precept, verse by verse, so that we don’t past each other. Or at least give us a little connection in between verses, so we follow your train of thought.
I do love the word, and no, I’m not sower on the word lol! Since we both love the word, and have both read the word, let’s not bombard.
Keep pressing on!
LikeLike
McMark says: Most theonomists are Pharisees who thank their false god for enabling them to keep meeting the conditions so they won’t be “broken off the covenant”.
How do you know?
LikeLike
McMark, . Most of your caricatures of me are not accurate, so I would appreciate it if you’d leave *me* out of your “theonomic” examples. For you to say “most theonomists are Pharisees” is beyond the pale, and makes you look ridiculous.
Show some brotherly love, bro!
LikeLike
McMark: We do not work to get assurance. We must have assurance before our works are acceptable to God. But many puritan “experimental” Calvinists, along with the Arminians, think of faith as the “condition” that saves them.. Yes, they disagree about the cause and source of faith, but they both are way more concerned about the condition faith leaves you in than they are in the object of faith.
RS: It is not so wrong to think of faith as a condition as long as it is seen that faith is the gift of God and as such God fulfills His own condition. In much the same way God commands a perfect righteousness and then gives the perfect righteousness as a gift in Christ. If faith is something that I work up, in terms of the Gospel or in terms of sanctification or growing in holiness, then it is a work and makes the rest worthless as such.
McMark Though the true gospel knows that the justification of the ungodly does not happen until righteousness is imputed and faith is created by hearing the gospel, the true gospel also knows that it is the righteousness ALONE (apart from the works of faith created) which satisfies the requirement of God’s law. (Romans 8:4)
RS: If I may quibble just a bit. Faith is not created by hearing the Gospel, but faith comes about by a new heart being created. It is true that faith comes through the hearing of the Gospel in the sense that the regenerate heart hears the Gospel with faith, but it is not just hearing the Gospel with the natural ears, but one only hears the Gospel truly when one has spiritual ears and that requires a new heart and a spiritual hearing.
McMark: The experimentalist wants to say that her imperfect works are the evidence of Christ’s work in them. But way too often this moralist does not test her works by the gospel doctrine of righteousness. Walter Marshall teaches us, as Hebrews 9:14 and Romans 7:4-6 teach us, that a person not yet submitted to the righteousness revealed in the gospel is still an evil worker, bringing forth fruit unto death. Those who work for assurance not justified, and any assurance they have is a deceit.
RS: But one test of a person truly trusting in the righteousness of Christ is to do good works while not believing that they earn any righteousness before God. On the other hand, one cup of cold water given in His name will not fail to receive its reward. So it is very true that works do not provide assurance in themselves, but without them one should not have any assurance.
LikeLike
RS: But one test of a person truly trusting in the righteousness of Christ is to do good works while not believing that they earn any righteousness before God. On the other hand, one cup of cold water given in His name will not fail to receive its reward. So it is very true that works do not provide assurance in themselves, but without them one should not have any assurance.
Me: Amen and amen! May I add that: we are saved by grace alone, through faith alone, but that faith is never alone! It’s a living faith that will produce good works that Jesus mediates so they’re accepted by the Father. But only works done with a heart of faith are accepted, period.
LikeLike
McMark, you missed my question, how do you understand verse nine, in 2nd Peter chapter one.
First off, who is Peter writing too?
“To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ”.
Yet, Peter warns these same people”
“For whoever lacks these qualities is so nearsighted that he is blind, having forgotten that he was cleansed from his former sins.”
Okay McMark, how about interacting with this verse? Peter says sin, causes a believer to doubt his salvation. It’s right in the text! How can you deny it? Peter also promises that if we walk by faith, we’ll make our election sure. What say you?
LikeLike
For whoever lacks these qualities is so nearsighted that he is blind, having forgotten that he was cleansed from his former sins.”
doug: Peter says sin, causes a believer to doubt his salvation. It’s right in the text! How can you deny it? Peter also promises that if we walk by faith, we’ll make our election sure.
mark: Doug sees “right in the text” that which is NOT there. If he were correct, the text would have to say that “whoever lacks these qualities will find that he was never cleansed from sins”. But the text does not say that. The terrible thing about Doug seeing in the text what is NOT there is that he doesn’t see what IS there.
“Forgotten that he WAS CLEANSED”. The text presumes the indicative, the assurance which comes with knowledge of Christ, and then warns about forgetting the past cleansing. But Doug says that the person lacking qualities should doubt if he ever was cleansed. Not what the text says. If we are elect, we will walk by faith. NOT, if we obey the law, we will find out that maybe we are still in the covenant one more day.
The context is saying that, in order to walk by faith (and be effective) we need to first have faith and assurance of our calling and election. But Doug reverses that. Instead of warning the Cornthinians about joining Christ to prostitutes, Doug would say that those who sinned with prostitutes showed that they were not Christians.
But I should not be surprised to see Doug ignore the text in that way. That’s what he has done with my posts all along. Those who have faith in the way that they have been conditioned are not trusting Christ and they are not my brothers. And I am not going to type more for them to ignore again what I am saying and repeat….
LikeLike
Thanks for responding McMark, I was beginning to think you forgot me 😦
You say: But Doug says that the person lacking qualities (should?) doubt if he ever was cleansed.
Huh?! No sir, the text says:
“For whoever lacks these qualities *is* (not maybe or should) so nearsighted that he *is* blind, having forgotten that he was cleansed from his former sins.”
The Bible doesn’t say we *should* forget we’re saved if we sin, it says we *will* forget we’re saved if we aren’t expanding our walk of faith. The wayward brother is really saved; (born of God) but he can, and will, go through struggles if, he turns away from God. Is that possible? The Bible says it is.
Can one be diligent and walk by faith in his own strength? No! That’s works righteousness! That was Israel’s problem; they approached the law, as if it were by works. (It’s a heart issue!) Only a true Christian (born of God) can approach God with a broken and contrite heart like King David! It’s a heart issue! Only a broken and contrite heart is pleasing to God. It’s all grace!
All of these good works, work through faith in love, and are manifestations of grace! When you are walking in God’s grace you will have assurance, that’s a promise. However, when you falter, and turn away from God (not walking by faith) you’re going to have some doubts. God will not let his true sons go unpunished for disobedience. He will take away your joy, as well as assurance. He will oppose you to your face, if you refuse to trust him. Why? Because he died for you, and loves you, and has predestined good works for you to walk in.
You see Mark? The Bible teaches that even true Christians can go through times of doubt. Look at the life of David! A true born of God Christian can go through a periods in his life, where he doubts if he’s even saved. It’s called being entangled by sin. (Anyone remember Solomon?) We are warned throughout the Bible to be wary of sin that can easily entangle us. Yet the antidote is simple, cry out to God, repent of your sins, trust in his promises, by resting in his completed work. Which is merely shorthand for walking by faith.
None of the temporal judgments or punishments God puts on his elect are because they’re not justified. If you’re truly justified by grace, through true faith, you will persevere to the end, even though you may go through times of doubt.
I hope that helps, cause I’m pooped
LikeLike
When your faith is not in Christ’s covenant-keeping but in the works you do (in God’s strength), then you are always going to doubt and think you are being punished. When your faith is in your faith and not in Christ’s satisfaction of God’s law, the only other option is being self-righteous enough to think these works (in God’s strength) are enough to meet the conditions of not “being broken off from the covenant”.
But it’s interesting that Doug has changed his story and is no longer attempting to use 2 Peter 1 to try to prove the conditionality of the new covenant. In his latest post, he assumes that the worst thing which can happen is that the person in the covenant forgets that she is in. Perhaps that’s because Doug has now actually read the context. But I predict that Doug won’t be able to stick with his new position. It won’t be long before the jewish grandmother will be putting the non-elect back into the new covenant in order to get back to the threat of exclusion. A theonomist without sanctions is just too sad.
Forgotten that he WAS CLEANSED”. The text presumes the indicative, the assurance which comes with knowledge of Christ, and then warns about forgetting the past cleansing. And Doug claims now that he’s not agreeing with rs that the person lacking qualities SHOULD doubt if she ever was cleansed. Rather Doug is now claiming that doubt will happen (as one of those punishments on us that Christ did not bear for us.)
So what is Doug saying now? “In the covenant” for sure (you were baptized with water), but work more so you won’t forget and won’t doubt? One. This is not what the 2 Peter 1 text says. The text says that we need to be sure of our calling and election so we can walk. NOT, if we obey the law, we will find out that maybe we are still in the covenant one more day. Two, Doug will find a way to agree with RS. Unless he finds inside Himself “God’s strength”, then he will use that condition to take the ‘alone” out of “faith alone”. Or more likely, unless he sees something IN YOU. (I presume that the two grandmothers don’t have much doubt about what’s in them.)
LikeLike
McMark: And Doug claims now that he’s not agreeing with rs that the person lacking qualities SHOULD doubt if she ever was cleansed.
RS: James is quite clear that faith without works is dead. A person without works SHOULD doubt because without any works that person’s faith is dead. Paul also said that “those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires” (Gal 5:24).
McMark: Two, Doug will find a way to agree with RS. Unless he finds inside Himself “God’s strength”, then he will use that condition to take the ‘alone” out of “faith alone”. Or more likely, unless he sees something IN YOU. (I presume that the two grandmothers don’t have much doubt about what’s in them.)
RS: As Paul said, examine yourselves to see if Christ is in you. As John said, you have to see something inside of you (the Spirit and true love) to know you are converted. That may go against what you think of as true, but when Paul and John teach that one must look inside themselves to have assurance, then one must look inside. It is not trusting in feelings, it is looking for members of the Trinity. At least that is the clear teaching of Scripture.
2 Corinthians 13:5 Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves! Or do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you– unless indeed you fail the test?
I John 4:13 By this we know that we abide in Him and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit. 16 We have come to know and have believed the love which God has for us. God is love, and the one who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him.
LikeLike
McMark says: When your faith is not in Christ’s covenant-keeping but in the works you do (in God’s strength), then you are always going to doubt and think you are being punished.
Hold on Mark! No one is saying that we put our faith in our works, and neither does the text. 2nd Peter says that if your faith is not on the increase, (as in growing like a living faith should) you *will* (not maybe), (not should), but you (will) experience doubt that you were ever justified. If you’re really “born of God”, that’s a good thing! Why? It will cause a true son to cry out to God and repent!
However, there are reprobates in the Church that appear to walk with God for a season, (from our vantage point) and wind up walking away from the Lord by denying the Christ. They were never really of us. Meaning, they were never really born of God. Even though they were in the covenant of grace! Remember Judas? He partook of the first communion meal, after Jesus washed his feet, YET he was a son of the devil, and he always was!
As for you? I give you the benefit of the doubt. I think you’re better than your theology. I think you do walk by faith. I consider you a brother in Christ. I think your theology is tragically confused. You force your mind to ignore a mountain Scriptures that teach works are necessary for true believers. The proof is you can’t deal with simple passages like 2nd Peter. Nor, can you deal with Christ’s evaluation of the 7 churches in Asia Minor.
My suggestion? McMark you need to accept all of Scripture. (Even the verses that demand good works from believers) There really aren’t any contradictions in God’s word; the apparent problems are figments of your imagination.
“We are his workmanship created for good work in Christ that he predestined us to walk in”.
How can you read that verse, and tell us that works are not necessary? That’s the very reason he created us!
LikeLike
Doug to me: you need to accept all of Scripture. (Even the verses that demand good works from believers) There really aren’t any contradictions in God’s word; the apparent problems are figments of your imagination.
mark: There is a big difference between accepting all Scripture and accepting your mis-reading of Scripture. But some theonomists don’t seem to understand that distinction. Again, we have a case of Doug not attending to what I have written and suggesting that I have written things I have not written.
I have not said there are any contradictions in Scripture. I have shown how Doug’s reading of II Peter chapter one contradicted the text, and then Doug changed his reading, but then still held on to the contradiction about the text somehow proving that those in the covenant can perish. This is a problem either with Doug’s ability to think or his ability to be honest with himself.
Doug: “We are his workmanship created for good work in Christ that he predestined us to walk in”.How can you read that verse, and tell us that works are not necessary? That’s the very reason he created us!
Mark: well, the truth is that we weren’t talking about Ephesians 2 but about 2 Peter 1, but you now seem to flee what you have written and divert us by claiming that I “tell us” things which I have never written. I have never said that works are not necessary. The question has to do with WHY works are necessary. Necessary for what reason?
Doug began by saying that obedience to the law was the necessary condition for staying in the covenant, then he changed his mind and said that it was important for those who are justified to not forget that they are justified, but now of course he has come back to saying that those “in the covenant of grace” can be lost if they don’t work.
2 Peter 1 tells us to make our calling and election sure so that we can work and be effective in that work. But Doug changed the nature of the necessity, isolated one verse, ignored the indicative (have been cleansed), and then assumed that if a person didn’t agree with his mercenary (self-righteous and self-interested) motives for work, that that person didn’t think law and works were necessary in any way.
Like many others in our day, Doug has dismissed simple gratitude for salvation as being the necessity for obedience to God’s law. If you don’t agree with him about works being the difference between staying in the covenant, he just can’t imagine that you think that law is needed in any way. But that’s his problem. He needs to look at the Heidelberg Catechism again. What does a thankful person need to do?
Doug: “They were never really born of God. Even though they were in the covenant of grace.”
mark: Not all theonomists approve of “the federal vision”. I know some who believe the gospel. But it looks like Doug has a false gospel. Make no mistake about me knowing and walking with the same faith Doug has but just being confused about it. Doug and I have different gospels.
Doug Wilson: “Special election IS covenantal election for those who by grace persevere. For those who fall away, covenantal election devolves into reprobation.”
The Canons of Dordt, 1:9—Election was not founded upon the forseen obedience of faith, holiness, or any other good quality or disposition in man, as the prerequisite, cause or condition on which election depends.Therefore election is the fountain of every good.”
David Engelsma, The Federal Vision, p 93—Doug Wilson does not teach that performing the condition of remaining in the covenant proves or gives assurance to election. Doug Wilson teaches that performing the condition of remaining in the covenant is what makes election effectual. Many in the new covenant, according to Wilson, refuse to perform the covenant conditions and thereby render God’s election of them null and void.”
LikeLike
McMark, >sigh< I’m at a loss how to communicate with you. It's one thing to disagree with me, but you keep misunderstanding me, and then twist my words to jeeringly say what I’m clearly not saying. Moreover, you’re coming off bitter, mean, sarcastic and angry. You act as if I don’t hold to your rigid formulations, I’m not even Christian. I have yet to see anyone on this blog agree with you.
Now, let me be clear. I would never say that I trust in my own works. I rest in Christ's completed work at Calvary, and amen. But, when I walk in faith, I’m looking to Christ, the author and finisher of my faith. As I walk in obedience, I'm filled with joy, peace, love, kindness, and self control and a Godly confidence that I’m his. This is what I believe 2nd Peter is getting at when he said make your election sure. The faith we walk in, is a living faith. It’s a heart issue.
Sadly, there have been periods in my life, where I didn’t walk with God, and was rebellious, and low and behold; I didn’t feel confidence, because the formulations were just cold empty facts. So I can relate once again to 2 Peter verse nine. But when I cried out to God with true repentance with all my heart, he was faithful and just to bring me back to his bosom, and fill me with faith and hope. What a blessed assurance!
Finally, I would be happy to discuss your view on Christ’s evaluation of the 7 churches in Asia Minor. If you can discuss the subject without you resorting to ad homin then I would be happy to continue.
Rest in his completed work,
LikeLike
McMark; let’s see the WCF says about perseverance, of the elect, amen?
“Nevertheless, they may, through the temptation of Satan and of the world, the prevlency of corruption remaining in them, and the neglect of the means of their preservation, fall into grievous sins, and for a time continue therein: whereby they incur God’s displeasure, and grieve his Holy Spirit; come to be deprived of some measure of their graces and comforts; have their hearts hardened, and their consciences wounded; hurt and scandalize others, and bring temporal judgments upon themselves”.
McMark, this is exactly what 2nd Peter 1 verse 9 is getting at! When the elect give in to temptation of Satan, they can become deprived of some measure of their graces and comforts; having their hearts hardened, and their consciences wounded. Forgetting they were cleansed from there sins. The WCF says it better than me.
So the opposite is also true! When we walk in the Spirit, we are filled with Godly confidence to do good works. This doesn’t mean we trust in our works, no no! Our trust is in the completed works of Christ on our behalf. So our faith is a living faith that must grow, or increase as Peter says.
Rest in his completed works,
LikeLike
McMark; let me give you an example close to home for me. About twenty years ago, I was attending a church in LA, we believed in the doctrines of grace. A man came to our church from Mormonism. We were thrilled that he came to the truth after living in a cult. He started working for the church as our church secretary, in the church office. He was baptized and later married. He joined in 92
About five years ago, he wrote a letter to our Pastor saying he no longer believed that Jesus is Lord. In fact, he said he *never* believed it in his heart of hearts. He became convinced that the Chalcedon’s contaminated the Bible. He took his wife and walked away from God. We in our local church were shocked! It was like being kicked in the stomach! He illustrated this passage:
Hebrews 6:4
For it is impossible in the case of those who have once been enlightened who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt.
This is what the WCF means by someone in the covenant, who did not persevere. He returned like a dog to his own vomit. He looked saved, for a season! He acted like a Christian! He ever partook of the Holy Spirit, (covenantally) (in the Lord’s Supper) but he was never really with us, in the born of God sense. The OPC that Dr Hart and I attend would say he was in the covenant. Yet he later denied the Lord, proving he was never really a Christian internally.
Consider 1 John 2:19
“They went out from us, but they were not of us, for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us”.
That is the Biblical warrant for saying that unbelievers can be in the covenant temporally, but if they deny the Lord, they are cut off.
Romans 11:24:
“Note then the kindness and the severity of God: Severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off”.
Notice McMark, these new covenant Christians were grafted into the same covenant olive tree, yet just as in the time of the law, to deny God, to lack faith, was warrant to be cut off.
LikeLike
Doug – Good story & good application.
LikeLike
Thanks Erik 🙂
LikeLike