The following excerpt from Martin Luther’s 1525 sermon (W.A. 17.1.155f) should be a reminder to would-be perfectionists and neo-nomians about the dangers of misconstruing personal righteousness:
This is the main article which we have to learn. It gives us authority, even if we feel the lust of our flesh or even fall into sin, to say: “Howbeit, it is my will to be rid of the Law, neither am I still under the Law or sin, but I am devout and righteous.” If I cannot say this, I must despair and perish. The Law says: “thou art a sinner.” If I say, “Yes,” I am lost; if I say “No,” I must have a firm ground to stand on, to refute the Law, and uphold my “No.” But how can I say it, when it is true and is confirmed by Holy Scripture that I was born in sin? Where then shall I find the “No”? Of a truth, I shall not find it in my own bosom, but in Christ. From Him I must receive it and fling it down before the Law and say: “Behold, He can say ‘No’ against all Law, and has the right to do, for He is pure and free from sin, and He gives me the ‘No,’ so that though if I look on myself I should have to say ‘Yes’ because I see that I am a sinner and could not stand before the Law, and feel that there is nothing pure in me, and see God’s wrath, yet I can say that Christ’s righteousness is my righteousness, and henceforth I am free from sin.” This is the goal, that we should be able to say, continually, we are pure and godly, for evermore, as Christ Himself can say, and this is wrought through faith.
Luther explains well why some of us find faith in Christ to be much more comforting than the terror that comes from pursuing righteousness as sin-bedeviled saint. (I hope you’re reading Doug and Richard.)
Old Life 
As they say in Chicago- that is a beautiful thing. And, Richard and Doug, I would say that all those who post at oldlife understand that one cannot take a flippant attitude towards sin or use Luther’s explanation as an excuse to sin whenever you want. We all just have trouble not sinning- even when regenerate. Is’nt that why we have to continue to hear the Gospel preached and go to places where the Gospel is taught propely?
LikeLike
D.G. Hart: Luther explains well why some of us find faith in Christ to be much more comforting than the terror that comes from pursuing righteousness as sin-bedeviled saint. (I hope you’re reading Doug and Richard.)
RS: But of course Luther is correct in terms of our standing before God. Sure enough Christ lived in order that His elect would have a perfect righteousness and Christ died in order to remove the wrath of the Father from the elect. But Christ also died for other reasons, and some of those reasons were holy lives in His people. Christ was also resurrected and He is now the very life of His elect. Christ purchased His people, made them holy, purchased the HOLY Spirit to work in them, and He is their life. There is no real division between the Gospel and seeking holiness because there is no real division between Christ, His offices, and His continued life in His people. There is no reason to think that those whom Christ has purchased will continue to be like the devil in the slavery of sin.
Titus 2:14 who gave Himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed, and to purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds.
Hebrews 12:10 For they disciplined us for a short time as seemed best to them, but He disciplines us for our good, so that we may share His holiness.
I Peter 1:14 As obedient children, do not be conformed to the former lusts which were yours in your ignorance, 15 but like the Holy One who called you, be holy yourselves also in all your behavior;
16 because it is written, “YOU SHALL BE HOLY, FOR I AM HOLY.”
LikeLike
D.G. Hart: Luther explains well why some of us find faith in Christ to be much more comforting than the terror that comes from pursuing righteousness as sin-bedeviled saint.
RS: But of course that is not what I am saying. I keep repeating over and over that true obedience and true holiness only comes from a heart of love. That is, after all, what Paul teaches us in I Corinthians 13:1-8. There is nothing that any human being can do that is acceptable to God apart from true love. But of course there is nothing that a human being can do that is acceptable to God in any way apart from Christ (John 15:5). So the pursuit of holiness is not apart from the love that only God can work in the heart by the Holy Spirit and apart from the Vine who alone can work true fruit in the heart and life.
D.G. Hart: (I hope you’re reading Doug and Richard.)
RS: I hope they are reading Doug and Richard too.
LikeLike
Richard, do you believe that good works of believers are defiled? If they are, then we are still under the Law’s judgment. God can only judge them as good by looking at them through the lens of Christ (hey, there’s a title for a post).
LikeLike
It seems that the disagreement is reducible to the ground of assurance, whether it is found in the objective promises of God as administered in the Word and Sacraments (Old Life), or in seeing a sufficient change in life after a purported conversion (pietists, theonomists, some transformationalists). Since there is no biblical or consistent definition of what constitutes a “sufficient” reformation for assurance, the W&S approach wins by default for me.
But my understanding of W&S/objective promises is different from Sonship/New Lifers (and the other transformationalists), some of whom preach exclusively about the difficulty of believing that God’s grace is really for you. I haven’t seen any Old Side-leaning responses to that error, although I get that there’s no sympathy there.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: Richard, do you believe that good works of believers are defiled?
RS: Let me just say that they are far from perfect.
D.G. Hart: If they are, then we are still under the Law’s judgment. God can only judge them as good by looking at them through the lens of Christ (hey, there’s a title for a post).
RS: While we are not under the eternal judgment of the Law, it is absolutely correct that God can only judge works as good by looking at them in and through Christ. God looks upon His people as being in Christ and they are the works of God created in Christ Jesus for good works which He prepared beforehand (Eph 2:10) for them to walk in them. Nevertheless, the works must be there. No, not works for merit or works to earn anything in and of themselves, but because of Christ who dwells in and works through His people.
LikeLike
Mike K.: It seems that the disagreement is reducible to the ground of assurance, whether it is found in the objective promises of God as administered in the Word and Sacraments (Old Life), or in seeing a sufficient change in life after a purported conversion (pietists, theonomists, some transformationalists). Since there is no biblical or consistent definition of what constitutes a “sufficient” reformation for assurance, the W&S approach wins by default for me.
RS: The book of I John gives us several ways to look for assurance. I would argue that those are the true objective ways that God has given us because they are the works of God in the soul. All of them have to do with the work of God in the soul rather than being just the works of man. The book of I John was written so that people could know if they had eternal life, so it does have to do with assurance. On the other hand, the Word & Sacrament approach, does say that it is objective, it still leaves the person to believe that they are true. It turns out to be subjective rather than objective.
LikeLike
So Richard, if good works are defiled, how can you tell the difference between a good work and a bad one? Do you get special glasses to look into the heart when you buy a copy of Edwards? No one can tell the difference, much less a person who is looking into his own soul. On this your whole “works must be there” project crumbles.
LikeLike
Darryl
I’m with Richard. The believer finds his righteousness in Christ and no longer listens to the accusations of Law because he is not under law. Yet the believer still strives to live righteously, not that he may be declared righteous and receive life (he already is righteous and has life in Christ) but that he may walk worthy of the calling to which he is called… that he may exhibit this life he has in Christ which is after all righteous behaviour among other things… because the new creature he is in Christ loves righteousness and hates lawlessness… because desire to live righteously is the very impulse of this new life…
Rom 6:12-19 (ESV2011)
Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, to make you obey its passions.Do not present your members to sin as instruments for unrighteousness, but present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments for righteousness.For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means!Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness?But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed,and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness.I am speaking in human terms, because of your natural limitations. For just as you once presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness leading to sanctification.
None of this righteous living is with a desire to merit mercy or salvation but has the intention of living the new life in the power of the Spirit so that we may please our Father and have his Fatherly approval (sons don’t want to disappoint their father).
We should not forget too that where righteous living is absent then we must ask questions of the faith we profess; living faith is committed to righteousness.
1John 3:7-8 (ESV2011)
Little children, let no one deceive you. Whoever practices righteousness is righteous, as he [Christ] is righteous.Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil.
None of this pleases you, I know, but it is the simple witness of Scripture which is always a safer guide than human logic; where our logic dismisses or disses Scripture, our logic and reasoning (so often mere manifestations of misplaced pride) is wrong.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: So Richard, if good works are defiled, how can you tell the difference between a good work and a bad one? Do you get special glasses to look into the heart when you buy a copy of Edwards? No one can tell the difference, much less a person who is looking into his own soul. On this your whole “works must be there” project crumbles.
RS: Following your standard as set out just above would mean your whole project crumbles, not mine. In other words, you have what you call the objective promises set out but it would depend on the the sinful faith of sinful hearts looking at Word & Sacrament. So in reality your system depends on looking at self and the sinful self means your system crumbles. I might add that it goes beyond the Bible on what it teaches about the Sacrament anyway.
But the superiority of the Edwardsean system is that it is built on the Bible. As set out in I Corinthians 13, there is nothing we do (and that would include Word & Sacrament) that can be of any benefit apart from love. The book of I John gives you the real objective way to see the work of God in the soul of man. While your system leaves it in the hands and ability of sinful men to look with faith, the biblical system tells men to see what God is doing in the heart and know that what He does is true and real.
1 Corinthians 13:1 If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.
2 If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.
3 And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I surrender my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing.
4 Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant,
5 does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered,
6 does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth;
7 bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
8 Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away.
I John 2: 3 By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments.
4 The one who says, “I have come to know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him;
5 but whoever keeps His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected.
I John 3:23 This is His commandment, that we believe in the name of His Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, just as He commanded us.
24 The one who keeps His commandments abides in Him, and He in him. We know by this that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He has given us.
I John 4:7 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God.
8 The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love.
9 By this the love of God was manifested in us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world so that we might live through Him.
10 In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.
11 Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another.
12 No one has seen God at any time; if we love one another, God abides in us, and His love is perfected in us.
13 By this we know that we abide in Him and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit.
14 We have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son to be the Savior of the world.
15 Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God.
16 We have come to know and have believed the love which God has for us. God is love, and the one who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him.
17 By this, love is perfected with us, so that we may have confidence in the day of judgment; because as He is, so also are we in this world.
LikeLike
Darryl
A few further questions. How do you know your faith is genuine? How do you know you are not an empty professor who cries ‘Lord, lord?’ but really doesn’t know the Lord or is known by him? How do you know that you are not one of those who have a mere form of godliness but deny its power (you after all seem reluctant to agree there is power in the gospel to enable believers to live righteously)?
LikeLike
John,
I’m guessing the answer is NOT “because of a burning in my bosom.” So, what? You would look to your works?
LikeLike
Richard W
You are not answering the question(s). How do you know your faith is not a dead faith? How does the Bible suggest you can know your faith is genuine and not spurious?
LikeLike
Sorry for being the lame-o out-of-touch one, but who are Doug and Richard?
LikeLike
Jim,
Say something negative about Jonathan Edwards or Theonomy and stand back.
LikeLike
John,
Cling to Christ and His righteousness. If you are committing sins that your conscience convicts you of, knock it off. If you think you are doing well, quit kidding yourself and keep looking to Christ.
LikeLike
John,
Most of the problems that arise in the church spring from those who think they are doing well, not from those who don’t think they are doing well. The Pharisees thought they were doing really well.
LikeLike
Jim Upchurch: Sorry for being the lame-o out-of-touch one, but who are Doug and Richard?
RS: Just two guys who post here. Doug is an ardent Theonomist and I (Richard, not Richard W) am a fan of the biblical theology of Jonathan Edwards. It might be more accurate to say that the God that Jonathan Edwards preached and wrote about is what captures me.
LikeLike
I think I would call myself a “soft” theonomist. Or a nice theonomist 🙂
LikeLike
Great question Jim! Don’t count on DGH giving you a satisfyilng answer. I will waitl, watch, and listen, maybe Darryl will pleasantly surprise me, in fact I praying he will.
DGH, how do you know your faith is not dead?
LikeLike
@Jim:
Richard and me are usually odd man out at Old Life. (Even though we think we’re right) We’re the loyal opposition, trying to keep our brothers sharp, as iron sharpens iron. Just one big happy family! Sometimes my rhetorical flourishes get a little heated and overbearing, but most of the time, I’m very nice. Once Richard locks in a subject he’s very thorough and has plenty of Scripture to back up his views. He’s a good brother!
Keep pressing on!
LikeLike
I meant great question John Thomson, not Jim, sorry for the confusion
DGH, how do you know you don’t have a dead faith?
I just love asking Darryl that question!
LikeLike
John T.,
So you are with Richard in affirming that if I sin I should doubt the genuineness of my faith? Of if I am not striving sufficiently I should also question my faith? What happened to our Lord’s statement that his burden is light.
LikeLike
Richard, you dodged the question and have actually gone against the Reformation and biblical teaching. Even a weak faith is a saving faith. Biblical teaching takes this into account. Just as the Bible teaches that good works are defiled. But even though our good works even deserve condemnation, our faith (though even in weak forms) saves.
But there you go again, taking away the comfort of the gospel. First I should question my faith if works don’t line up to your standards. Now I should question my faith even if its weak. Get behind me, Richard.
LikeLike
John, I know I am a believer because I trust God’s promises, because I seek to follow the Lord, because I read the Bible and it assures me of God’s salvation, because I trust God hears my prayers, because my fellow officers tell me I make a credible profession, because my wife does not call me a hypocrite — I could go on.
Do you really want me to question my faith? Why?
And if you want me to say I know I am saved because of my good works, then what do you say to someone who says that their good works are defiled and deserve condemnation?
I don’t think you have a program that is any less squishy than mine may seem to you. Then again, seeking certainty in the wrong places has long been an affliction of pietists, experimental Calvinists, and Roman Catholics.
LikeLike
Doug, I believe it was John who asked, not Jim.
I have a sense my faith is not dead because I have not banned you from Old Life. I am more patient with you than even Green Baggins and Dr. K. (no smile)
LikeLike
Doug, if you believe so adamantly in good works, why can’t you be polite?
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: Richard, you dodged the question and have actually gone against the Reformation and biblical teaching.
RS: No
D.G. Hart: Even a weak faith is a saving faith.
RS: As I have stated here as well, so yes. The question in this context is not how much faith one has, but if they have even a mustard seed of faith.
D.G. Hart: Biblical teaching takes this into account. Just as the Bible teaches that good works are defiled. But even though our good works even deserve condemnation, our faith (though even in weak forms) saves.
RS: Sure enough our best of works without Christ are as filthy rags, but that does not mean that a cup of cold water given in His name will lose its reward. Weak faith in and of itself does not save, but a strong Christ saves. Faith unites to Christ.
D.G. Hart: But there you go again, taking away the comfort of the gospel.
RS: I have not taken away the comfort of the biblical Gospel. The Gospel of Jesus Christ demonstrates a Christ that saves from the guilt of sin and the power of sin.
D.G. Hart: First I should question my faith if works don’t line up to your standards. Now I should question my faith even if its weak. Get behind me, Richard.
RS: But you are misunderstanding the point. The Gospel tells us that faith itself is a gift of God and so if a person has true faith then a person has the true Christ. So again, that is not unbiblical at all but is what the Bible teaches. The Bible itself tells us that faith works by love and that faith without works is dead. We cannot know if we have faith by looking for faith by itself, but we look for true faith by looking for Christ and His work of love in the soul which will manfiest itself in works as well.
LikeLike
D.G. Hart: Get behind me, Richard.
RS: For what it is worth, I don’t know that John or others are really questioning your personal faith but are asking this in a theoretical way. To ask their questions differently, how does person A know if s/he has faith? I would be happy to get behind you, Dr. Hart, because the first will be last and the last first.
LikeLike
Richard, we have hit the nub of the issue. You say weak faith does not save. If you mean that faith period does not save, only God does, fine. But that means also that strong faith does not save.
But as far as receiving Christ’s righteousness in justification, a weak faith saves. You apparently deny this. You do so and scare people who know that their faith (or works) are not as strong as they might like them to be. Hence, some call you a perfectionist.
Have you not heard the phrase, Lord I believe, help my unbelief. Is Mark 9:24 not in Richard’s (Jefferson) Bible?
LikeLike
Richard, I answered John’s question personally but I believe it is counsel I would give to other believers. I would not send them to you. Sorry.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: Richard, we have hit the nub of the issue. You say weak faith does not save. If you mean that faith period does not save, only God does, fine. But that means also that strong faith does not save.
RS: Absolutely correct. Faith, whether weak or strong, does not save. Justification by faith alone was to protect and exalt justification by grace alone which was meant to exalt the free and sovereign grace of God. So it is justification BY grace alone THOUGH faith alone. It is by faith in order that it may be by grace (Rom 4:16).
D.G. Hart: But as far as receiving Christ’s righteousness in justification, a weak faith saves. You apparently deny this.
RS: No, and in fact I have repeatedly asserted that the faith as a mustard seed is what one must have. In fact, in two posts I posted just prior to this one. Here is the part of my post that is to this point;
OLd Post of D.G. Hart from a few posts prior to this one: Even a weak faith is a saving faith.
Old Response of RS to Dr. Hart just a few posts prior to this one: : As I have stated here as well, so yes. The question in this context is not how much faith one has, but if they have even a mustard seed of faith.
D.G. Hart: You do so and scare people who know that their faith (or works) are not as strong as they might like them to be. Hence, some call you a perfectionist.
RS: The question is whether one has Christ or not and whether they have true faith versus false faith and whether they have works that come from love rather than works from self. I have denied over and over and over and over again that I am anything close to a percectionist (in theology). Let me do so again. Christ makes people perfect in Himself and in their legal position before God. But in terms of the way people live, I doubt that the best of us have (whatever that may mean) have any one work that is less than 90% sinful in and of itself.
D.G. Hart: Have you not heard the phrase, Lord I believe, help my unbelief. Is Mark 9:24 not in Richard’s (Jefferson) Bible?
RS: Oh absolutely it is in my Bible. That is the cry of the helpless believer who hates his own sin and the unbelief that is in him. But that is not contrary to what I have saying. Why would a person that didn’t want a more pure faith and heart (more of Christ) pray that prayer?
LikeLike
Doug, if you believe so adamantly in good works, why can’t you be polite?
Isnt that hitting me with a broad brush? When was I impolite? And if your going to accuse me of being rude in public, come up with something specific. Is it polite to smear me in front of the world without laying a charge? Hey Darryl, practice what you preach!
BTW, I”ve never said I believe in good works, I said, we are created for good works that God predestined for us to walk in, BECAUSE it’s in the Bible.
LikeLike
Another great quote from Luther to add to Darryl’s:
“Even grammarians and schoolboys on street corners know that nothing more is signified by verbs in the imperative mood than what ought to be done, and that what is done or can be done should be expressed by words in the indicative. How is it that you theologians are twice as stupid as schoolboys, in that as soon as you get hold of a single imperative verb you infer an indicative meaning, as though the moment a thing is commanded it is done, or can be done? But there’s many a slip ‘twixt the cup and the lip! – and things that you commanded and that were possible enough may yet not be done, so great a gulf is there between imperative and indicative statements in the simplest everyday matters!” – Martin Luther, On the Bondage of the Will, pg 159
Richard, Doug’s and John T’s constant quoting of the the imperatives in the Scriptures does not mean that the Christian is doing them or can do them like Christ did. They are meant to show us how short we fall and so turn to Christ constantly. I think Richard, Doug and John T. believe they are actually doing all the imperatives in the New Testament, or, doing it better than those who are arguing against them are. They are putting in more effort than the lesser sorts and have moved up to the higher calling God has called them to.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: Richard, I answered John’s question personally but I believe it is counsel I would give to other believers. I would not send them to you. Sorry
RS: So you do judge the hearts of other people while condemning others that you think are doing so. Interesting.
LikeLike
Here is another quote that supports those who are muddling around and bogged down in the lower calling, or, at least allows them some hope that God is looking upon them through the “lens of Christ”:
“Both the defenders and deniers of justification by faith alone need to learn the lessons about faith that Scripture teaches. One of them is this: The strength or kind of faith required is nowhere stated in Scripture. The Holy Spirit has said nothing as to the quantity or quality on which so many dwell and over which they stumble, remaining all their days in darkness and uncertainty. It is simply in believing- feeble as our faith may be- that we are invested with this righteousness of Christ. For faith is not work, nor merit, nor effort but the cessation from all these and the acceptance in place of them of what another has done- done completely and forever. The simplest, feeblest faith suffices: It is not the excellence of our act of faith that does anything for us, but the excellence of Him who suffered for sin- the just for the unjust- that He might bring us to God….Many a feeble hand-perhaps many a palsied one- was laid on the head of the burnt offering (Lev. 1:4), but the feebleness of that palsied touch did not alter the character of the sacrifice or make it less available in all its fullness for him who brought it….. The weakest touch sufficed to establish the connection between it and him.” This quote is from Horatius Bonar’s book THE EVERLASTING RIGHTEOUSNESS.
Now tell me this- who are the proud one’s that hang around oldlife?
Jeremiah 9:23-24 Thus says the Lord: “Let not the wise man boast in his wisdom, let not the mighty man boast in his might, let not the rich man boast in his riches, but let him who boasts boast in this, that he understands and knows me, that I am the Lord.”
LikeLike
John Yeazel: Another great quote from Luther to add to Darryl’s:
“Even grammarians and schoolboys on street corners know that nothing more is signified by verbs in the imperative mood than what ought to be done, and that what is done or can be done should be expressed by words in the indicative. How is it that you theologians are twice as stupid as schoolboys, in that as soon as you get hold of a single imperative verb you infer an indicative meaning, as though the moment a thing is commanded it is done, or can be done? But there’s many a slip ‘twixt the cup and the lip! – and things that you commanded and that were possible enough may yet not be done, so great a gulf is there between imperative and indicative statements in the simplest everyday matters!” – Martin Luther, On the Bondage of the Will, pg 159
Richard, Doug’s and John T’s constant quoting of the the imperatives in the Scriptures does not mean that the Christian is doing them or can do them like Christ did. They are meant to show us how short we fall and so turn to Christ constantly. I think Richard, Doug and John T. believe they are actually doing all the imperatives in the New Testament, or, doing it better than those who are arguing against them are. They are putting in more effort than the lesser sorts and have moved up to the higher calling God has called them to.
RS: John, you have joined the mass on here who misinterpret what I (I think we) am saying. I am arguing that we cannot bring the Law down from its original standard because it is only when the Law is held high can it do what it was supposed to do and that is to show men their sin. I am not arguing what Luther said above but instead have been arguing what Luther says above. You could go on to page 162 and get at the issue directly: “But the work of Moses the lawgiver is the opposite of this–namely, though the law to lay open to man his own wretchedness, so that, by thus breaking him down, and confounding him in his self-knowledge, he may make him ready for grace, and send him to Christ to be saved. Therefore, the function performed by the law is nothing to laugh at, but is most emphatically serious and necessary.”
John, that is what I have been arguing for so long. The problem, however, is that you and others think that because I am arguing for the perfect standard of the Law that automatically means that I must think I can keep it. No, I am arguing that the standard of the Law is perfection and that I cannot keep it. But back to your post. The issue that Luther was writing against was Erasmus and his insistence that God commands people to do what they can do. Erasmus thought that the law shows that people have freedom of choice. Luther was arguing that we don’t have the ability to keep them. Again, I have neve argued that we can keep the Law perfectly or even close to it. However, I have argued that with Christ in our heart we must love the Law and strive toward keeping it out of love for Christ and the Law. If we love Christ, we will keep His commandments. But that does not mean perfectly, but it does mean we want to keep them and take steps to flee from sin in order that we may take steps toward keeping them.
LikeLike
DGH, as you probably already know, I am not a fan of Escondido’s 2K, but I never try to be rude, and if I step over the line, I am more than willing to ask forgiveness and have done so.
But for you to characterize me as impolite is beyond the pale. Do you realize that there are people who have never heard of me, who now think of me as impolite? Two wrongs don’t make a right, Darryl. Can’t people disagree with you, without being called impolite in front of the world? Some people would call a snarky man, impolite.
LikeLike
Doug,
Go a week without a flare-up and we can talk about you not being impolite. You have some Jekyll & Hyde characteristics.
LikeLike
We’ve all known (or been) people who are self-controlled — until they’re not. That’s when it gets ugly. The 2% of time when self-control is lacking casts a shadow on the 98%.
LikeLike
Erik, look up the word *snarky* and read that definition! Doesnt Darryl refrer to himself as snarky? When we get a diet of snark directed at us, the most natural thing in the worlld is to dish it right back.
LikeLike
John Yeazel: Here is another quote that supports those who are muddling around and bogged down in the lower calling, or, at least allows them some hope that God is looking upon them through the “lens of Christ”:
“Both the defenders and deniers of justification by faith alone need to learn the lessons about faith that Scripture teaches. One of them is this: The strength or kind of faith required is nowhere stated in Scripture. The Holy Spirit has said nothing as to the quantity or quality on which so many dwell and over which they stumble, remaining all their days in darkness and uncertainty. It is simply in believing- feeble as our faith may be- that we are invested with this righteousness of Christ. For faith is not work, nor merit, nor effort but the cessation from all these and the acceptance in place of them of what another has done- done completely and forever. The simplest, feeblest faith suffices: It is not the excellence of our act of faith that does anything for us, but the excellence of Him who suffered for sin- the just for the unjust- that He might bring us to God….Many a feeble hand-perhaps many a palsied one- was laid on the head of the burnt offering (Lev. 1:4), but the feebleness of that palsied touch did not alter the character of the sacrifice or make it less available in all its fullness for him who brought it….. The weakest touch sufficed to establish the connection between it and him.” This quote is from Horatius Bonar’s book THE EVERLASTING RIGHTEOUSNESS.
Now tell me this- who are the proud one’s that hang around oldlife?
RS: But who has denied this? At least I have asserted that faith as a mustard seed can be a real faith. But the issue is not faith in and of itself, it is on Christ and the power of Christ. Keep firing away, but so far you have not hit me.
LikeLike
@John Yeazel:
I never said we can walk without sin, my point is that God ‘s law is our standard of righteouness. Listen to a man after God’s own heart:
Psalm 119:34
“Give me understanding, that I may keep our law and observe it with my whole heart.”
Notice King David approached the law with a humble heart acknowledging that it’s God’s grace that allows him to walk upright.
Vs32 “I will run in the wayof your commandments when you enlarge my heart”.
Notice that David knows he will only run “when God inlarges his heart” it’s all grace!
LikeLike
Richard,
But you are always pushing and exhorting using the imperatives. And then implying that unless someone is showing and exerting effort in obeying the commandments then they are not Christ’s. That word commandments is a poor translation of the Greek word Logos. Christ is telling his disciples that if you love me, keep my Logos. A better translation is, if you love me keep my doctrine, keep what I have told about who I am and what I have revealed to you about God the Father. Logos had a very broad and rich meaning in the New Testament. Look it up in your Greek dictionary. Commandments is a very bad translation and a lot of your argument is base on that verse. Is Christ telling his disciples to obey all the imperatives of the Law in that verse? I think not. And that is not good news.
LikeLike
Darryl
You include in your assurance that your faith is real ‘because I seek to follow the Lord,’ . In many ways that is all I wish to hear. You are agreeing that ‘works’ are a sign of genuine faith. Erik says the same, albeit in a watered down way, when he speaks of not going against conscience.
To people already assured they are believers but having this faith shaken by false teachers John ‘tops up’ their assurance by pointing to their obedience to Christ’s commands, love for God’s people, and loyalty to apostolic truth as signs their faith is real. He also adds the assurance of the indwelling Spirit. This seems to be the sense of ‘abba’ the Spirit creates in the hearts of God’s people. Allied to this is the sense of God’s love shed abroad in the heart. In this sense, knowing’ we are God’s child does include what Richard W dismisses as ‘“because of a burning in my bosom.”.
I absolutely affirm justification by faith but with James (and indeed Paul) I also affirm a form of justification through works (works here being not law-works, that is works intended to merit salvation).
Is there not the danger that in a bid to preserve one aspect of truth we end up denying another? Is there not the danger of overstating a truth to the point it becomes a deformity of that truth?
The great blessing of justification is ‘life’ (we are ‘justified unto life’). Life by definition is experience. Let’s rejoice in it.
LikeLike
John Yeazel says: Is Christ telling his disciples to obey all the imperatives of the Law in that verse? I think not.
John, I think so! God’s law is a perfect reflection of the character of God. Can we walk in all of God’s law perfectly without sin? No, but we can walk blamelessly before him, in fact we are commanded to walk in faith and keep all of his commandments. We need to see God’s law through eyes of faith, like King David did; these are verses taken from Psalms 119
“Blessed are those way is blameless, who walk in the law of the LORD!”
Me: David was no legalist! He was called a man after God’s own heart; BY GOD!
“Open my eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of your law.”
Me: Notice David realizes that he needs constant grace to even see the law aright.
“O how I love your law, it’s my meditation all through the day”.
Me: This should be just as true for us today, as it was for King David!
“Let your mercy come to me, that I may live; for your law is my delight.”
Me: This verse says it all!!! Notice how David cries out for mercy so he can live, as he delights in the law? This is what I have been arguing for!
LikeLike
Amen John Thomson! So well put! I liked DGH’s response that he seeks to follow the Lord, in many ways, that’s all I wanted to hear as well.
God bless you, and keep pressing on!
LikeLike
John,
“I also affirm a form of justification through works”
Have you read the OPC Report on Justification?
Click to access justification.pdf
What if you look at your works and conclude you are justified and I look at them and conclude you are not? Who is right?
LikeLike
@John Yeazel:
Consider Psalms 119:77
“Let your mercy come to me, that I may live; for your law is my delight.”
Will you affirm with King Daivd that the law, is your delight? When we walk in God’s law in faith, that is life! That doesnt make us legalists. We should delight in God’s law, becasue persued the right way (by faith) its life to us.
LikeLike
If we took a poll here is it not ironic that the people who are the most enthused about being judged for their works are the ones who people would probably agree are the biggest d-bags?
LikeLike
Come on Erik! D-bags? How does that advance the disscusion? Who is enthused about being judged for their works? I know that’s not me, and I don’t hear Richard saying he wants to be judged in the basis of his works. We are both saying the Bible says God created us *for* good works done *in Christ Jesus* that he prepared for us in advance.
Big difference brother! Be nice!
LikeLike
Erik, I think you missed John Thomsons point, when asked why he believes he doenst have a dead faith, DGH said, “I seek after the Lord”. That Erik my man, is an action, also called a good work, it’s also obedience, since we are commanded to seek after him, it’s also called walking by faith, so the only way us believers can have assurance, is to continue to walk by faith, “as in seek the Lord”. You see? Good works are nessasary for any child of God, if he wants to experience the joy of the Lord, and walk in the blessings of God. To deny this, is to open a can of un-biblical worms
LikeLike
@John Yeazel:
Quick question; do you believe that faith and obedience are synonyms?
LikeLike
Doug Sowers: Come on Erik! D-bags? How does that advance the disscusion? Who is enthused about being judged for their works? I know that’s not me, and I don’t hear Richard saying he wants to be judged in the basis of his works. We are both saying the Bible says God created us *for* good works done *in Christ Jesus* that he prepared for us in advance.
RS: Doug, I think Eric forgot that he recently admonished you for being impolite. However, believers are D-bags in a sense. We have the divine glory dwelling in earthen vessels. So we are Divine bags. Surely that is what Erik meant. If not, then he has made some more of his awful deductions and took them as factual. Amen to the we were created for good works rather than we are judged for salvation by them.
LikeLike
If some of you understood RC soteriology, your eagerness to buttress sola fide with good works, evidentiary or otherwise, would be greatly dampened. The big revelation in the NT is NOT that we are saved unto good works but that Jesus has come and fulfilled the demands of the law and exhausted the curse for our failures in His body on a tree, whether considered in Adam or our own individual trespasses. The very existence of imperatives relies at every point on the reality of the indicatives in Christ(and I’m not talking existential union that would eclipse the forensic for the ontological-more RC soteriology). The insistence to keep reading and taking spiritual temperatures in reverse of this order is remarkable, IMO, for a protestantism that’s supposed to be grounded in the reformation.
LikeLike
John T,
I absolutely affirm justification by faith but with James (and indeed Paul) I also affirm a form of justification through works (works here being not law-works, that is works intended to merit salvation).
Certainly you are entitled to affirm this, but this is not how the Reformed have historically construed the relationship between faith and works. It’s hard to tell where you are really at on the matter from a few short blog replys, but the failure to distinguish properly on this matter was the material cause of the Reformation. So, for clarification’s sake, how would you construe “justification through works” in a way that meaningfully preserves Sola Fide?
LikeLike
RS: Doug, I think Eric forgot that he recently admonished you for being impolite.
Yea Richard, but in fairness to Erik, it was Sean who admonished me for calling DGH (sloppy) when I caught him misquoting Brother Don Frank. (Unintentionally as far as I know) Is calling someone *sloppy* impolite? Especially when DGH was using that very error to buttress his point.
DGH then lost his head and called me impolite in front of the blogosphere *sowering* my good name for everyone in the cyber universe, proving the old adage about getting the beam out of your eye, before you look for splinters in others.
I guess disagreeing with Escondido’s brand of 2K can get one branded as impolite or in your case, a bloody legalist. I don’t think either charge is true! Not that I track with everything your saying, (more like 95%) but overall, you’re sincere, and you rely on God’s word for your presuppositions. And you’re willing to go God’s Word and show us why you believe what you believe, Praise God for your Berean spirit! I have already learned a thing or two since I’ve read your posts.
Sure my words have bite sometimes, and yes, it’s mostly intentional even though I have stepped over the line, but we’re talking about issues that strike to our core of our being, so over all, I think we do every well!
Carry on men!
LikeLike
@Jed: How about were saved by grace alone, through faith alone, but that faith is NEVER alone, but must produce good works.
You can’t be justified if your not sanctfied, it’s like trying to fly a plane with one wing. Why is this contraversial?
I have a question for you Jed, do you believe that faith and obedience are synonyms? Can you have one without the other?
LikeLike
John Y.,
FYI, in John 14:15 (“If you love me, you will keep my commandments) “commandments” is entolas not logos.
Just your friendly neighborhood Greek-police.
🙂
LikeLike
Erik
This is not intended as a trite or slick answer (for I am trying by God’s grace to avoid argument for the sake of argument) but is one that must be faced – have you read James 2?
To James 2 can be added many other Scriptures that point to the need for a godly life in God’s people. Even Galatians, the charter of justification by faith, has these words:
Gal 5:19-21 (ESV2011)
Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality,idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions,envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
This text is the Galatians equivalent of James 2.
LikeLike
Having followed these debates for some weeks, I’d have to agree with Mike. The difference here seems to rest on the nature of assurance and the degree to which one can rely on the objective fact of his participation in the church’s administration or word and sacrament. Further, it strikes me that that difference ultimately on two disparate conceptions of the church.
There has been some tension along these lines ever since the Reformation. In the main, the first couple of generations of the Reformers favored the objective approach that is generally advocated by the Old Life crowd. It is the view that is most consistent with orthodox Christian conceptions of the church and its authority. This authority didn’t need to be recited expressly in Scripture because it was implied. After all, this is the same authority exercised by the church determining the content of the Biblical canon.
In general I would summarize this view as follows: The objective fact of one’s participation in the church’s administration of word and sacrament creates a heavy presumtion that one is indeed among God’s eternal elect. That presumption, of course, can be rebutted in rare cases where one persistently conducts his life in a manner that shows no outward signs of regeration, and where he is unwilling to acknowledge his sins and his need for repentance. I suspect that most Old Lifers (with the Reformers) would argue that this is the nature of the self-examination that is encouraged by certain passages in Scripture. The primary basis for our assurance, however, is in the objective fact of our participation in the church’s administration of word and sacrament. While self-examination plays a role, it is secondary and the nature of the examination is pretty coarse-grained.
By in large, experimental Calvinists adopted a low view of church authority. As a result, the above formula was modified to take out the rebuttable presumption. The result is more akin to a “totality of the circumstances” analysis, where every aspect of one’s life examined and weighed out in fine-grained detail to determine whether one is justified in believing one to be among God’s elect. Of course, this exercise is fraught with perils? What if I gave too little to one factor, and too much to another? Woe is me! So, Edwards comes to the rescue, telling us that we can be saved from this uncertainty if we examine our emotional states. Thus, in the Edwards scheme, one looks to the emotions to find akin to a rebuttable presumption that I am indeed one of the elect. Scholar Paul Helm noted that Edwards’s theology is about “the importance of emotion, expressed in a public, visible way, being the measure of true religion.” Edwards probably does not go as far to suggest that such emotions create a rebuttable presumption of election; he just taught that it is a factor to be given more weight than others. One can probably argue that Finney is the one who took Edwards’s focus on emotional states to the next level, and proffered them as a functional replacement for word and sacrament.
It seems that the key difference between Old Lifers and the Edwards/Finney crowd turns on one’s view of the church and the nature of its authority. The former have a robust ecclesiology and trust that God does his most powerful work through our workaday objective participation in the church’s administration of word and sacrament. The latter reject this notion. It strikes me that this gulf is far wider than the gulf that separated Van Til and Barth. Therefore, it would not surprise me if those with Old Life sympathies don’t realign with orthodox mainliners, and let the biblicists, pietists, and revivalists go their way. That’s what I did. I’m now a member in an ECO-affiliated former PCUSA church.
LikeLike
Bobby – “the first couple of generations of the Reformers favored the objective approach that is generally advocated by the Old Life crowd.”
Erik- And it’s no coincidence that these are the fellas I would much rather go have a beer with.
Nice synopsis. My only critique is that if you are in the PCUSA you are having to hold your nose over a lot more than a few Edwardsians. Report to the nearest OPC or URC immediately.
LikeLike
Bobby,
Oops. I missed the “former” before PCUSA. I had never heard of the ECO.
http://www.pcusa.org/news/2012/1/26/evangelical-covenant-order-unveils-polity/
LikeLike
John,
Pointing to a stray passage of Scripture does not persuade me of much. You need a confessional framework by which to think on these issues that incorporates all of Scripture. The Three Forms and the Westminster are sufficient for me and the thinking therein is reflected in the OPC Report on Justification. You are not peddling anything new.
LikeLike
John,
On your blogroll you point to both Credenda & Modern Reformation. What hath Wilson to do with Horton?
LikeLike
Bobby,
Great summary. And the reason why us Old Lifers show disdain for the pietist/hyper-Calvinist wing is how it does break the bruised reed with its judgmental and sectarian ecclesiology. It damages real churches and individuals, as I have witnessed throughout my ministry. Though I did read an interesting quote from Edwards the other day: “…the eminently humble Christian, has so much to do at home, and sees so much evil in his own heart, and is so concerned about it, that he is not apt to be very busy with other hearts…”
LikeLike
Jed
That is a good question. The first thing I would say is we must allow both to breathe – that is we must not allow one to negate or swamp the other. The second point I would make is that pastoral need dictates the emphasis. Galatians stress justification by faith in a context where Law-works (and the law was in principle about self-righteousness, or self achieved life… this do and live) were being added to Christ as the basis of salvation. James, on the other hand, was in a pastoral context of careless Christian living where the mere claim to faith without any sign of it being active and transforming (nor any felt-need for it to so be) needed to be nipped in the bud. And so faith must be exhibited in concrete terms of obedience.
Thirdly, if pressed to express the faith/works tension in a systematic way, I would present it as Christ in his death and resurrection is the basis of justification, faith is the instrument of justification, and works are the evidence of justification. I do not say this is perfect and indeed I do not think there is an ‘ideal’ or totally satisfactory way of expressing it in a systematic form. The truth to my mind is best preserved by holding the tension as it is. Justification is through faith in Christ and his finished work alone:justifying faith will always evidence itself in gospel works and these works will be weighed on the day of judgement.
Thus my faith is a ‘whole-souled’ commitment to Christ who alone is my righteousness before God but I take care to…discipline my body and keep it under control, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified.
Jed, as Darryl knows, I am sympathetic to a great deal of Reformed thinking, but at best reformed with a small ‘r’. I suppose if you wish to label me the position I am nearest to is a form of new covenant theology. But I hate labels. They are generally caricatures that divide. They encourage lionising or demonizing. If they must be used it should be only to give a general clue not to pigeon-hole.
More specifically (in terms of the normal concerns of the blog) I largely subscribe to a 2K perspective as more classically understood. I think Darryl makes many good points on this topic but sometimes goes too far. The problem is he tends to absolutize/hermetically compartmentalize more than I feel comfortable with doing. He appears to wish/need to take arguments to ‘logical’ conclusions that may be more logical than Scripture (though he is not the only one to do this). Certainly that is my feeling. I suspect the differences between a soft 2ker and a soft neo-calvinist may be slim and not worth the fight.
I find I am at odds with Darryl on the Christian experience/living issues. I wish very much to stress the glorious changes the new life brings and the joy of experiencing communion with Christ and the Father. I wish to urge upon God’s people the exercise of ‘knowing Christ, the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of his sufferings becoming like him in his death’. This, to me, is the very stuff of Christian living. I understand the danger of a merit-based agenda though I have not personally nor in my Christian community found this to be a great problem. I sometimes think it is a problem in Reformed circles because (in my view) many Reformed folks never quite get free from Law. Unlike probably all on this post I believe that the Christian is not under Law (that is the old covenant) in any sense. Law is neither the basis of his justification nor the rule of his sanctification, rather Christ is both.
Hope these few comments help you to get a handle on where I am coming from. I drop in only from time to time and comment only occasionally so I don’t manage to keep up to speed but can enjoy the iron sharpening iron while often feeling frustrated when it is clear that point scoring rather than genuine seeking to learn becomes the patent agenda (I am as guilty of this as the next).
A good new year. May we learn to listen and be willing to learn.
LikeLike
You can’t be justified if your not sanctfied [sic], it’s like trying to fly a plane with one wing. Why is this contraversial [sic]?
Doug, because you are using conditional language instead of the language of inevitability. By doing the former, you make it sound like justification depends on sanctification when in fact sanctification necessarily flows from justification. You affirm language like that found in the OPC report which says there is no such thing as a justified person who is not also being sanctified. But then you also insist on this dubious language. Then you get sentimentalist on us tell us to drop it and move on, I guess because there are bigger spiritual fish to fry and whip into experimental frenzy. Then you bring it back up again. You’re like the woman who gives the simultaneous “come hither, get away” gesture. What do you want?
LikeLike
Erik
These are hardly stray Scriptures. Scriptures could be multiplied that urge the experiential holiness without which no man can see God.
I don’t claim that I teach anything new. Indeed, I take comfort in the fact I don’t. I don’t think it is helpful to cite confessions since there are so many and none has any final authority. By all means let us hear them and learn from them but they are human and flawed documents that do not carry the authority of Scripture. My conscience is bound only to Scripture. I wish to hear what Scripture says. I wish to hear what you make of Scripture not what a confession says. When the confession becomes the authority (or refuge) I generally suspect the point made from Scripture has been tacitly conceded as unanswerable. My intention is not to dismiss confessions but to honour them by giving them their proper place – secondary documents that provide mature reflections on Scripture to take into account in Bible study but never conscience-binding.
LikeLike
Bobby, bingo on the ecclesiastical hinge.
LikeLike
I don’t want to be too hard on John since I don’t know him, but I want to make an observation. Have you ever noticed how those who are critical of Old Lifers generally seem to take kind of a cafeteria approach to their Christianity? Look at their blogs or even their self-descriptions (Terry yesterday). In essence they have kind of made themselves pope of their own little mix-and-match theology.
Old Lifers, on the other hand, tend to be pastors, deacons, and elders in actual Reformed churches with actual Confessions. Hmmmmm……..
LikeLike
John – “I don’t think it is helpful to cite confessions since there are so many and none has any final authority. By all means let us hear them and learn from them but they are human and flawed documents that do not carry the authority of Scripture. My conscience is bound only to Scripture.”
Erik – This you have earned the title Pope John.
Since there are lots of churches and since none of them has any final authority why join a church?
LikeLike
Erik
I don’t want to get into the confessional/non-confessional debate particularly for it is not the material point in this post (though it may well be the formal one). My response ultimately would be, yes, I am pope John. And indeed I must be, just as you must be pope Erik. In the final analysis, we must each decide what Scripture is teaching and answer to God for what we find there. What we are are taught by others (confessions or whoever) we must do as the Bereans did and search the Scriptures to see if these things are so – that is the noble/honourable thing to do.
We will not be able to say to God on the day of judgement ‘I just believed what the confession said’. This carries no more weight than Nazi guards at Nuremberg claiming they were just obeying orders. What if the Pharisees had said they were simply following the traditions of their fathers?
Those who teach the word (pastors, elders in a local church, and I have experience of being both, though without the qualifier ‘Reformed’ on the noun church) must be conversant with it and make it their authority. They are called to ‘preach the Word’ (not the confession)… ‘to rightly divide the Word of truth’… to hold fast to the faith once and for all delivered to the saints etc.
However, confessions aside, if we both hold to the authority of Scripture we have a basis for progress.
LikeLike
John,
Thanks for the response. I can understand your uneasiness with labels, but knowing your affinities with new covenant theology (NCT) helps me place some of your comments in proper context. I think there is much to commend amongst NCT theologians, and before I became convinced of the historic Reformed position, I would have landed in a similar camp. As to the strengths of NCT theologians, they tend to do a solid job of exegesis, especially with respect to how they deal with the near context of the passages/books they are working in. But, I do think they lack somewhat in their overall biblical theology, and how they tie in the relation between the OT & NT, and their respective covenants. The other issue that I feel they seriously lack in is defending their exegetical findings in terms of the broader historical theology of the church. There is a tendency amongst NCT’s to not interact much with theologians prior to the 18th century where the antecedents to modern evangelicalism emerge – so they tend to overlook insights from the Reformation, and even Medieval and Patristic theologians, or to defend why their innovations are an improvement upon their predecessors. One of the better critiques of NCT, that was actually fairly influential for me in my transition to Covenant theology was by Reformed Baptist, Dr. Greg Welty Eschatological Fulfillment and the Conformation of Mosaic Law.
As to the rest of your comment, I’d like to respond, but won’t be able to get to that until later in the day.
LikeLike
John,
Confessions can (and have) been changed if they are found to not be faithful to Scripture. When people set up churches without them there is a lot of wheel reinvention that takes place because the Bible, as they say, is a big book. Show me churches with the Marks identified in Belgic 29 with hundreds of years of history behind them and I might be swayed.
LikeLike
John,
Do you believe that the Ten Commandments have been cancelled?
LikeLike
Richard, who said anything about your heart. It’s your mind to which I object.
LikeLike
Doug, how many times have moderators of blogs told you to refrain from abusive language? And yet you want to tell me I’m defective?
LikeLike
Bobby: In general I would summarize this view as follows: The objective fact of one’s participation in the church’s administration of word and sacrament creates a heavy presumtion that one is indeed among God’s eternal elect.
RS: Can you find that position taught in Scripture? The Pharisees had the word and the sacraments administered as well, not to mention all the other things that they did. They also thought that they had a heavy presumption that they were elect.
Bobby: That presumption, of course, can be rebutted in rare cases where one persistently conducts his life in a manner that shows no outward signs of regeration, and where he is unwilling to acknowledge his sins and his need for repentance.
RS: But since regeneration is of the inward man, shouldn’t we also have some inward signs of regeneration as well? After all, the Bible does give those as well.
Bobby: I suspect that most Old Lifers (with the Reformers) would argue that this is the nature of the self-examination that is encouraged by certain passages in Scripture. The primary basis for our assurance, however, is in the objective fact of our participation in the church’s administration of word and sacrament.
RS: But again, do you have one example or command in Scripture that sets that out? I hope this does not sound overly mean, but it does sound rather close to Roman Catholicism.
Bobby: While self-examination plays a role, it is secondary and the nature of the examination is pretty coarse-grained.
RS: But notice that self-examination is in the Bible along with inward results and evidences of regeneration while there is not one example or command of Scripture that we are to find assurance in the things you are setting out.
LikeLike
DGH I do want to sincerely thank you for allowing me to voice my opposition to your brand of 2K at Old Life. I do consider you my brother in Christ even though I strongly disagree with your notion of divorcing special revelation from the magistrates consideration, I must give you props for letting me vent. I assure you that I’m not just looking for a fight just for the heck of it; I really think 2K is the wrong way. But the questions you’re asking are necessary for the greater body of Christ. I even agree with a lot of what you have to say! You have caused me to examine my beliefs to see if they are sound. I am even willing to be proved wrong, if it can be shown in Scripture. So even if you wind up being proved false in some of your major points of 2K, (as I suspect you will) you are still doing a great service for the Church. I will try to let the world know, that you and I are brothers in Christ first, having a disagreement second, okay? God bless you and keep pressing on!
LikeLike
Bobby: By in large, experimental Calvinists adopted a low view of church authority.
RS: But perhaps a more biblical one.
Bobby: As a result, the above formula was modified to take out the rebuttable presumption. The result is more akin to a “totality of the circumstances” analysis, where every aspect of one’s life examined and weighed out in fine-grained detail to determine whether one is justified in believing one to be among God’s elect.
RS: Which is not an accurate description, but they would ask more than if you go to church and take the sacrament.
Bobby: Of course, this exercise is fraught with perils? What if I gave too little to one factor, and too much to another? Woe is me! So, Edwards comes to the rescue, telling us that we can be saved from this uncertainty if we examine our emotional states.
RS: That is a very inaccurate way to state the issue.
Bobby: Thus, in the Edwards scheme, one looks to the emotions to find akin to a rebuttable presumption that I am indeed one of the elect. Scholar Paul Helm noted that Edwards’s theology is about “the importance of emotion, expressed in a public, visible way, being the measure of true religion.”
RS: Which, once again, is not the heart of what Edwards taught. I might add that the use of the word “emotions” in the modern context is highly misleading as to the teaching of Jonathan Edwards. It is also highly misleading word to try to plug into the biblical teaching.
Bobby: Edwards probably does not go as far to suggest that such emotions create a rebuttable presumption of election; he just taught that it is a factor to be given more weight than others.
RS: Are you so sure about that?
Bobby: One can probably argue that Finney is the one who took Edwards’s focus on emotional states to the next level, and proffered them as a functional replacement for word and sacrament.
RS: Perhaps one can argue that Finney did something, but Edwards did not focus on the emotional states. He also did not replace word and sacrament with them.
LikeLike
Old D. G. Hart Post: Richard, I answered John’s question personally but I believe it is counsel I would give to other believers. I would not send them to you. Sorry.
Newer D.G. Hart Post: Richard, who said anything about your heart. It’s your mind to which I object.
RS: P. 1 You answered John’s questions and it was counself you give to other believers.
P. 2 You would not send them to Richard (me)
Conclusion. Richard is not a believer.
Therefore, it appears that you have made a judgment about my heart.
LikeLike
John Yeazel: Richard, But you are always pushing and exhorting using the imperatives.
RS: “Always” is a bit strong.
John Yeazel: And then implying that unless someone is showing and exerting effort in obeying the commandments then they are not Christ’s.
RS: Have I ever said or implied that others are unbelievers?
John Yeazel: That word commandments is a poor translation of the Greek word Logos. Christ is telling his disciples that if you love me, keep my Logos. A better translation is, if you love me keep my doctrine, keep what I have told about who I am and what I have revealed to you about God the Father. Logos had a very broad and rich meaning in the New Testament. Look it up in your Greek dictionary. Commandments is a very bad translation and a lot of your argument is base on that verse. Is Christ telling his disciples to obey all the imperatives of the Law in that verse? I think not. And that is not good news.
RS: quoting Stuart: “John Y., FYI, in John 14:15 (“If you love me, you will keep my commandments) “commandments” is entolas not logos. Just your friendly neighborhood Greek-police.”
RS: John, not only is John 14:15 a place where entolas is used, but below are some other places as well.
John 14:15 “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.
John 14:21 “He who has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me; and he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and will disclose Myself to him.”
John 15:10 “If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love; just as I have kept My Father’s commandments and abide in His love.
1 John 5:2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and observe His commandments. 3 For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not burdensome.
2 John 1:6 And this is love, that we walk according to His commandments. This is the commandment, just as you have heard from the beginning, that you should walk in it.
LikeLike
An Unnamed Postor: Show me churches with the Marks identified in Belgic 29 with hundreds of years of history behind them and I might be swayed.
RS: Hundreds of millions of people thing that Roman Catholicism has that history and even more than just hundreds of years. But as the Belgic says elsewhere:
Article 5: The Authority of Scripture
We receive all these books and these only as holy and canonical, for the regulating, founding, and establishing of our faith.
And we believe without a doubt all things contained in them– not so much because the church receives and approves them as such but above all because the Holy Spirit testifies in our hearts that they are from God, and also because they prove themselves to be from God.
Article 7: The Sufficiency of Scripture
Therefore we must not consider human writings– no matter how holy their authors may have been– equal to the divine writings; nor may we put custom, nor the majority, nor age, nor the passage of time or persons, nor councils, decrees, or official decisions above the truth of God, for truth is above everything else.
LikeLike
Erik
‘Do you believe that the Ten Commandments have been cancelled?’
I cannot do justice to this question in a few words, but Iike a fool I shall try. In my view, the old covenant at Sinai (Decalogue and all) has no authority over the NT (new covenant) believer. He has died completely to its authority and is now married to another, namely Christ (Roms 7:1-6). The Decalogue along with the rest of the covenant stipulations were part of a covenant that promised life upon obedience (this do and live); the whole premise of the covenant was works-righteousness, it was a covenant of works that promised life and blessing upon obedience and death and curse upon disobedience.
Where a covenant is concerned, one is either under it or not under it, there is no halfway house. We either accept its conditions in full or not at all. We have no permission to pick and choose either its conditions or its nature. It stands as it does and must be accepted as such or not at all. In other words we cannot say we are not bound by the authority of law for justification but we are for sanctification. The law does not give you the luxury to choose. To say we must obey its commands but we will not accept its curse is to abuse the covenant. It does not give you this option. Its ability to bless or curse are at the heart of its being and nature. Equally to say we will accept the binding authority of the Ten Commandments but not the ceremonial and civil stipulations is to pick and choose in a way the covenant will not allow. It is an entity, a unit, a constitution, kept in entirety or broken and then with authority to curse.
In Christ we are delivered from this covenant entirely. In him it is completely fulfilled. In his people, living in the Spirit, the essential human righteousness with which the law was concerned is met and more than fulfilled as we walk in the Spirit. Incidentally, ‘fulfilment’ in this sphere as others where old and new/covenant or creation/promise and fulfilment is concerned generally means in a way that eclipses and outshines the former (thus my ‘more than’).
Have the Ten Commandments been cancelled as an authority in the life of the believer? Absolutely. Else we would still be under the curse and die. However, where these Ten Commandments reflect general creational duties the believer still honours them as he does all creational responsibilities. However, we must be clear we are bound by them not because of their place in the covenant but because they reflect universal obligations.
I can go to the Mosaic Covenant and learn many lessons about obedience and godliness, not simply from the Ten Words but from many other parts of the covenant, but none is directly incumbent upon me simply by being there. I must understand them through a redemptive-historical prism (through the promise and fulfilment paradigm) to grasp their meaning. This is true of other areas of the OT too. Abraham was told to offer his son as a sacrifice – this is not a command that I should consider myself obliged to bind myself to.
I am not a child or slave under the pedagogue of law, instructed through a series of rules of do’s and don’ts generally without any reasons given. I am a mature son, indwelt and taught by the very one who gave the law. I am married to Christ, led by the Spirit. I obey as one who has life and not out of servitude to a code that promised life but brought death. As I live by the Spirit, I live a life against which there is no law, for all that the law required is produced in me.
There is a bigger question here and it is that of where responsibility and obligation rest. We must not confuse law with obligation and responsibility. But that question is for another time.
LikeLike
John,
Your notions about the Ten Commandments certainly put you at odds with the Heidelberg & The Westminster, but I suspect you knew that already.
LikeLike
John Thomson says: Equally to say we will accept the binding authority of the Ten Commandments but not the ceremonial and civil stipulations is to pick and choose in a way the covenant will not allow. It is an entity, a unit, a constitution, kept in entirety or broken and then with authority to curse.
I must disagree with you brother. I think you are forgetting a third option, the law could be resurrected! Only the shadows that pointed to Christ, the aspect of the law that made you right with God, (restorative) were completed in Christ, but not love the LORD with all your heart. We still have much work to do in love. Loving God is something we need do forever and ever! That part of the law is eternal.
When Paul said all things are lawful, he wasn’t implying that it was lawful for him to commit adultery or murder someone! He was talking about the ceremonial law exclusively, with its washings, festivals, moons, and Sabbaths, which could only dimly point to Christ. Another thing the ceremonial law did was separate Christians on the basis of being Jewish i.e. circumscion. This was to deny that Christ had created one new man in place of the two abolishing in his own flesh one new man.
Now God’s people are one through baptism and faith in Christ alone. Once Christ accomplished redemption for his people, the signs had to be set aside. But not the moral law like love the LORD with all your heart or love thy neighbor as your self. Now in the age of the gospel the curses are even stronger if the church refuses to walk by faith. See Christ’s evaluation of the 7 churches in Revelations. Most of the 7 churches works were not up to Christ’s standards and they were warned to repent lest Christ come in judgment on them. So the Mosaic covenant is the same in substance as the new in that they both offered eternal life and pardon from sins in Christ Jesus through grace alone by faith alone. However, that faith is never alone; it always produces good works done in love.
LikeLike
John, the reason the Jews were “under the law” was that Christ had not broken the power of sin, so animal sacrifices had to be repeated if they’re sins were to be forgiven so God could deal with a stubborn and rebellious people. It was a ministry of death in that sense, because the sacrifices needed to be repeated daily. There was the constant reminder of sin, and the need to continue to shed more blood. But it was also good to be under the law, because of the ceremonial provisions offered in faith, God could say, “And your sins shall be forgiven” which was a gracious blessing.
LikeLike
“Christ is the end of the law for all those who have faith.”
So much for our little self-righteousness project.
We are still under the law. But not even one iota’s worth, for righteousness sake.
LikeLike
Richard,
Your position is only more biblical if one treats the Bible as having some kind of authority independent of the church. As I stated above, “[the church’s] authority didn’t need to be recited expressly in Scripture because it was implied. After all, this is the same authority exercised by the church determining the content of the Biblical canon.”
I would suggest that your view is unbiblical in the sense that it ignores the context in which Scripture was given. On this point, the Reformers’ views were much more consistent with those of the Roman Catholic Church than the views espoused by experimental Calvinists.
LikeLike
Erik,
I concur on the point about sharing a beer. There’s a Reformed Baptist church down the road from me, and I’ve met a few of the folks over the years. Living in a state of constant introspection does not wear well on folks. After all, there’s no such thing as a good beer/wine pairing for a curmudgeonly dinner guest (although I have some high-proof bourbon that may do the trick).
I like the OPC and URC. There are no URC churches anywhere near me, and the local OP and PCA churches lay the pietism on pretty thick. They’re more like SBC churches. Perhaps I’ve begun to adopt the sensibilities of my paternal grandmother, who once proclaimed that she’d rather dine with a Yankee of good manner than find herself in the company of cotton-patch Baptists.
LikeLike
Hi Doug
I knew we would disagree on this issue. Perhaps it is a topic for another time.
Erik
Yes indeed.
LikeLike
Bobby,
“(although I have some high-proof bourbon that may do the trick)”
Nice.
You fit in well here. Carry on, my friend.
LikeLike
Bobby: Richard, Your position is only more biblical if one treats the Bible as having some kind of authority independent of the church.
RS: The authority of Scripture is not dependent on the Church, but the Church is dependent on the authority of Scripture. The authority of Scripture is the written words of the absolute authority and He is God. As long as God is not dependent on the Church, then the Scriptures are not dependent on the Church. In case you are wondering, that is basically the position of Westminster.
WCF: IV. The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, depends not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.[9]
V. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture.[10] And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it does abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.[11]
Bobby: As I stated above, “[the church’s] authority didn’t need to be recited expressly in Scripture because it was implied. After all, this is the same authority exercised by the church determining the content of the Biblical canon.”
RS: But the Church did not determine the content of the canon of Scripture. Once again, that is the position of Roman Catholicism. The Church simply recognized what God had determined about the Bible.
Bobby: I would suggest that your view is unbiblical in the sense that it ignores the context in which Scripture was given. On this point, the Reformers’ views were much more consistent with those of the Roman Catholic Church than the views espoused by experimental Calvinists.
RS: So far you have not shown your position to be biblical, confessional, or in line with the Reformers. I have shown that my view is confessional. It would take more time, but I also believe that it is biblical.
LikeLike
Bobby: Erik, I concur on the point about sharing a beer. There’s a Reformed Baptist church down the road from me, and I’ve met a few of the folks over the years. Living in a state of constant introspection does not wear well on folks. After all, there’s no such thing as a good beer/wine pairing for a curmudgeonly dinner guest (although I have some high-proof bourbon that may do the trick).
RS: So the Reformed Baptist folks are not so great because they won’t serve you drinks at dinner. But do they speak of Christ and of the glory of God? Which do you prefer?
LikeLike
theoldadam: “Christ is the end of the law for all those who have faith.”
So much for our little self-righteousness project. We are still under the law. But not even one iota’s worth, for righteousness sake.
RS: There is no way in the Bible for men to obtain any righteousness on their own. The WCF states it very well. What is so hard for some (not saying you) to accept is that believers are to be given to good works and holiness, and yet those things do not add anything to their righteousness. But as the WCF points out, these things come from Christ and His Spirit in them. It is when these works are seen as coming from the inward working of the Spirit that they are used in the realm of assurance, but they must never be used for self-righteousness.
WCF Chapter XIII Of Sanctification
I. They, who are once effectually called, and regenerated, having a new heart, and a new spirit created in them, are further sanctified, really and personally, through the virtue of Christ’s death and resurrection,[1] by His Word and Spirit dwelling in them:[2] the dominion of the whole body of sin is destroyed,[3] and the several lusts thereof are more and more weakened and mortified;[4] and they more and more quickened and strengthened in all saving graces,[5] to the practice of true holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord.[6]
II. This sanctification is throughout, in the whole man;[7] yet imperfect in this life, there abiding still some remnants of corruption in every part;[8] whence arises a continual and irreconcilable war, the flesh lusting against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh.[9]
III. In which war, although the remaining corruption, for a time, may much prevail;[10] yet, through the continual supply of strength from the sanctifying Spirit of Christ, the regenerate part does overcome;[11] and so, the saints grow in grace,[12] perfecting holiness in the fear of God.[13]
Chapter XVI Of Good Works
I. Good works are only such as God has commanded in His holy Word,[1] and not such as, without the warrant thereof, are devised by men, out of blind zeal, or upon any pretence of good intention.[2]
II. These good works, done in obedience to God’s commandments, are the fruits and evidences of a true and lively faith:[3] and by them believers manifest their thankfulness,[4] strengthen their assurance,[5] edify their brethren,[6] adorn the profession of the Gospel,[7] stop the mouths of the adversaries,[8] and glorify God,[9] whose workmanship they are, created in Christ Jesus thereunto,[10] that, having their fruit unto holiness, they may have the end, eternal life.[11]
III. Their ability to do good works is not at all of themselves, but wholly from the Spirit of Christ.[12] And that they may be enabled thereunto, beside the graces they have already received, there is required an actual influence of the same Holy Spirit, to work in them to will, and to do, of His good pleasure:[13] yet are they not hereupon to grow negligent, as if they were not bound to perform any duty unless upon a special motion of the Spirit; but they ought to be diligent in stirring up the grace of God that is in them.[14]
IV. They who, in their obedience, attain to the greatest height which is possibly in this life, are so far from being able to supererogate, and to do more than God requires, as that they fall short of much which in duty they are bound to do.[15]
V. We cannot by our best works merit pardon of sin, or eternal life at the hand of God, by reason of the great disproportion that is between them and the glory to come; and the infinite distance that is between us and God, whom, by them, we can neither profit, nor satisfy for the debt of our former sins,[16] but when we have done all we can, we have done but our duty, and are unprofitable servants:[17] and because, as they are good, they proceed from His Spirit,[18] and as they are wrought by us, they are defiled, and mixed with so much weakness and imperfection, that they cannot endure the severity of God’s judgment.[19]
VI. Notwithstanding, the persons of believers being accepted through Christ, their good works also are accepted in Him;[20] not as though they were in this life wholly unblamable and unreproveable in God’s sight;[21] but that He, looking upon them in His Son, is pleased to accept and reward that which is sincere, although accompanied with many weaknesses and imperfections.[22]
VII. Works done by unregenerate men, although for the matter of them they may be things which God commands; and of good use both to themselves and others:[23] yet, because they proceed not from an heart purified by faith;[24] nor are done in a right manner, according to the Word;[25] nor to a right end, the glory of God,[26] they are therefore sinful and cannot please God, or make a man meet to receive grace from God:[27] and yet, their neglect of them is more sinful and displeasing unto God.[28]
LikeLike
Sounds good to me John! God bless you and keep pressing on!
LikeLike
RS: So the Reformed Baptist folks are not so great because they won’t serve you drinks at dinner. But do they speak of Christ and of the glory of God? Which do you prefer?
AP:
Oldlifers don’t like false options: Christ vs. a drink.
Oldlifers also don’t like silly exegesis that deprives the Christian of one of God’s most tasty gifts.
So, yea, Reformed Baptist teetotalers are not so great (see: pietistically dry dinner parties) and we’d prefer they’d have the courtesy of serving something nicer than kool-aid every now and again.
Also, Richard, I don’t know why you’re so hung up on oldlifers and sanctification (see recent post): we got no beef with it provided (for example) you don’t misconstrue it as forgoing a drink with friends.
LikeLike
Adam, our nation has been so fundamentalized that my OPC church serves grape juice for communion instead of wine. How biblical is that?
LikeLike
Stuart, Doug and Richard,
I have been reading a book on the Gospel of John and this is what the author said: “Why do you not understand my talk? Because you cannot hear (accept or understand) my word….John 8:51-52 also uses logos to refer generally to Jesus preaching: “If anyone keeps my doctrine, he shall not see death ever.” Three verses below Jesus contrasts himself with the Pharisees on the ground that he, Jesus, keeps God’s logos.
“Besides these verses in which the term logos refers generally to the preaching of Jesus, John 10:35 uses logos to designate the prophecies of the Old Testament. The prophets were men to whom the Logos of God came, and this logos as written in the Scripture cannot be broken. This is the first verse so far quoted that definitely links the logos to the written works of the Old Testament. The idea that the logos is something that can be written down on papyrus, parchment, or vellum is important, even if only because it is so distasteful to the dialectical theologians.”…..
“John 12:48 identifies the logos with rheemata or words as such. The passage reads, He who ignores me (or, sets me aside) and does not accept my words (rheemata), has a judge: The logos that I have spoken, that logos will judge him on the last day.” Note that the logos is something spoken and naturally therefore consists of words.”
If the listing of these verses seems tedious, it is at least overwhelming and leaves no defense for those who deprecate words and doctrine . John 14:23-24 says, “If anyone love me, he will keep my logos….He who does not love me, does not keep my logous (plural); and the logos which you hear is not mine, but the Father’s who sent me.” The combination of singular and plural, of hearing and therefore of saying, enforces the point of the argument…..John 15:3- “You are already clean because of the theology (logos) I have spoken to you. John 17:6 and 14 hardly need to be quoted. Verse 17 says that God’s word (logos) is truth. And in verse 20 of the same chapter the logos referred to the future preaching of the disciples.”
I was referring to John 14: 23-24 not John 14:15. However, I did confuse the commandment word with the logos- I was wrong about that. I think the idea I was trying to convey can still stand though. It was Jesus who fulfilled the commandments for us. The Law and Gospel is contrasted in verse 15 and then in 23-24. Jesus tells his disciples to obey His commandments (if you love Him) but then tells them they are clean by the the words (logos) he has spoken to them because they believe Him. And the Holy Spirit is given to the disciples because of Jesus fulfilling the Law for them. It is this which will “comfort” them.
In regards to Doug”s question on whether I believe that faith and obedience are synonomous I woud ask Doug whether that is a question or a threat? It all depends on how you define what biblical faith is and what biblical obedience is. So, define how you are using the words faith and obedience. I think theonomists define faith and obedience differently from those theologians whom I imbibe on.
LikeLike
Thanks John, and I assure you I wasn’t asking a trick question. By the way, theonomy has nothing to do with how we define faith or obedience. Theonomy believes that the moral nucleus found in God’s penal sanctions are still a model of justice today. The reason I asked your definition of saving faith, is that I thought you said saving faith is mere intellectual accent. Did I read you wrong?
LikeLike
Adam Petersen: Oldlifers don’t like false options: Christ vs. a drink.
RS: The question, however, has to do with preference. For example, why wouldn’t one even want to give that up if it caused others to stumble and perhaps kept one from pursuing Christ even harder?
Adam Petersen: Oldlifers also don’t like silly exegesis that deprives the Christian of one of God’s most tasty gifts.
RS: Indeed, but the believer is supposed to deny self in order to follow Christ.
Adam Petersen: So, yea, Reformed Baptist teetotalers are not so great (see: pietistically dry dinner parties) and we’d prefer they’d have the courtesy of serving something nicer than kool-aid every now and again.
RS: But again, if one can find true fellowship there and much of Christ, then why would one prefer their drinks at dinner parties over good fellowship?
Adam Petersen: Also, Richard, I don’t know why you’re so hung up on oldlifers and sanctification (see recent post): we got no beef with it provided (for example) you don’t misconstrue it as forgoing a drink with friends.
RS: My beef, if you could call it that, is not so much having a drink of wine, but the emphasis and importance that some place on it.
LikeLike
John Yeazel: I was referring to John 14: 23-24 not John 14:15. However, I did confuse the commandment word with the logos- I was wrong about that. I think the idea I was trying to convey can still stand though. It was Jesus who fulfilled the commandments for us. The Law and Gospel is contrasted in verse 15 and then in 23-24. Jesus tells his disciples to obey His commandments (if you love Him) but then tells them they are clean by the the words (logos) he has spoken to them because they believe Him. And the Holy Spirit is given to the disciples because of Jesus fulfilling the Law for them. It is this which will “comfort” them.
RS: Yes, the idea you were shooting for can still stand apart from the word. But I would remind you that the purpose of the commands of God is not so that people will perform some external rituals, but so that people will see the utter necessity of Christ and of grace. The commands are utterly vital for that. According to the Westminster Larger Catechism, the moral law is still important to believers and unbelievers alike.
WLC: Q. 95. Of what use is the moral law to all men?
A. The moral law is of use to all men, to inform them of the holy nature and the will of God,[404] and of their duty, binding them to walk accordingly;[405] to convince them of their disability to keep it, and of the sinful pollution of their nature, hearts, and lives:[406] to humble them in the sense of their sin and misery,[407] and thereby help them to a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ,[408] and of the perfection of his obedience.[409]
Q. 96. What particular use is there of the moral law to unregenerate men?
A. The moral law is of use to unregenerate men, to awaken their consciences to flee from wrath to come,[410] and to drive them to Christ;[411] or, upon their continuance in the estate and way of sin, to leave them inexcusable,[412] and under the curse thereof.[413]
Q. 97. What special use is there of the moral law to the regenerate?
A. Although they that are regenerate, and believe in Christ, be delivered from the moral law as a covenant of works,[414] so as thereby they are neither justified[415] nor condemned;[416] yet, besides the general uses thereof common to them with all men, it is of special use, to show them how much they are bound to Christ for his fulfilling it, and enduring the curse thereof in their stead, and for their good;[417] and thereby to provoke them to more thankfulness,[418] and to express the same in their greater care to conform themselves thereunto as the rule of their obedience.[419]
LikeLike
Since I stopped reading (and responding to) Richard’s posts I’ve found the time to buy a herd of 20 cows and to milk them by hand every morning. Cheese curds, anyone?
LikeLike
Since I stopped responding to the plethora of Erik’s posts I have discovered what it means to interact with those who don’t make such huge illogical leaps in their reasoning and then blame me with what their illogic had deduced.
LikeLike
Richard, I don’t avoid people because they are unbelievers. In your case, I don’t think you understand the law and I also think you don’t understand comfort. So a bruised reed I would not send to you. All they’d get is the terror of the law and more bruises.
LikeLike
Bobby, I would tweak your comment by also drawing a contrast between different understandings of the law. 2kers see justification as putting what Christians can and should do in a different light. In other words, they don’t take good works at face value but look instead to the righteousness of Christ. Critics of 2k tend to stress the law as gracious, see good works as generally unmixed signs of holiness, and look to the law to work some kind of wonder in society. When 2kers tell critics that the law isn’t going to fix things, critics think 2kers are denying something fundamental — like the Bible, Christ’s lordship, the sufficiency of Scripture, or even the gospel as both law and gospel.
LikeLike
John T., Paul is very clear, as the Reformers were, that justification is by faith alone. If you want to try to work works in, you are doing what the Judaizers did. No thank you.
LikeLike
Richard, on this point of faith working itself out in love, if you came across a congregation in which church members permitted incest and abused the Lord’s Supper, would you denounce them in their lawlessness or call them saints?
Paul’s answer is to call that church (Corinth) saints. The people he anathematized were those advocating the law.
You do the math.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: Richard, I don’t avoid people because they are unbelievers. In your case, I don’t think you understand the law and I also think you don’t understand comfort. So a bruised reed I would not send to you. All they’d get is the terror of the law and more bruises.
RS: My view of the Law, for the most part, is below.
WCF Chapter XIX Of the Law of God
I. God gave to Adam a law, as a covenant of works, by which He bound him and all his posterity, to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience, promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it, and endued him with power and ability to keep it.[1]
II. This law, after his fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness; and, as such, was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in ten commandments, and written in two tables:[2] the first four commandments containing our duty towards God; and the other six, our duty to man.[3]
III. Besides this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a church under age, ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, His graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits;[4] and partly, holding forth divers instructions of moral duties.[5] All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated, under the New Testament.[6]
IV. To them also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging under any now, further than the general equity thereof may require.[7]
V. The moral law does forever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof;[8] and that, not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator, who gave it.[9] Neither does Christ, in the Gospel, any way dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation.[10]
VI. Although true believers be not under the law, as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified, or condemned;[11] yet is it of great use to them, as well as to others; in that, as a rule of life informing them of the will of God, and their duty, it directs and binds them to walk accordingly;[12] discovering also the sinful pollutions of their nature, hearts and lives;[13] so as, examining themselves thereby, they may come to further conviction of, humiliation for, and hatred against sin,[14] together with a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ, and the perfection of His obedience.[15] It is likewise of use to the regenerate, to restrain their corruptions, in that it forbids sin:[16] and the threatenings of it serve to show what even their sins deserve; and what afflictions, in this life, they may expect for them, although freed from the curse thereof threatened in the law.[17] The promises of it, in like manner, show them God’s approbation of obedience,and what blessings they may expect upon the performance thereof:[18] although not as due to them by the law as a covenant of works.[19] So as, a man’s doing good, and refraining from evil, because the law encourages to the one and deters from the other, is no evidence of his being under the law: and not under grace.[20]
VII. Neither are the forementioned uses of the law contrary to the grace of the Gospel, but do sweetly comply with it;[21] the Spirit of Christ subduing and enabling the will of man to do that freely, and cheerfully, which the will of God, revealed in the law, requires to be done.[22]
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: Richard, on this point of faith working itself out in love, if you came across a congregation in which church members permitted incest and abused the Lord’s Supper, would you denounce them in their lawlessness or call them saints?
Paul’s answer is to call that church (Corinth) saints. The people he anathematized were those advocating the law. You do the math.
RS: Mathematical problems are one thing, depending on certain variants, but the history of the Church is quite another. The differences between the Corinthians and the churches in Revelation are an interesting contrasts. A place like Corinth with just a few years into the Gospel is one thing. But when churches are well established and then go astray, that is quite another. So one would be more cautious about a new church in a place like Mongolia rather than an established church in Mobile, Alabama.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: In your case, I don’t think you understand the law and I also think you don’t understand comfort. So a bruised reed I would not send to you. All they’d get is the terror of the law and more bruises.
RS: I would imagine you think you are quite justified in your statement, but I would argue that my position leads to more real comfort in the long run. Your position, it appears, has people actually looking to themselves to see if they believe and if they really believe in word and sacrament. But they have nothing to really look for except themselves. My position, on the other hand, is more like Westminster. It has people looking to the objective work of the Spirit in their souls rather than to themselves. Word and Spirit turns out to be more objective than Word and Sacrament.
The Law, on the one hand, if not preached and taught to the standard of perfection leaves people with some hope in themselves which means that they are not totally undone in themselves and don’t lose all faith in themselves. When the standard of the Law is help up to what it should be, then people lose all hope in themselves and all comfort in themselves and look to grace alone and Christ Himself who alone can bring true comfort to the soul. Christ alone is not the real hope of people until they have no hope in self.
LikeLike
Richard,
I would refuse to dine with the local Reformed Baptists because every one of them I’ve met is an unhappy curmudgeon…in a pedantic sort of way. It makes no difference whether he imbibes or not.
That being said, I decanted a fine Barossa Valley shiraz this evening and shared it with a couple of neighbors. The wine offered a perfect balance of dark red fruit and dark chocolate, offset by firm but subtle tannins. I did not want the evening to end. I was reminded of a statement by Roger Scruton, which I quote below (with one small addition).
“The right way to live is by enjoying one’s faculties, striving to like and if possible to love one’s fellows, and also to accept that death is both necessary in itself and a blessed relief to those whom you would otherwise burden. The health fanatics [and pietists] who have poisoned all our natural enjoyments ought, in my view, to be rounded up and locked together in a place where they can bore each other rigid with their futile nostrums for eternal life. The rest of us should live out our days in a chained of linked symposia, in which the catalyst is wine, the means conversation, the goal a serene acceptance of our lot and a determination not to outstay our welcome.”
The deficiencies of your theology, Richard, lie not so much in the details but in the main. For you have concocted a theology that is utterly divorced from life in the here and now. We are to celebrate God’s special revelation along side His general revelation. If one is grossly neglecting the latter in favor of the former, then it strikes me that such a person is improperly abstaining from a measure of grace that God intends for him to enjoy.
Regarding the relationship of the Church to Scripture, I intend to say nothing more than the Westminster Divines said: “Unto this catholic and visible Church, Christ hath given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God, for the gathering and perfecting of the saints, in this life, to the end of the world; and doth by his own presence and Spirit, according to his promise, make them effectual thereunto.” By implicaton, none of these is given directly by God to individual saints. The Reformed, after all, still affirm apostolic succession, just not in the mechanical sense in which the Roman Catholic Church has come to apply the doctrine.
LikeLike
Bobby: The deficiencies of your theology, Richard, lie not so much in the details but in the main. For you have concocted a theology that is utterly divorced from life in the here and now. We are to celebrate God’s special revelation along side His general revelation. If one is grossly neglecting the latter in favor of the former, then it strikes me that such a person is improperly abstaining from a measure of grace that God intends for him to enjoy.
RS: In line with the thinking of C.S. Lewis, it sounds to me like you are settling for making mud pies when there is an offer of a holiday for a long period at a truly great place. You prefer the taste of a drink when we are told to taste and see that the Lord is good. You are settling for a little of this and a little of that when God gives His people the privilege of drinking from the river of delights that proceed from His throne. You are settling for a taste of this and of that when God says that for believers they will have rivers of living water flowing from their innermost being. You appear to be finding delight in your drink when Christ has come so that His people would have His joy in them and that is an abundant joy. You seem to think that your drinking is a grace that God gives when the Bible knows of no grace but Christ and what is in Christ. Sorry, but your theology and your drinks are far too weak and feeble for the soul to be truly satisfied with.
Proverbs 20:1 Wine is a mocker, strong drink a brawler, And whoever is intoxicated by it is not wise
LikeLike
Richard,
On what basis do you allege that the material world (including wine) is utterly devoid of grace? If we were talking about Franzia, then you may have a point. Otherwise, your gospel sounds pretty gnostic to me. Perhaps Harold Bloom was right. Baptists are gnostics after all. Rest well.
LikeLike
Richard,
To clarify: first, no one here would suggest imbibing in the presence of a weaker brother. I appreciate the fact that the opc church I’ve attended provides grape juice to the conscientious objector. Second, no one here believes in unrestrained drunken debauchery; in other words, citing Proverbs to Bobby was really uncalled for seeing Bobby never advocated drunkenness.
Moving on…
RS: then why would one prefer their drinks at dinner parties over good fellowship?
But you’re missing my whole point: the teetotaler Baptist makes these two things mutually exclusive (just like you are with your question) and this is not Biblical. Assuming we’re not dealing with a weaker brother, what difference does it make if you decide serve drinks at your party?
RS: My beef, if you could call it that, is not so much having a drink of wine, but the emphasis and importance that some place on it.
AP: I only emphasize drinking in this conversation because it continues to be an enduring form of false piety masquerding as Biblical holiness (in a different time we could be discussing pool halls, the theatre, movies, dancing, card games, etc. Christians have had strange aversions to all kinds of fun). When I’m with my confessional friends we never think twice about having beer together (just like we wouldn’t think twice about cooking some cheeseburgers on the grill). As soon as the pietist shows up, though, and begins skeptically questioning our souls and assuming some sort of intemperate motive, it becomes a crucial point of Christian liberty worth defending. If you would just let sleeping dogs lie…
RS: why wouldn’t one even want to give that up if it caused others to stumble and perhaps kept one from pursuing Christ even harder?
A.P. As the son of a wet pastor who ministered in a Baptist church with dry tendencies, this whole “weaker brother” business drives me nuts because I’ve seen it so thoroughly abused.
Abstaining from alcohol is a good example of pietists making up rules that supposedly increase sanctification. They are then proud about all of the things they deny themselves. What’s most galling, though, is that they claim they are the stronger brethern for abstaining by using the “weaker brother” justification to condemn their “weaker” imbibing brethern. It’s really convoluted and insufferable.
But I think the core of this particular disagreement depends on different views of God’s gifts to man, which Bobby has begun to address. As I’ve stated before, in a scramble for holiness you’ve so elevated Christ’s spiritual gifts that you’ve rejected his temporal gifts.
To toss C.S. Lewis back at you, he writes (and I don’t have my library with me in Korea so I can’t quote chapter and page) that often times not a lot changes after becoming a Christian: we still go to baseball games, drink beer, listen to great music, and appreciate a nice meal; and Lewis commends all of these things. The crucial change according to Lewis, then, is not that we deny these activities but that we see them in a new light, namely as gifts of God.
Which is where this comment to Bobby, “You prefer the taste of a drink when we are told to taste and see that the Lord is good,” makes no sense. First, you seem to be peering a little too intimately into the soul of poor Bobby, and second, you’re (again) drawing false dichotomies and in the process degenerating (gnostic style?) God’s material blessings. The Lord provides for us in many different ways and we shouldn’t feel guilty for enjoying his gifts even as we pilgrim on to our final resting place.
As Scripture says,
7 Go, eat your food with gladness, and drink your wine with a joyful heart, for God has already approved what you do. 8 Always be clothed in white, and always anoint your head with oil. 9 Enjoy life with your wife, whom you love, all the days of this meaningless life that God has given you under the sun—all your meaningless days. Ecclesiastes 9: 7-9
Taking into account the end of this book, the command is clear: worship God, keep his commands, and (in this particular case) enjoy the additional joys (food, wine, wife, oil) he sends your way. This is not to say we are never to deny ourselves, but it is to say that we should not deny the gifts God bestows on us.
LikeLike
Bobby!
I didn’t see your “Baptists are gnostics” comment till after I posted my own “gnostic” observation. I am very amused.
LikeLike
Bobby: Richard, On what basis do you allege that the material world (including wine) is utterly devoid of grace? If we were talking about Franzia, then you may have a point. Otherwise, your gospel sounds pretty gnostic to me. Perhaps Harold Bloom was right. Baptists are gnostics after all. Rest well.
RS: I suppose it depends on how you define grace. I don’t see Scripture as teaching that there is any grace apart from Christ Himself. For example, Titus 2:11 “For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men, 12 instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age, 13 looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus, 14 who gave Himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed, and to purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds.”
Ephesians 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ,
LikeLike
Doug says this: “Thanks John, and I assure you I wasn’t asking a trick question. By the way, theonomy has nothing to do with how we define faith or obedience. Theonomy believes that the moral nucleus found in God’s penal sanctions are still a model of justice today. The reason I asked your definition of saving faith, is that I thought you said saving faith is mere intellectual accent. Did I read you wrong?
John Y: Do you think faith is something more than intellectual assent? Here are some more quotes worth thinking about:
1) “The common Protestant view of saving faith as something more than belief of the Gospel has fueled and will continue to fuel denials of justification by faith alone.”
2) “Saving faith is neither an indescribable encounter with a divine Person, nor heart knowledge as opposed to head knowledge.”
3) “The difference between various beliefs lies in the objects or propositions believed, not in the nature of belief.”
4) “No one can believe what he does not know or understand.”
5) “Secular investigations of belief are so various and inconclusive, depending as they do on experience, that even the secular writers themselves ought to welcome divine revelation.”
6) “The term faith has two very distinct meanings (in the scriptures- my addition). Sometimes it means the mental activity of believing. Indeed it is this meaning which is the subject of the present study….this meaning occurs in Mark 11:22, John 6:29 and Acts 20:21; while the second meaning, namely the propositions believed occurs in Revelation 2:13, 19 and 14:12. This second meaning is prominent in the pastoral epistles…..biblical faith has to have the right object believed.”
7) “James 2:20 is a puzzling passage. He speaks there of a dead faith and describes it as a faith unproductive of good works. Precisely what a man of dead faith actually believes is not too clear. One thing, however, is clear: The word faith here cannot mean “personal trust” in the sense that some popular preachers impose on it in distinction to belief. “Dead trust” would be an unintelligible phrase. Clearly James means a belief of some sort; and the only belief James mentions is the belief in monotheism. Islam would therefore be a dead faith.”
I might add to this that the often repeated phrase the devils believe too (proving to many that the idea of “mere intellectual assent” is not enough) says nothing of the object they are believing which makes all the difference in the world. The devils believe in God too, what they don’t believe is the saving work of Christ.
8) “2 Peter 1:3 says that everything pertaining to godliness comes to us through knowledge….This emphasis on doctrine, the truth, the Word, the promise, sets the standard for Reformation theology.”
9) “Belief is the act of assenting to something understood. But understanding alone is not belief in what is understood…..Justifying faith is a species of faith, and if one does not know what faith in general is, one cannot know what the faith is that justifies.”
10) “Faith or belief is a volitional assent to an understood proposition….Etymologically, repentance means a change of mind, not necessarily restricted to specifically moral matters.”
11) “When a preacher does not tell his congregation what he means by his main terms, the people are confused, often without realizing it….a man thinks in his heart, it is the heart that thinks (no dichotomy between head and heart knowledge)….The three terms-heart, soul and mind- are synonomous, joined together for emphasis. They do not separate the heart and the mind: They identify them….The term heart occurs about 160 times in the New Testament…The basic meaning of the word is mind or intellect. Volition, usually the assent to intellectually understood propositions, is also a meaning, and emotion is rarely the point of the passage.”
12) Faith in pickles and faith in God are psychologically identical; the difference lies in the object of faith.”
13) “A number of theologians give the impression that the translation believe is misleading. They want to make “faith” something other (more than- my addition) than “mere belief.”
14) “Christ’s promises of salvation are vastly different from the propositions of botany; but believing is always thinking that a proposition is true….confident reliance is supposed to differ from intellectual assent….Louis Berkhoff says this: “As a psychological phenomenon, faith in the religious sense does not differ from faith in general….Christian faith in the most comprehensive sense is man’s persuasion of the truth of Scripture on the basis of the authority of God.”
15) “There seems to be no other conslusion but that God justifies sinners by means of many combinations of propositions believed.”
LikeLike
Adam PetersEn: Richard, To clarify: first, no one here would suggest imbibing in the presence of a weaker brother. I appreciate the fact that the opc church I’ve attended provides grape juice to the conscientious objector.
RS: How about extolling the virtues of imbibing in the presence of weaker brothers? Is that wrong as well?
Adam Petersen: Second, no one here believes in unrestrained drunken debauchery; in other words, citing Proverbs to Bobby was really uncalled for seeing Bobby never advocated drunkenness.
RS: So drunken debauchery is okay as long as it is restrained a bit? Most alcoholics don’t advocate drunkenness, so that is not the real issue. Proverbs 20:1 is not speaking about unrestrained drunken debauchery. “Wine is a mocker, strong drink a brawler, And whoever is intoxicated by it is not wise.” Surely you are not saying that intoxication and drunken debauchery are the same thing. Perhaps there is a reason that Bobby spoke of a high proof Bourbon. But again, why is it that people tend to try to get as close to some level of intoxication that they can say is not drunkenness rather than pursue Christ with the whole heart? How much high alcohol level in a drink is necessary to produce a very small level of intoxication? They won’t let pilots fly if they have had a drink within eight hours, so perhaps even the civil authorities recognize the great dangers of small amounts of alcohol.
Adam Petersen quoting RS: then why would one prefer their drinks at dinner parties over good fellowship?
Adam Petersen: But you’re missing my whole point: the teetotaler Baptist makes these two things mutually exclusive (just like you are with your question) and this is not Biblical. Assuming we’re not dealing with a weaker brother, what difference does it make if you decide serve drinks at your party?
RS: But you are missing the whole point. If person A will not be around people who don’t drink, then isn’t that person missing out on fellowship and preferring drinking to fellowship? The Bible does not say that drinking wine is a sin, but then again it only commends it in terms of drinking a small amount for the sake of the stomach if one has ailments. There is nothing about drinking alcohol that will make one holy, but instead it is attended with great dangers.
Adam P quoting RS: My beef, if you could call it that, is not so much having a drink of wine, but the emphasis and importance that some place on it.
AP: I only emphasize drinking in this conversation because it continues to be an enduring form of false piety masquerding as Biblical holiness (in a different time we could be discussing pool halls, the theatre, movies, dancing, card games, etc. Christians have had strange aversions to all kinds of fun).
RS: Or perhaps Christians tend to waste a lot of their time thinking that they are having fun. Perhaps, as many of the older writers would assert, the amusements of the world are simply those things that take the minds of people off of eternity. So there are those who say that not doing X is holy while there are those who say that doing X does not mean a person is holy. But I am asking why a person seeking Christ would do those things in the first place? Is it the best use of our time? Is it the best use of our resources?
Even secular people will look at the cost of attending a movie and wonder how it could be moral to attend that movie when that money could be used to feed starving people.
Adam P: When I’m with my confessional friends we never think twice about having beer together (just like we wouldn’t think twice about cooking some cheeseburgers on the grill). As soon as the pietist shows up, though, and begins skeptically questioning our souls and assuming some sort of intemperate motive, it becomes a crucial point of Christian liberty worth defending. If you would just let sleeping dogs lie…
RS: I didn’t call you dogs, though Calvin spoke of barking dogs at times. So it is better to question the motives and the souls of pietists for questioning the wisdom in drinking than it is for the pietists to question the souls of those drinking. I think I hear your position.
LikeLike
Adam P quoting RS: why wouldn’t one even want to give that up if it caused others to stumble and perhaps kept one from pursuing Christ even harder?
A.P. As the son of a wet pastor who ministered in a Baptist church with dry tendencies, this whole “weaker brother” business drives me nuts because I’ve seen it so thoroughly abused.
Abstaining from alcohol is a good example of pietists making up rules that supposedly increase sanctification. They are then proud about all of the things they deny themselves. What’s most galling, though, is that they claim they are the stronger brethern for abstaining by using the “weaker brother” justification to condemn their “weaker” imbibing brethern. It’s really convoluted and insufferable.
RS: I suppose Paul would have been insufferable since he spoke like that and the teaching is based on his. There are many recovering alcoholics in the world and it could be that you know some who have not told you about it.
Adam P: But I think the core of this particular disagreement depends on different views of God’s gifts to man, which Bobby has begun to address. As I’ve stated before, in a scramble for holiness you’ve so elevated Christ’s spiritual gifts that you’ve rejected his temporal gifts.
RS: Or perhaps the two of you have elevated temporal things so much that you have denigrated spiritual things.
Adam P: To toss C.S. Lewis back at you, he writes (and I don’t have my library with me in Korea so I can’t quote chapter and page) that often times not a lot changes after becoming a Christian: we still go to baseball games, drink beer, listen to great music, and appreciate a nice meal; and Lewis commends all of these things. The crucial change according to Lewis, then, is not that we deny these activities but that we see them in a new light, namely as gifts of God.
Which is where this comment to Bobby, “You prefer the taste of a drink when we are told to taste and see that the Lord is good,” makes no sense. First, you seem to be peering a little too intimately into the soul of poor Bobby, and second, you’re (again) drawing false dichotomies and in the process degenerating (gnostic style?) God’s material blessings. The Lord provides for us in many different ways and we shouldn’t feel guilty for enjoying his gifts even as we pilgrim on to our final resting place.
RS: You can make an accusation as you please, but once again my whole point has been the focus of things and why it appears to be more popular to talk about alcohol and discuss it so much. Could it be that as your think I have degenerated into some form of gnosticism that you have degenerated into a reaction against something and are really now a libertine?
Alan P: As Scripture says, 7 Go, eat your food with gladness, and drink your wine with a joyful heart, for God has already approved what you do. 8 Always be clothed in white, and always anoint your head with oil. 9 Enjoy life with your wife, whom you love, all the days of this meaningless life that God has given you under the sun—all your meaningless days. Ecclesiastes 9: 7-9
Taking into account the end of this book, the command is clear: worship God, keep his commands, and (in this particular case) enjoy the additional joys (food, wine, wife, oil) he sends your way. This is not to say we are never to deny ourselves, but it is to say that we should not deny the gifts God bestows on us.
RS: You might want to sharpen up those hermeneutic skills a bit. Notice what verse 9 says and remember the whole context of Ecclesiastes. Solomon decided to test his wisdom with wine and various pleasures. Notice verse 9 from the text you quoted: ” Enjoy life with your wife, whom you love, all the days of this meaningless life that God has given you under the sun—all your meaningless days. Ecclesiastes 9: 7-9.” If you will agree that you have a meaningless life and live meaningless days, then go ahead and drink away. Why? For tomorrow we die. Do you really just live a life under the sun? But isn’t there meaning on the other side of the sun? Are we just limitied to life under the sun? Really? Just as one should be careful about taking the wisdom offered by the friends of Job, so one should be careful about taking every word of Solomon in Ecclesiastes as advice for real life. As long as you take that version, then meaningless, meaningless, all is meaningless. Solomon gives am in the word of Peter Kreeft, three philosphies of life in that book. You have to be careful of the advice in that book and make sure which philosophy you are drinking.
Eccl 12:13 The conclusion, when all has been heard, is: fear God and keep His commandments, because this applies to every person. 14 For God will bring every act to judgment, everything which is hidden, whether it is good or evil.
RS: The real issue, then, is whether you can do this out of love for God and to the glory of God. Of course one can say the words, but the question is can one really do it from the heart.
LikeLike
In Richard’s honor I invite everyone to name a few of their favorite beers, wines, or mixed drinks. I like many of the Samuel Adams line — especially their black lager & cherry wheat. Guinness is always good. Leinenkugel’s Summer Shandy was nice this past summer. A Blue Moon is always good with an orange slice, as is a Corona with a lime. The Fat Tire line is good, especially the 1554. I’m not much of a wine drinker but my wife likes the lighter, cheaper kinds that taste more like the wine coolers they had in the 80s. I would like to try more mixed drinks, but setting up a bar to do them right is expensive. I am holding off until the kids are grown to do that. One thing I do like is Canadian Club whiskey, orange juice, and cherry crush. I call it a “Cyclone” because when you don’t mix it you get the yellow & red colors swirling like the Iowa State Cyclone colors.
LikeLike
Richard, shouldn’t you say “Christ alone is not the real hope until people have looked for the objective work of the Spirit in their souls” (however objective such a discovery can be when performed by the subject)?
Sorry, but you simply grade your search for certainty an A and mine an F. By what standard, something like the difference between a young Christian and an older one (who should know better)?
Arbitrary.
LikeLike
I might create a mixed drink in Richard’s honor — The Cranky Baptist – hard cider, Angostura bitters, whiskey, sour mix, a lemon slice, and a maraschino cherry. Tastes like hell in recognition of the Baptist suspicion that anyone who drinks it is most likely going there.
LikeLike
What I described in my last post was the nature of faith, not the cause of faith. “Assent is not the cause of eternal life….assent instead of being the cause, is the result of the Spirit’s regenerating activity (or effectual call- my addition). The mind, unillumined by the Spirit, is enmity against God and His Word (God’s wisdom, doctrine, theology).
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: Richard, shouldn’t you say “Christ alone is not the real hope until people have looked for the objective work of the Spirit in their souls” (however objective such a discovery can be when performed by the subject)?
RS: Perhaps I should say that. But is the objective work of Christ observable in the Sacrament apart from the objective work of the Holy Spirit in the souls of people?
D.G. Hart: Sorry, but you simply grade your search for certainty an A and mine an F. By what standard, something like the difference between a young Christian and an older one (who should know better)? Arbitrary.
RS: I don’t think that I am arguing that your position is an F, but simply that in reality you have to rely on some of the same things I am stressing. I argue that the work of the Spirit in the soul is an objective work. I would also argue that for a person to truly see Christ in the Sacrament is also an objective work of the Spirit. So any position that tries to discern the objective work of Christ apart from the objective work of the Spirit in the soul would receive an F. The hard part is discerning the subjective person trying to insert self into discerning the objective work of the Spirit in the soul. So I don’t think it is arbitrary.
LikeLike
Erik Charter: In Richard’s honor I invite everyone to name a few of their favorite beers, wines, or mixed drinks. I like many of the Samuel Adams line — especially their black lager & cherry wheat. Guinness is always good. Leinenkugel’s Summer Shandy was nice this past summer. A Blue Moon is always good with an orange slice, as is a Corona with a lime. The Fat Tire line is good, especially the 1554. I’m not much of a wine drinker but my wife likes the lighter, cheaper kinds that taste more like the wine coolers they had in the 80s. I would like to try more mixed drinks, but setting up a bar to do them right is expensive. I am holding off until the kids are grown to do that. One thing I do like is Canadian Club whiskey, orange juice, and cherry crush. I call it a “Cyclone” because when you don’t mix it you get the yellow & red colors swirling like the Iowa State Cyclone colors.
I might create a mixed drink in Richard’s honor — The Cranky Baptist – hard cider, Angostura bitters, whiskey, sour mix, a lemon slice, and a maraschino cherry. Tastes like hell in recognition of the Baptist suspicion that anyone who drinks it is most likely going there.
RS:
Proverbs 15:14 The mind of the intelligent seeks knowledge, But the mouth of fools feeds on folly.
Ecclesiastes 7:4 The mind of the wise is in the house of mourning, While the mind of fools is in the house of pleasure.
LikeLike
These two go out to my muse, Richard Smith:
Don’t worry, Doug. It’s not what you think.
LikeLike
Richard – “The hard part is discerning the subjective person trying to insert self into discerning the objective work of the Spirit in the soul. So I don’t think it is arbitrary.”
Erik – Huh?
LikeLike
Richard, I am not arguing about the Supper at this point. I am contending against your willingness to question the faith of believers unless certain things are evident. The issue is with you and what you look for versus me and what I look for. I think I am willing to acknowledge a weak faith and defiled good works as sufficient indicators of genuine faith. You seem to be on a quest to eliminate nominal faith and you don’t appear to have sufficient caution about the real damage such a quest might have (and has had).
LikeLike
I think the way Richard works (if I may be charitable for a moment) is to set the bar really high. He sees more danger in setting the bar too low than too high. There is danger in both, however. Think of the Judaizers. Now one might say, “the elect will still be saved if the bar is set too high”, but imagine a church that had a skunk as a pet. Every Sunday morning before services the skunk sprayed down the pews (no pun intended). Predictablty, no one would ever visit the church and hear the gospel. Election matters, but God ordained means matter as well, and someone who teaches law and gospel in a repellant way is as almost as dangerous as a false teacher.
LikeLike
Darryl
‘John T., Paul is very clear, as the Reformers were, that justification is by faith alone. If you want to try to work works in, you are doing what the Judaizers did. No thank you.’
But, Darryl this fails to deal with the substance of my comment on so many levels and being an intelligent man you are, I assume you know this.
1. Firstly, the issue is one of authority for the truth is our authority is the whole of Scripture and not simply Paul (not that I find Paul to be at odds with the other NT writers rather the opposite as I shall shortly demonstrate). That a man is justified by faith alone I gladly and gratefully acknowledge and delight in. That Scripture equally and expressly (that is, in so many words) says a man is justified by works is beyond cavil (Jas 2). The issue is not whether Scripture thus says, the issue is how we reconcile the two poles in a way that does justice to both.
2. To suggest I side with the Judaizers is a serious one. It probably makes me a false teacher and unsaved. It not only makes me such but also most Protestant and evangelical believers throughout history, certainly those who framed the WCF and all who believed it to be true for what it teaches re ‘good works’ is precisely my own view and one that I made clear; good works are justifying in the sense that they are the materializing of faith, they reveal whether a claim to faith is authentic or not.
3. However, you frame ‘faith alone’ (faith alone but not by faith that remains alone… etc) you must do so in a way that does justice (properly explains rather than explains away) to the various passages that stress the place of works. Let me cite a few of the well known ones.
Matt 3:10 (ESV2011)
Matt 3:10; Even now the axe is laid to the root of the trees. Every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
Matt 12:33-37 (ESV2011)
“Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or make the tree bad and its fruit bad, for the tree is known by its fruit. You brood of vipers! How can you speak good, when you are evil? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. The good person out of his good treasure brings forth good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure brings forth evil.I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak,for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”
(Note fruit and words not faith is the focus here; words justify or condemn).
John 5:26-29 (ESV2011)
For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself.And he has given him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of Man.Do not marvel at this, for an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voiceand come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment.
Rom 2:6-10 (ESV2011)
He will render to each one according to his works:to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life;but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury.There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek,but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek.
2Cor 5:10-11 (ESV2011)
For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil.Therefore, knowing the fear of the Lord, we persuade others. But what we are is known to God, and I hope it is known also to your conscience.
Notice that none of these references to the day of judgement mention faith but are about ‘the deeds done in the body’. It is a life that is evaluated. My point is not in any way to dismiss the importance of saving faith but to point out that many texts (and these are but a few and about half are by Paul) speak of a judgement according to works.
In my view, unless careful honest weighing of these verse takes place and a convincing exegesis given which allows justification to breathe biblically takes place in Reformed circles then for many the strain will become intolerable and cognitive dissonance coupled to an already dangerous predilection to extra-biblical authority will create a crisis and lead them to Rome.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: Richard, I am not arguing about the Supper at this point. I am contending against your willingness to question the faith of believers unless certain things are evident. The issue is with you and what you look for versus me and what I look for. I think I am willing to acknowledge a weak faith and defiled good works as sufficient indicators of genuine faith. You seem to be on a quest to eliminate nominal faith and you don’t appear to have sufficient caution about the real damage such a quest might have (and has had).
RS: But I have also acknowledged that a weak faith and defiled good works can be present in believers. In one sense there is no such thing as a strong faith and undefiled good works in believers. It is just that some have a stronger faith than others. If nominal faith is just that, which is to say a faith in name only, then of course we would desire people to have a real faith. I might add, however, that for some I have spent time with they are relieved that there are signs of a weak but true faith. In talking to people about their hearts it is not just a matter of trying to find out those that have no faith, but it is also helping those with weak faith see that they have true faith.
LikeLike
Good word John Thomson!
LikeLike
I keep hearing this ‘final justification’ bit and the next move is always toward weighing our good works, but allowing for an evidentiary role of works in faith, It seems to me that the emphasis on works keeps missing the point the emphasis needs to be placed on, and Paul certainly seems to, the person judging and whose Judgement seat it is;
on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.
(Romans 2:16 ESV)
For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil.
(2 Corinthians 5:10 ESV)
John 5:26-29 (ESV2011)
For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself.And he has given him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of Man.
Now, if we are in fact in Christ, how is this NOT good news. IOW, we will be judged by Christ in Christ. Having ‘our brother’ as the judge is the comfort, particularly when it’s the brother who paid our debt and already endured the penalty. The same brother who will tell us on that day; ‘when I was thirsty you gave me drink, when I was hungry you gave me food………..” And our response is going to be: when did we ever do that’ (no self-focus on works here). It seems one of the major points Paul is laying out is; this is Jesus’ judgement, He’s presiding, and it’s part of what He earned in fulfilling the Pactum Salutis. How is this not good news to us? We don’t face the naked God, we now face God mediated by Jesus Christ and found clothed in his obedience and suffering for us.
LikeLike
Good word, Sean! And John T. is using the same texts that N.T. Wright and Doug Wilson use to support their views of monoco
venantalism. The kind and object of faith which the Theonomist’s and Federal Visionist’s have. Michael Horton critiqued that perspective quite thoroughly in his book COVENANT AND SALVATION.
LikeLike
Sean
I think your point is a good one should be part of any synthesis on this topic – it is indeed the judgement seat of Christ. And the lack self-conscious goodness is part of the answer too. Incidentally, I don’t hold to mono-covenantalism.
LikeLike
@John Yeazel:
Please get your facts straight, you are incorrect when you say Douglas Wilson is monocovenantal. I wouldn’t know about N.T. Wright. But Wilson believes in both the covenant of works and the covenant of grace. The only caveat is that Wilson prefers to call the first covenant as the covenant of creation or covenant of life, as the WCF does in one or two places as well. John Murray hated calling the first covenant the covenant of works, because it sounded like the “covenant of works” wasn’t gracious, and there was something to be earned or merited, which nobody believed before Dr. Kline!
And John Y! Why not address the Scriptures John Thomson brought out? You almost sound as if you’re indicting John T for daring to use the Bible! What’s wrong with this picture? How do you understand these Scriptures that say good works done in faith are instrumental for all truly regenerate saved people? How do you understand……….
“Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.”
Okay John Yeazel: Will you please interact with the Bible?
LikeLike
John T., that’s odd, some people (like Jason Stellman) who are trying to construe justification along the lines you suggest have gone to Rome. Sorry, but I’ll stand with Calvin and Luther and take the hermeneutical consequences.
LikeLike
Sean says He’s presiding, and it’s part of what He earned in fulfilling the Pactum Salutis.
Sean, could you please flush that out for me? What do you mean by Christ fulfilling or earning Pactum Salutis? And why won’t you speak in Biblical language? Can’t you translate what you believe in the language of Scriputre?
Work with us laymen bro!
LikeLike
Richard, so you do distinguish between weak and strong faith. How do you tell between weak and nominal faith? Where may I buy those glasses? How did Gilbert Tennent and Jonathan Edwards know someone had only nominal faith? Lots of folks who were actually outwardly performing good works did not qualify. They needed to be excited (or go through the torments of Phoebe Bartlet).
LikeLike
Doug,
John Murray hated calling the first covenant the covenant of works, because it sounded like the “covenant of works” wasn’t gracious, and there was something to be earned or merited, which nobody believed before Dr. Kline!
But see Charles Hodge:
“The word ‘condition,’ however, is used in two senses. Sometimes it means the meritorious consideration on the ground of which certain benefits are bestowed. In this sense perfect obedience was the condition of the covenant originally made with Adam. Had he retained his integrity he would have merited the promised blessing. For to him that worketh the reward is not of grace but of debt. In the same sense the work of Christ is the condition of the covenant of redemption. It was the meritorious ground, laying a foundation in justice for the fulfilment of the promises made to Him by the Father. (Systematic Theology, p. 164ff)
LikeLike
The Hodge citation is actually from p. 364 (not 164).
LikeLike
DGH says to John T. Sorry, but I’ll stand with Calvin and Luther and take the hermeneutical consequences.
How about actually dealing with Scripture? Or, are you insinuating that the Bible contradicts itself, or is too muddled, for you to figure it out? Come on Darryl, you’ve got a doctorate for crying out loud! Must you ignore clear Scripture, shrug your shoulders, and claim you stand with Calvin because you can’t figure out the hermeneutics? How lame is that?
Your better than this my brother! Engage in Scripture!
LikeLike
Richard,
What do you mean by saying that there is no grace apart from Christ himself? Are you therefore saying that the marerial world is devoid of grace? I can’t tell. It is a simple yes-or-no question.
LikeLike
David R. says: Had he retained his integrity he would have merited the promised blessing.
Adam already had everything! He could freely eat from the tree of life. Had Adam not sinned he wouldnt have earned a thing, in that he already walked with God face to face! Think about that! What promise did God withold from Adam that you can find in Scripture?
LikeLike
Doug, I didn’t say that; it was Hodge.
LikeLike
Bobby: Richard,
What do you mean by saying that there is no grace apart from Christ himself? Are you therefore saying that the marerial world is devoid of grace? I can’t tell. It is a simple yes-or-no question.
RS: It is not a simple question and it is certainly not a yes or no question.
LikeLike
Okay David! I’m taking deep breaths lol!
I’m calm now.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: Richard, so you do distinguish between weak and strong faith. How do you tell between weak and nominal faith?
RS: Yes, I do distinguish between weak faith and nominal faith, though I do not claim to be infallible in discerning the difference in any person.
D.G. Hart: Where may I buy those glasses?
RS: It is a free gift.
D.G. Hart: How did Gilbert Tennent and Jonathan Edwards know someone had only nominal faith? Lots of folks who were actually outwardly performing good works did not qualify. They needed to be excited (or go through the torments of Phoebe Bartlet).
RS: No excitement necessary at all, though a deep reverence was looked for. Not all had to go through the torments of Phoebe, but then again when people did have torments they had to be dealt with. Edwards said that all the virtues and works of Christians could be imitated by the devil and of unbelievers, but true love could not be. It is not that there is not an effort to come up with a pseudo-love, but that true love cannot be faked. This is in line with I Corinthians 13:1-8 and I John 4.
LikeLike
And I see your point David R.
Okay, when I said, ‘no one believed that before Kline”, I meant the majority of reformed thinkers didnt hold to that perspective. For me to say no one saw any merrit in the garden is a bit of a stretch, since I havent read even most let alone all.
Forgive me bro
LikeLike
Doug,
You forgot to tell D.G. he can’t fly a plane with one wing.
LikeLike
No problem, Doug, just tryin’ to keep ya honest….
LikeLike
Richard,
I don’t get it. The material world is either devoid of grace or it isn’t. There is no intermediate position. Besides, Christianity unambiguously teaches that grace is present in the material world. So, unless you’re a closet gnostic, there is no reason to fear this question.
LikeLike
Bobby: Richard, I don’t get it. The material world is either devoid of grace or it isn’t. There is no intermediate position. Besides, Christianity unambiguously teaches that grace is present in the material world. So, unless you’re a closet gnostic, there is no reason to fear this question.
RS: I have no fear of your question at all. However, you wanted a one word answer. I cannot answer it in all honesty in one word. I would simply say that I am not a gnostic, but it appears that you may be looking for grace in all the wrong places. This is to say that if you think of everything that you like or are pleased with as a grace, perhaps you would be served well to think through the whole issue of grace again.
LikeLike
‘ In this sense perfect obedience was the condition of the covenant originally made with Adam. Had he retained his integrity he would have merited the promised blessing. For to him that worketh the reward is not of grace but of debt.’
I’m with Doug when he asks, what promised blessing. Adam was not promised anything upon obedience he was promised only death upon disobedience. As Doug says, in one sense he had life. I accept he had not eternal life in the new creational sense but I do not accept he was promised this upon obedience. This goes far beyond what the text says in order to create a system.
LikeLike
Richard,
Nice Johnny Lee reference.
Bud & Sissy would be proud.
LikeLike
AP: To summarize, I see two big points of disagreement: interpretation of Scripture’s teaching on alcohol (you think it should be used strictly for medicinal purposes) and Christian piety writ large.
RS: You might want to sharpen up those hermeneutic skills a bit. [I’m taking this out of order]
AP: Seriously, did you even check any commentaries on the Ecclesiastes passage I cited? In addition, a little research will show you the positive (non-medicinal) uses of alcohol throughout Scripture. You can’t just bury that under the “weaker brother.”
My interpretation of Scripture can account both for its warnings about alcohol and it’s affirmations. You, on the other hand, seem unable to acknowledge it as a blessing and can only see it as a stumbling block. Now crossapply this general disposition to almost every other pastime that is not reading the Bible, praying, or meditating and here emerges your differences with me (oldlife in general I think) over Christian piety. My citation of Lewis begins to straighten this conundrum out, but you punted on that point so it’s still standing as far as I’m concerned.
RS: But you are missing the whole point. If person A will not be around people who don’t drink, then isn’t that person missing out on fellowship and preferring drinking to fellowship?
AP: You’ve misunderstood. I’m more than cool with people not drinking. My problem with the teetotalers isn’t that they’re not drinking it’s that they’re looking down their noses at others for drinking. In other words, it’s the folks that unbiblically judge drinkers as all the same (drunken sinners misusing medicine for stomach aches) that cause problems. Why would I want to waste my time with such dour, divisive folk?
RS:…Or perhaps Christians tend to waste a lot of their time thinking that they are having fun. Perhaps, as many of the older writers would assert, the amusements of the world are simply those things that take the minds of people off of eternity….Is it the best use of our time? Is it the best use of our resources?
AP: So…sitting around a meal with friends and enjoying a glass of wine is a waste of time…? It’s just an illusion of fun? Would I be having more fun/being spiritually productive if I was reading my Bible by myself? I agree Christians should number their days, but what’s your criteria for declaring an activity a waste of time?
RS: I didn’t call you dogs, though Calvin spoke of barking dogs at times. So it is better to question the motives and the souls of pietists for questioning the wisdom in drinking than it is for the pietists to question the souls of those drinking. I think I hear your position.
AP: As just noted, the problem here is that your questions don’t allow for an answer in the affirmative: you’ve already judged me guilty.
RS: I suppose Paul would have been insufferable since he spoke like that and the teaching is based on his. There are many recovering alcoholics in the world and it could be that you know some who have not told you about it.
AP: Wait, Paul condemned alcohol and by extension the Lord and the Scriptures? News to me.
Paul says to be careful with the weaker brother less you eat or drink something that causes him to stumble and no one is disagreeing about that. But as much as you harp about alcohol let me ask you, do you give people an equally hard time about gluttony? Make it personal, have you avoided having a cheeseburger infront of an overweight brother? Maybe you should just not eat cheeseburgers ever because of the risk of leading someone astray. Maybe you should just eat celery sticks; then again, who knows, maybe you’ll be consuming celery infront of someone struggling with bolemia and you’ll only be encouraging their obsession with their celery-only diet.
All of that said, I don’t see anyone here denying that we should be sensitive about our brothers’ particular struggle, but nowhere does Scripture suggest a complete prohibition for all Christians on account of this sensitivity.
Final question, what exactly was your explanation of Jesus’ first miracle?
LikeLike
Richard,
To my knowledge, I’ve not identified any places from which grace is necessarily absent. It seems as though you’re concurring with that.
That being said, I have no intention of engaging in the arbitrary exercise of attempting to discern the relative density of grace that is present in one thing or another. In a sense, pietism is nothing but a quixotic quest to assess the relative density of grace within certain activities, and focus all of our attention on those activities that have the greatest grace density to the exclusion of the others. While there may be formal differences between that and gnosticism, I see few substantive differences. In the end, the pietist is still living as a practical gnostic, although he may begrudgingly admit that grace is nevertheless present in the things he shuns.
I think we’d agree that there are certain graces that no Christian should shun, namely partaking of the church’s administration of word and sacrament. Beyond that, we are generally free to partake of the wealth of grace that surrounds us here, seeking the Spirit’s help in living in a manner that brings glory to God regardless of what we do. The pietist talks of having a big God. In reality, he lives as though he has a small God, refusing to partake of the goodness that surrounds him in this theater of God’s glory for fear that God isn’t faithful to keep him from sinning in the process. In that sense, pietism isn’t a deeper spirituality; it’s a form of faithlessness.
LikeLike
Okay, Doug, I’ll stand with Romans and Galatians.
LikeLike
Richard, on true love — let the soul drilling begin.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: Richard, on true love — let the soul drilling begin.
RS: But if one digs deep enough there are rivers of living water. By the way, I would start the digging in I John 4. All who truly love are Christians and all those that don’t love are not Christians (I John 4:7-8). The reason is that all who are Christians are born of God and know God.
LikeLike
Bobby: Richard, To my knowledge, I’ve not identified any places from which grace is necessarily absent. It seems as though you’re concurring with that.
That being said, I have no intention of engaging in the arbitrary exercise of attempting to discern the relative density of grace that is present in one thing or another. In a sense, pietism is nothing but a quixotic quest to assess the relative density of grace within certain activities, and focus all of our attention on those activities that have the greatest grace density to the exclusion of the others. While there may be formal differences between that and gnosticism, I see few substantive differences. In the end, the pietist is still living as a practical gnostic, although he may begrudgingly admit that grace is nevertheless present in the things he shuns.
RS: I wouldn’t argue that grace is present in all places and that the things I shun have grace in them. For example, hell is absent of grace. The souls of unbelievers do not have the abiding grace in them.
Bobby: I think we’d agree that there are certain graces that no Christian should shun, namely partaking of the church’s administration of word and sacrament.
RS: Yes, we should not shun those. But those are means of grace and not grace themselves.
Bobby: Beyond that, we are generally free to partake of the wealth of grace that surrounds us here, seeking the Spirit’s help in living in a manner that brings glory to God regardless of what we do.
RS: But those in hell bring glory to God. All true grace is sovereign grace and that grace is not something we are free to obtain just because we want it.
Bobby: The pietist talks of having a big God. In reality, he lives as though he has a small God, refusing to partake of the goodness that surrounds him in this theater of God’s glory for fear that God isn’t faithful to keep him from sinning in the process. In that sense, pietism isn’t a deeper spirituality; it’s a form of faithlessness.
RS: Interesting points, but I would again make note that grace is located in Christ Himself and not all things are of grace. All grace is a sovereign grace and can only come to us on the basis of the sovereign hand of God. Perhaps you are surrounded by things that manifest the goodness of God, but that does not mean that they are the grace of God. Again, just because X is not sin in and of itself, does not mean that it is the best thing for us to do if we are pursuing the face of God. You can call that faithlessness if you want, but that seems to be a real stretch.
LikeLike
Richard, why is it when you dig yourself, you find rivers of living water, but when you dig me, it’s nooks and crannies for which I need to repent? In other words, you are not consistent. The soul searching you advocate (based on Tennent and Edwards) is not to find living water but to discover the sewage of the soul.
I’m all for finding living water in the parched soul. You seem to blow hot and cold between whether the souls of Christians are skinny and fat.
LikeLike
But Darryl
Romans gives us one of the clearest texts that teaches ‘judgement by works’.
Rom 2:5-11 (ESV2011)
But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed. He will render to each one according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury. There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality.
Rom 14:10-12 (ESV2011)
Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God; for it is written, “As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.” So then each of us will give an account of himself to God.
It does not matter where you turn to in Scripture God’s judgement is always according to works. Always. How righteous would it be for God to judge unbelievers by their works and not believers. He must be impartial and be seen to be impartial.
This is what frustrates me, instead of engaging with the texts and giving a proper explanation of them a wild bravado slogan is thrown out ‘I’ll stand with Romans and Galatians’. It is evasive and revealing; it reveals little intention to seriously engage with Scripture or points made. How can such an attitude convince. Did someone like Stellman eventually see the shallowness of this and hollowness of a position that is afraid to engage with the Word?
I honesty ask this is in sorrow (and a degree of frustration) rather than anger
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: Richard, why is it when you dig yourself, you find rivers of living water, but when you dig me, it’s nooks and crannies for which I need to repent? In other words, you are not consistent.
RS: I was speaking of this in an object way rather than digging myself or you. It was just a comment about the matter. I don’t recall every digging into your nooks and crannies, but as far as I know have been discussing (arguing) a position.
D.G. Hart: The soul searching you advocate (based on Tennent and Edwards) is not to find living water but to discover the sewage of the soul.
RS: True enough that one that has living water in the soul will want to discover the sewage in the soul so that it may repent and send it to the treatment plant. I would argue, however, that if one reads Edwards enough the deepest issue is the divine life in the soul. It is just that one has to have the sewage treated before there is pure water.
D.G. Hart: I’m all for finding living water in the parched soul. You seem to blow hot and cold between whether the souls of Christians are skinny and fat.
RS: No, it is just that some Christians are skinny at one point and fat at another. In other words, each believer has the mountain tops and then the valleys. People should mature and grow spiritually, yet the dry times will bring them into times of doubting. If one learns to dig a little deeper then one can be an instrument of great comfort to those souls who are going through dry times. In times of drought one has to dig deeper to find water.
LikeLike
Who’s going to Rome?!
All lot of DGH’s close personal 2K friends, that’s who! Some of the very men who prosecuted FV’ers, and accused *them* of smuggling works into salvation ala the Roman Catholic Church, (do I hear an echo?) are the same men who swam the Tiber themselves, ironic isn’t it?
And what was the verdict for the FVers on trial? An overwhelming acquittal! Virtuallya unanimous not guilty on all counts! Of course immediately following the Litehart trial, the lead 2K prosecutor, a young inexperienced zealot named Jason Stellmen admits he’s the guy really going to Rome, ouch! And he *knew* he was going to swim during the trial! Double ouch!
He who smelled it dealt it!
LikeLike
Richard,
To simplify things for you, let’s at least assume that the elect are not free to partake of hell.
Further, I am referring to the material world, i.e., the world of everyday living. In other words, I am not referring to hell or to the soul of the reprobate. I think you knew that, and are simply trying to continue in your sophistry instead of answering the question. I suspect you’ve persisted in this conduct because you have no answer to give that wouldn’t otherwise reveal you as a practical gnostic.
For what it’s worth, I would make the same judgment about Edwards. I believe that he is a Christian, but I would put him in a category with the likes of Charles Finney and Joseph Smith. As Allen Bloom noted long ago, the differences between Mormons and most Baptists lie more in the realm of form than substance. Mormons are generally possess a much more pleasant disposition, however. But rest assured, I believe that most Mormons (and most Baptists) are bound for the eternal feast prepared for us by our Father.
LikeLike
“But rest assured, I believe that most Mormons (and most Baptists) are bound for the eternal feast prepared for us by our Father.”
huh?
LikeLike
John,
Do you believe that the judgment of a Christian’s works pertain to salvation or to heavenly rewards (or lack thereof)?
Bobby,
I was tracking with you but I think you may have jumped the shark with Mormons. Ask a Mormon if they affirm the Trinity or the Apostles’ Creed. Also ask a Mormon whether or not God has a body and is married. Ask them who Jesus is.
Harold Bloom is probably not the guy to consult on what is orthodox Christian theology.
LikeLike
Mormons?! Richard and I might actually agree on something for once.
LikeLike
Richard is more of a fuddy-duddy or a stick-in-the-mud than he is a gnostic. He also might qualify as a paid in the a*s…
LikeLike
Pain in the a*s.
Don’t get riled up Doug, it’s not what you think.
LikeLike
John T.,
Having you been reading N.T. Wright? You almost sound just like him. He has been influencing a lot of evangelicals and those who don’t like Reformation theology very much. I just had a conversation with an Episcopal Pastor who’s church I was thinking about going to tell me that his favorite theologians are J. I. Packer, John Stott and N.T. Wright.
Do you read a lot of Norman Shephard Doug? I will try to come up with some quotes by Doug Wilson to show that he is a monocovenantalist too. In regards to constantly quoting scripture like Richard and John T do, the problem lies in how they don’t consider and separate the imperatives and the indicatives. They think that quoting the indicatives implies ought and ability. Even after that has been stated numerous times here- they keep doing it. I think Richard does understand that better than John T. does. I don’t read Richards posts that closely anymore because they are long and laborious and I think I understand his perspective well enough now.
LikeLike
Erik
‘Do you believe that the judgment of a Christian’s works pertain to salvation or to heavenly rewards (or lack thereof)?’
Both. They are in the final analysis one and the same; heaven and more of heaven or hell and more of hell. The point is God’s final judgement looks at the fruit and not the root. Indeed his judgement always looks at the fruit. The tree is good and can stand if it bears fruit but if it doesn’t why should it clutter the ground. There must be good fruit for it to be a good tree. To be sure the fruit will vary in quantity. Some trees will produce thirtyfold, some sixty, some hundredfold and will be rewarded accordingly.
It is not of course fruit that justifies. Christ is our righteousness from first to last received only by faith. No righteousness of mine can add to that righteousness or acceptance. I need none to add to it. To seek to add to it would be a denial of the cross. I am in the lamb’s book of life as a result of the ‘obedience of faith’. Yet it remains true that on the day of judgement it is the examination of a life.
That is not to say that God does not already know those who are his. He does. Their names have been long since written in the Lamb’s book of life. This is not a final justification with no certainty beforehand but a final judgement. Those whose names are written in the book of life will enter heaven but these same people will have lived patiently continuing in well doing (they will have good fruit that God will reward). Others works will reveal them as those who have not obeyed the truth and had pleasure in unrighteousness and for them their will be wrath and fury.
However the judgement takes place, I do not believe on the day of judgement people will stand before God unsure of the outcome of the judgement until it is pronounced.
However, I have only a little understanding of this subject and try to stick close to what is said and not conject. I am happy to be corrected here.
LikeLike
John Y
I have read lots of folks over the years including N T Wright. But I have also read Berkof, Calvin, Horton and many other Reformed writers old and new. Some of Wright I think is right (though his ideas and interpretations are not nearly as new as many seem to believe) and some things need careful watching. The issue for me is to bring all writers before the bar of Scripture and test it there. Read writers but believe Scripture. Read writers with critical eyes and read Scripture with utterly believing eyes. I believe if we did this together we would have much greater maturity and unity in belief.
Incidentally, I don’t think an imperative necessarily assumes ability. But nor do I think imperative=law. I think that believers do have ability to obey – that is the whole point of the new covenant – the law written on the heart. Of course I also believe they still have the flesh and all obedience will be imperfect.
LikeLike
Do you read a lot of Norman Shephard Doug? No, I havent, but I learned ST from Greg Bahnsen
I will try to come up with some quotes by Doug Wilson to show that he is a monocovenantalist too.
John, the first covenant made with Adam was prior to the fall, amen? All of the post fall covenants are one covenant of grace in that they offered salvation by grace though faith in Christ Jesus. Since Douglas Wilson affirms two covenants, how could he possibly be a monocovenantalist?
LikeLike
John T. –
Other guys can correct me, but I am pretty sure you are on an OPC elder’s blog saying things that are pretty clearly refuted in the OPC Report on Justification. I think the report would say you are mixing faith and works in a way that is not biblical.
You try to qualify what you are saying, but when you say things like, “I am in the lamb’s book of life as a result of the ‘obedience of faith’” you tip your hand.
How are you doing obeying Jesus’ teachings in the Sermon on the Mount? Are you using a braile keyboard because your eyes have been plucked out? The same computer that can take you to Old Life can take you to a lot of nasty sites.
LikeLike
John T.,
Can you wholeheartedly affirm Heidelberg 60?
Question 60. How are thou righteous before God?
Answer: Only by a true faith in Jesus Christ; (a) so that, though my conscience accuse me, that I have grossly transgressed all the commandments of God, and kept none of them, (b) and am still inclined to all evil; (c) notwithstanding, God, without any merit of mine, (d) but only of mere grace, (e) grants and imputes to me, (f) the perfect satisfaction, (g) righteousness and holiness of Christ; (h) even so, as if I never had had, nor committed any sin: yea, as if I had fully accomplished all that obedience which Christ has accomplished for me; (i) inasmuch as I embrace such benefit with a believing heart. (j)
LikeLike
Erik says You try to qualify what you are saying, but when you say things like, “I am in the lamb’s book of life as a result of the ‘obedience of faith’” you tip your hand.
Erik how is “obedience of faith” tiping his hand? Arent we commanded to obey the gospel?
Consider Romans 10:16 “But they have not all obeyed the gospel,”
and Romans 1:5
“through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the (obedience of faith) for the sake of his name amoung all the nations, including you
Erik, it would seem that everyone who is saved has become obedient to the gospel, according to Paul.
LikeLike
All this “obedience” entails is faith, however. Look at the whole passage:
The Message of Salvation to All
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). 8 But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim); 9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 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.” 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. 13 For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
14 How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard?[c] And how are they to hear without someone preaching? 15 And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!” 16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?” 17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.
18 But I ask, have they not heard? Indeed they have, for
“Their voice has gone out to all the earth,
and their words to the ends of the world.”
19 But I ask, did Israel not understand? First Moses says,
“I will make you jealous of those who are not a nation;
with a foolish nation I will make you angry.”
20 Then Isaiah is so bold as to say,
“I have been found by those who did not seek me;
I have shown myself to those who did not ask for me.”
21 But of Israel he says, “All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and contrary people.”
LikeLike
Erik, I affirm the Heidelberg 60 and I’ll bet John T does as well. I’ve read John Thomson here at Old Life and he sounds like a good brother to me. I’m not saying he’ perfect (who is?) or that his theology is perfect (who’s is?), but he hasnt said anything heretical. Moreover he’s asking some real good questions that I am eager to see our good Dr Hart answer, as well as Sean, David R. and John Y and whoever else wants to interject.
LikeLike
As soon as you let someone sell you on a formula that mixes faith and works, whether it is the Federal Vision or the Roman Catholic Church, they’ve got you, because the next question is, “Well how do I rightly mix them?” They are waiting there with a system and then you’re trapped. True gospel preaching preaches salvation by faith in Christ alone.
LikeLike
Doug,
Maybe not heretical, but clearly rejected by the OPC, the URC, and the RCUS to name three solid Reformed groups.
LikeLike
Doug,
Affirming two covenants doesn’t make one a bi-conventionalist. The questions is, do the pre- and post fall covenants operate on the same? If one believes both Adam and fallen man after the fall fulfill the covenant obligations though faith and works, or faithfulness, then one is a mono-conventionalist.
Norman Shepherd was mono as he wrote,
“The method of justification for Adam is exactly what it is for Paul as described in Romans 1:17, “The righteous will live by faith. . .” Justification now includes the forgiveness of sins, and faith is faith in the blood of Jesus. But the basic structure is the same: the righteous live by faith. It is true both before and after the fall that the righteous live by faith.” Shepherd goes on to include faithful obedience in his definition of faith.
A bi-conventionalist sees the two covenants operating on two distinct principles, Adam by works, and the sinner post-fall by faith, apart from works. Only by affirming this distinction do you avoid a Romanesque gospel.
LikeLike
If you are looking at anything other than the righteousness of Christ for your justification you need to be concerned, because anything else you look at is ever-changing, shifting, and ultimately unreliable. This is my #1 beef with the men who come here with any kind of Jesus+ formula, from Richard with introspection, to Doug S. with Theonomy, to John T. with the Federal Vision. I don’t see this error in the 2K guys, because they focus, which is the chief virtue of 2K thinking.
LikeLike
Erik, obedience and faith are used interchangeably sometimes in the same sentence! Read Romans ten very closely, obedience and faith are two sides of the same coin. Also check out Hebrews, 3 and later in 4 once again the author (Paul?) uses obedience and faith interchangeably.
Hebrews 4:1
“For the gospel came to us just as to them, but the message they heard did not benefit” them
Me: What was the problem with those disobedient so in so’s?
“Because they were not united by faith with those who listened!”
They were disobedient! Which is just another way of saying they lacked faith! All men are commanded by God to repent and believe, anyone who has “the obedience of faith” will be saved!
LikeLike
Sorry, Doug. Not buying. One flows from the other.
LikeLike
Doug,
Are you actually a member of a church right now that teaches and emphasizes the things that you talk about here?
LikeLike
To alter Doug’s frequent illustration, Jesus is both wings and my works and obedience are either riding in coach or are down with the luggage.
LikeLike
Bobby: Richard, To simplify things for you, let’s at least assume that the elect are not free to partake of hell. Further, I am referring to the material world, i.e., the world of everyday living. In other words, I am not referring to hell or to the soul of the reprobate. I think you knew that, and are simply trying to continue in your sophistry instead of answering the question.
RS: Bobby, no sophistry at all. Just poking holes in your arguments. You could simply state them in a different way instead of going on the attack, but…,
Bobby: I suspect you’ve persisted in this conduct because you have no answer to give that wouldn’t otherwise reveal you as a practical gnostic.
RS: I suspect that you are suspecting incorrectly.
Bobby: For what it’s worth, I would make the same judgment about Edwards. I believe that he is a Christian, but I would put him in a category with the likes of Charles Finney and Joseph Smith.
RS: If you had ever read Edwards much at all you could not possibly put him in the same category with Finney and Joseph Smith. Both of those men were not orthodox and had no right to even be thought of as Christians. Joseph Smith was a gross heretic and possibly just a fraud all the way through.
Bobby: As Allen Bloom noted long ago, the differences between Mormons and most Baptists lie more in the realm of form than substance. Mormons are generally possess a much more pleasant disposition, however.
RS: Why don’t you use the Bible or the confessions rather than Bloom? Mormons may possess a more pleasant disposition, but they deny the Trinity and believe that they can work hard enough to be their own gods over a planet. Holy underwear, Bobby, where do you come up with this stuff? Baptists are a lot different than Mormons, though I would not argue very strongly for the Baptist denominations. However, calvinistic Baptists are a lot different than other kinds of Baptists so perhaps you should not use such a broad brush. Plus, Mormonism was not even around when John the Baptist preached and certainly Mormonism does not have anything in common with him theologically.
Bobby: But rest assured, I believe that most Mormons (and most Baptists) are bound for the eternal feast prepared for us by our Father.
RS: All who believe the theological heresy that Mormons believe will feast on the wrath of God for all eternity. If you really believe the last sentence you posted, then no wonder you think I am gnostic in some way. Mormonism is a works oriented false gospel that has nothing to do with Christianity. They deny the Trinity, the deity of Christ, and the atonement. They deny justification by grace alone through faith alone. Have you been drinking too much of that strong drink that you defend with such strong words?
Bobby, the grace of God is found in the true Jesus Christ and the true Jesus Christ alone. There is nothing I or anyone else can do to merit it, earn it, or move God to give it. This is a sovereign grace that He gives at His mere pleasure. The means of grace are the Word, prayer, meditation, and Sacrament. He has not spread grace all through creation that we can simply partake of His grace as we please. He has given men many good gifts out of His kindness and goodness, but grace is focused in Christ.
LikeLike
Richard,
If we can just stay focused on Mormons & Catholics all the time you & I will get along great!
LikeLike
Erik, we aren’t saved by our good works, we’re saved for good works. But we can only do good works with a broken and contrite spirit. We’ve got nothing to brag about in our own strength. When we humble ourselves, by trusting God promises he will lift us up in due time. So there is no written set of dos and don’ts (with in reason) we subjectively “die daily” which is an attitude of the heart, (picking up our cross) knowing that Christ lives through us in the Holy Spirit we walk in the joy of the Lord.
We NEED to encourage each other to press on, because its God’s good pleasure to test our heart’s to obey him, when it isn’t easy. (Anyone remember Peter?) God knows how to set things up to see where we’re really at. Yet there was a day later according to history where Peter made the good confession with his life. God calls our good works done in faith refined like fine gold. And God says is beautiful in Christ. Even in our defiled flesh, God gets pleasure when we obey him with a humble heart.
LikeLike
Erik
I am quite happy to change ‘obedience of faith’ to ‘faith’ or ‘faith alone’. The day of judgement is however about the fruit of faith. It is the judgement of a life lived. I look only to Christ for my acceptance with God. I am completely on the same page with you here. I cannot fully subscribe to H60 because I do not believe justification is best understood in terms of Christ’s active and passive obedience.but on his death and resurrection (not his life and death so much as his death and life). But that apart I am happy to subscribe.
Faith in Scripture can be both active and passive. It may be simply resting on a promise (as in Roms 4: 1-6) or positive action based on the promise (as in Hebs 11). Faith is, as you say, itself obedience (it bows to the claim of Christ’s Lordship) and that may be what the phrase ‘obedience of faith’ in Romans means. In other words it may mean the passive sense of the word. It may also mean the active sense since the letter clearly sees the gospel as creating an obedient people. Paul sees himself at the very outset as a bondslave of Jesus Christ. And says in Ch 6
Rom 6:16-18 (ESV2011)
Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness.
Compare too
Rom 16:17-19 (ESV2011)
I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them. For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naive. For your obedience is known to all, so that I rejoice over you, but I want you to be wise as to what is good and innocent as to what is evil.
If the principle of initial faith is an acknowledgement of the Lordship of Christ then it follows ongoing faith will be a living out of this. For myself, I would not like to choose between the two in the phrase ‘obedience of faith’. If, of course someone were saying that my obedience was in some sense meritorious and added to the finished work of Christ then I would immediately deny this.
My point is we must make sense on the judged by works passages and James’ ‘justified by works’ passages too and not simply bury our heads in the sand and pretend they are not there.
Doug
Thanks for support on this issue. You are right, we will come from different places in a number of issues. I am not a Covenant theologian, I am much happier with a new covenant theology. I think there are two covenants of works – the Adamic Covenant and the Mosaic. You and I will disagree about the believer’s relationship to law. I see the Noahic as in many senses a reaffirming in a fallen world creational intentions; it is not about redemption but creation.
I concur fully with your previous post.
LikeLike
A Poster: If you are looking at anything other than the righteousness of Christ for your justification you need to be concerned, because anything else you look at is ever-changing, shifting, and ultimately unreliable. This is my #1 beef with the men who come here with any kind of Jesus+ formula, from Richard with introspection, to Doug S. with Theonomy, to John T. with the Federal Vision. I don’t see this error in the 2K guys, because they focus, which is the chief virtue of 2K thinking.
RS: One can throw the term introspection around as they please, but that does not change the facts. Jesus says that if we love Him we will obey His commands. James says that faith without works is dead. Paul says that the believer is created in Christ Jesus for good works. Paul also says that we should examine ourselves to see if Christ is in us. The common theme of all of those is Christ. It is not a matter of Christ plus something, but a matter if it is Christ at all rather than just words.
LikeLike
Adam PetersEn: To summarize, I see two big points of disagreement: interpretation of Scripture’s teaching on alcohol (you think it should be used strictly for medicinal purposes) and Christian piety writ large.
RS: I don’t think that I have argued that wine is for medicinal purposes only. What I have said is that when Paul told Timothy to drink wine that was the only reason he mentioned.
Old Post RS: But you are missing the whole point. If person A will not be around people who don’t drink, then isn’t that person missing out on fellowship and preferring drinking to fellowship?
AP: You’ve misunderstood. I’m more than cool with people not drinking. My problem with the teetotalers isn’t that they’re not drinking it’s that they’re looking down their noses at others for drinking. In other words, it’s the folks that unbiblically judge drinkers as all the same (drunken sinners misusing medicine for stomach aches) that cause problems. Why would I want to waste my time with such dour, divisive folk?
RS: But you are the one sounding dour and divisive at this point. You think that teetotalers are dour and divisive and look down their noses at others for drinking. Rather judgmental of you.
Old Post RS:…Or perhaps Christians tend to waste a lot of their time thinking that they are having fun. Perhaps, as many of the older writers would assert, the amusements of the world are simply those things that take the minds of people off of eternity….Is it the best use of our time? Is it the best use of our resources?
AP: So…sitting around a meal with friends and enjoying a glass of wine is a waste of time…? It’s just an illusion of fun? Would I be having more fun/being spiritually productive if I was reading my Bible by myself? I agree Christians should number their days, but what’s your criteria for declaring an activity a waste of time?
RS: The point is that people will argue until they are blue in the face that they have the write to drink virtually anything under the sun and that they want to do this in all sorts of venues. I have never argued that sittting around a dinner table and having a glass of wine is wrong.
Old post RS: I didn’t call you dogs, though Calvin spoke of barking dogs at times. So it is better to question the motives and the souls of pietists for questioning the wisdom in drinking than it is for the pietists to question the souls of those drinking. I think I hear your position.
AP: As just noted, the problem here is that your questions don’t allow for an answer in the affirmative: you’ve already judged me guilty.
RS: Guilty of what?
Old Post RS: I suppose Paul would have been insufferable since he spoke like that and the teaching is based on his. There are many recovering alcoholics in the world and it could be that you know some who have not told you about it.
AP: Wait, Paul condemned alcohol and by extension the Lord and the Scriptures? News to me.
RS: I didn’t say that. I am saying that Paul did say to keep in mind the weaker brother and we should be very careful not to cause others to stumble.
AP: Paul says to be careful with the weaker brother less you eat or drink something that causes him to stumble and no one is disagreeing about that. But as much as you harp about alcohol let me ask you, do you give people an equally hard time about gluttony? Make it personal, have you avoided having a cheeseburger infront of an overweight brother? Maybe you should just not eat cheeseburgers ever because of the risk of leading someone astray. Maybe you should just eat celery sticks; then again, who knows, maybe you’ll be consuming celery infront of someone struggling with bolemia and you’ll only be encouraging their obsession with their celery-only diet.
RS: I don’t eat cheeseburgers anyway. I have a very strict diet that is due to stomach intolerances. But I do think we should be careful about gluttony, yes.
AP: All of that said, I don’t see anyone here denying that we should be sensitive about our brothers’ particular struggle, but nowhere does Scripture suggest a complete prohibition for all Christians on account of this sensitivity.
RS: But I have not argued for a complete prohibition for all.
AP: Final question, what exactly was your explanation of Jesus’ first miracle?
RS: All things were created by the word of His power.
LikeLike
Dr. Hart, I am a little late to the party, but “sewage of the soul,”really? In the words of Martin Luther…..I may have to use that line in my next morbid introspection therapy session. Thanks for coining a phrase.
LikeLike
Another way to divide to men here is, to what degree do they want to find something good in themselves vs. finding good in Christ. The desire to find something good in yourself springs from the same pride that people have when they refuse to accept Christ in the first place. “I’m a good person”, “I’m not a sinner”, etc. Catholics want to be good people and contribute to their salvation through their works. Introspective, Edwards-loving, revivalists want to see good evidences in themselves, be they ordinary or supernatural. Theonomists want to promote law-keeping as a measure of their own goodness. These are all contrary to looking to Christ and his righteousness. Take, eat, remember, and believe — the blood and body of Christ shed and broken to remove all of your sins.
LikeLike
Erik: To alter Doug’s frequent illustration, Jesus is both wings and my works and obedience are either riding in coach or are down with the luggage.
Just wanted to repeat that. Made my day.
LikeLike
Federal visionists want to substitute “faithfulness” for “faith”, as if they are the same thing.
LikeLike
@Doug:
The technical problem with appealing to the “obedience of faith” is getting the genitive right. Does the “of” (genitive in Greek) mean
faithful obedience
obedience that results from faith
obedience which is faith
obedience which is a part of faith
Or even something else? You cannot decide this question on strict grammar alone — they all look grammatically the same. Instead, you must use context – the immediate context of Rom 1, the argument of Romans, comparison to Paul’s other writings, the whole of Scripture – to decide the question.
Before you jump in with an answer, you might take a look (if you’ve not already done so) at the Catholic catechism and Trent on faith, and then compare that to the WCoF on faith. You should expect to see a sharp difference of opinion on the understanding of the genitive there.
here is good Catholic description of the difference.
Now I point you to Catholic sources so that you may become a better Protestant, so that you can put the Protestant doctrine in sharper relief against its Catholic antithesis. Let no one mistake me here!
LikeLike
The problem with all of these systems is that when we look at ourselves honestly we always see a mix of good and bad. Who are we to say the good outweighs the bad? If God’s standard is perfect sinlessness how do we measure up? Christ is the only one that meets that standard.
The alternative to looking at ourselves honestly is looking at ourselves dishonestly. I’ll always remember an interview I heard between Ted Haggard (when he was the head of the National Association of Evangelicals) and a Reformed interviewer. The interviewer was talking about how difficult it is to avoid sin and Haggard responded that he had not sinned in several days. This was around the same time that he was doing drugs with male prostitutes.
LikeLike
It’s human nature to want to contribute. When someone takes us out to eat, we feel like we should leave the tip. When someone invites us over for a meal, we ask “what can I bring?”. We always want to feel like we are doing our share, pulling our weight. It humbles us to accept a free gift that we have contributed nothing toward.
Was Satan comfortable accepting God’s free gifts to him or did he seek to establish himself independent of God?
LikeLike
A Poster: Another way to divide to men here is, to what degree do they want to find something good in themselves vs. finding good in Christ.
RS: Which no one on here does. The issue is where does Christ dwell. If He dwells in the human soul, and for those who study their Bibles that cannot be denied, then the issue is looking for the good Christ in the soul.
AP: The desire to find something good in yourself springs from the same pride that people have when they refuse to accept Christ in the first place.
RS: No, if Christ does not dwell in people, then people have to look for good from themselves. The indwelling Christ does not lead to pride at all. Refusing to accept Christ as a peson’s life is to refuse Christ at any point.
AP: “I’m a good person”, “I’m not a sinner”, etc. Catholics want to be good people and contribute to their salvation through their works.
RS: They also don’t want Christ as their whole life.
AP: Introspective, Edwards-loving, revivalists want to see good evidences in themselves, be they ordinary or supernatural.
RS: But the good they look for is CHRIST HIMSELF.
AP: Theonomists want to promote law-keeping as a measure of their own goodness.
RS: That is not true of all Theonomists either.
AP: These are all contrary to looking to Christ and his righteousness.
RS: None of the ways you have listed other than Roman Catholicism are contrary to looking to Christ alone and His free gift of righteousness.
AP: Take, eat, remember, and believe — the blood and body of Christ shed and broken to remove all of your sins.
RS: Roman Catholics can believe that too.
Galatians 2:20 “I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me.
LikeLike
A Poster: It’s human nature to want to contribute. When someone takes us out to eat, we feel like we should leave the tip. When someone invites us over for a meal, we ask “what can I bring?”. We always want to feel like we are doing our share, pulling our weight. It humbles us to accept a free gift that we have contributed nothing toward.
RS: But some take pride in trusting the fact that they don’t do anything and in effect make not trusting in something else into doing nothing else. Faith without works is dead. Faith without love is dead. A love that does nothing is dead. The free gift of grace is a gift that continues to give, which is to say it is grace working in people to work out the gift of salvation with fear and trembling.
LikeLike
“The free gift of grace is a gift that continues to give”
“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1K8-kNuDgoA”
LikeLike
Clickable link:
LikeLike
“Federal visionists want to substitute “faithfulness” for “faith”, as if they are the same thing.”
Amen, Brother Erik.
LikeLike
Here is what Doug says: “John, the first covenant made with Adam was prior to the fall, amen? All of the post fall covenants are one covenant of grace in that they offered salvation by grace though faith in Christ Jesus. Since Douglas Wilson affirms two covenants, how could he possibly be a monocovenantalist?”
Is that supposed to be tricky and sleight-of -hand, Doug? Wilson may believe in a covenant made with Adam prior to the fall and post fall covenants but he meshes, mixes and makes the Covenant with Moses (Law) as gracious a covenant as the Covenant made with Christ. Therefore, in my eyes he is a monocovenantalist (meshing, mixing and confusing the covenants) even if you and he denies it. Compare and contrast Wilson’s covenant with the covenant of grace described fully by Paul in Romans, Galatians and Hebrews- where Paul deals most fully with differences between the Covenants in the Old Testament and the New Covenant of Christ. There was always a promise in the Old Testament which was foretold by Moses and the Prophets which is what saved those with a saving faith in that promise.
1) Who are the parties? Wilson’s covenant- God and all baptized and circumcised persons; Covenant of Grace- God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ
2) Who are the members? Wilson’s covenant- All baptized and circumcised persons; Covenant of Grace- Elect individuals
3) What are the conditions members must meet for receiving salvation? Wilson’s covenant-Covenantal faithfulness; Covenant of Grace- none
4) Who meets the conditions of salvation? Wilson’s covenant- Members keep or break the covenant; Covenant of grace- Jesus Christ as the mediator, the Representative of and Substitute for his people, meets the conditions of the Covenant of Works (and by implication the covenant with Moses- my addition)
5) How is one saved? Wilson’s covenant- initial grace conferred by ritual baptism, plus good works; Covenant of grace- Christ’s righteousness imputed through belief alone (Romans 4 repeats the doctrine of imputation 11 times by the word “counted” in the ESV translation- my addition)
6) Outcome of the covenant: Wilson’s covenant-Depends on the sinners performance, or, as some say, the full life lived; Covenant of grace- Depends on Christ alone , who guarantees salvation for all members.
LikeLike
John Y bellows: Is that supposed to be tricky and sleight-of -hand, Doug?
No
John Y says: Wilson may believe in a covenant made with Adam prior to the fall and post fall covenants but he meshes, mixes and makes the Covenant with Moses (Law) as gracious a covenant as the Covenant made with Christ.
Okay John, now you’ve stepped in it! The Mosaic Covenant and the New covenant are the same in substance according to the Westminster confession of faith!
Chapter VII “There are not therefore two covenants of grace differing in substance, but ONE and the SAME under various dispensations.”
Case closed!!!
The WCF calls both Old and New administrations the same in substance! So you’re calling the WCF monocovenantal! Wow! Yet this is the standard Presbyterian view of the Mosaic and the New administrations. Both the Mosaic and the New are one covenant of grace, the same in substance!
Now who has departed from our Confession?
LikeLike
Erik says Erik: To alter Doug’s frequent illustration, Jesus is both wings and my works and obedience are either riding in coach or are down with the luggage.
Wrong Erik! Who repents, Jesus? Who is commanded to daily confess ther sins, Jesus? Who is exhorted to press on to the higher calling, Jesus? Sure we can only do this in his strength, but we were created *for* good works in Christ. And its for this reason *good works* that we are commanded to *work* out our own salvation with fear and trembling____Psssst Erik that’s us! We are called to WORK out our own salvation! Sounds like some people here at Old Life forgot about that Scripture, eh?
Guys, we are called co-workers with Christ! Not that our good works save us, no no, we are saved *for* good works, why is that so hard for some to comprehend?
LikeLike
Doug says: Okay John, now you’ve stepped in it! The Mosaic Covenant and the New covenant are the same in substance according to the Westminster confession of faith!
Chapter VII “There are not therefore two covenants of grace differing in substance, but ONE and the SAME under various dispensations.”
Case closed!!!
The WCF calls both Old and New administrations the same in substance! So you’re calling the WCF monocovenantal! Wow! Yet this is the standard Presbyterian view of the Mosaic and the New administrations. Both the Mosaic and the New are one covenant of grace, the same in substance!
Now who has departed from our Confession?
John Y: Like usual Doug, you read what you want to read and disregard the rest. And you use the Westminster confession when it suits you. Even though I think you are misinterpreting what it is saying in chapter VII. I did not say that the Gospel was not in the Old Testament- the promise was there in Moses too. However, the covenant with Moses was not the Gospel- it was a covenant with conditions attached to it. The promise was unconditional- which is the point I was trying to make. Wilson makes the Gospel conditional like the covenant with Moses. Therefore, he is monocovenantal. I think the point the confession is making is that the Gospel was in the Old Testament too. I did not deny that. “Paul, in Galatians 3:8 says that the Gospel was preached to Abraham; and in 1 Cor. 10:4 we find that the rock in the wilderness was Christ. Regeneration, the work of the Holy Spirit is pictured as clearly in Ezekiel 36:26 as it is in the third chapter of John.”
LikeLike
To buttress what John just wrote, below is a common Puritan view of the difference between Moses and Christ, the Law as a covenant of works which serves as an administration of the covenant of grace by condemning and thus driving sinners to Christ. It wasn’t the only view among the Puritans who held to the WCF but it was a common one.
“It will prove a special help to know distinctly the difference between the covenant of works and the covenant of grace, between Moses and Christ. Moses, without any mercy, breaks all bruised reeds, and quenches all smoking flax. For the law requires personal, perpetual and perfect obedience from the heart, and that under a most terrible curse, but gives no strength. It is a severe task master, like Pharaoh’s, requiring the whole tale of bricks and yet giving no straw. Christ comes with blessing after blessing, even upon those whom Moses had cursed, and with healing balm for those wounds which Moses had made.” (Richard Sibbs, The Bruised Reed)
“Faith. But good Brother hear me out. So soon as the man overtook me, he was but a word and a blow, for down he knocked me, and laid me for dead. But when I was a little come to myself again, I asked him wherefore he served me so? He said, Because of my secret inclining to Adam the First: and with that he struck me another deadly blow on the breast, and beat me down backward, so lay at his foot as dead as before. So when I came to myself again I cried him mercy; but he said, I know not how to shew mercy; and with that knocked me down again. He had doubtless made an end of me, but that one came by, and bid him forbear?
Chr. Who was that that bid him forbear?
Faith. I did not know him at first, but as he went by, I perceived the holes in his hands and in his side; then I concluded that he was our Lord. So I went up the Hill.
Chr. That man that overtook you was Moses: He spareth none, neither knoweth he how to shew mercy to those that transgress his Law.”
(Bunyan – Pilgrim’s Progress)
LikeLike
John Yeazel exlaims The promise was unconditional- which is the point I was trying to make
Unconditional, eh? Then why would Jesus say:
Revelations 3:3
I know your works. You have a reputation of being alive, but you are dead. Wake up, and strengthen what remains and is about to die, FOR I HAVE NOT FOUND YOUR WORKS COMPLETE IN THE SIGHT OF MY GOD. Remember, then what you received and heard. Keep it and repent. If you will not wake up, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what hour I will come against you. Yet you have still a few names in Sardis, people who have not soiled ther garments, and they will walk with me in white, for they are worthy.
It would seem Jesus did put a condition on the church of Sardis, no? Jesus condition was good works! This is the new covenant, right?
LikeLike
John Yeazel says: Wilson may believe in a covenant made with Adam prior to the fall and post fall covenants but he meshes, mixes and makes the Covenant with Moses (Law) as gracious a covenant as the Covenant made with Christ.
Hold on John Yeazel! The WCF calls them both same covenant with different administrations.
4.“The covenant of grace is frequently set forth in the scripture by the name of a Testament, in reference to the death of Jesus Christ the testator, and to the everlasting inheritance, with all things belonging to it therein bequeathed.
5.This covenant was differently administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the gospel; under the law it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all foresignifying Christ to come, which were for that time sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation; and is called the Old Testament.
6. Under the gospel, when Christ the substance was exhibited, the ordinances in which this covenant is dispensed are the preaching of the word, and the administration of the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s[[er. Which though fewer in number, yet in them it is held forth in more fullness, evidence, and spiritual efficacy, to all nations, both Jews and Gentiles; and is called the New Testament. PAY ATTENTION JOHN!
There are not therefore two covenants of grace differing in substance, but one and the same under various dispensations.
Me: That was the WCF on the covenant of grace. Both administrations offered salvation by grace through faith in Christ. They were the same covenant according to the WCF! The way you define monocovenantalism would make the WCF guilty of it as well! John, I think you need to re-think how you understand the covenant of grace, because my P&R Westminster Confession of Fatih work book is backs up Wilson’s view of the covenant of grace, and not yours.
LikeLike
@Todd: More on the ceremonial law with the WCF work book by G.I. Williamson in 1961
(These sections of the Confession teach us (1) that God gave the nation Israel a ceremonial law (in addition to and *distinct* from the moral law)
Todd, do you concur with Williamson that the ceremonial law was distinct from the moral law?
LikeLike
“Todd, do you concur with Williamson that the ceremonial law was distinct from the moral law?”
Yes, why?
LikeLike
Guys
I grieve when I see that your functional (and so real) authority is the words of mere men. What you will have to answer to on the last day is not the words of men but the Word of God. What others have said will count for nothing. The words we must heed and receive are the words of Christ (and by extension the apostolic witness which are equally his words). Learn from others by all means but do not rest on them else, like the Pharisees, you exchange God’s word for the traditions of men and make void the word of God (matt 15:6).
John 12:47-50 (ESV2011)
John 12:47; If anyone hears my words and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world.John 12:48; The one who rejects me and does not receive my words has a judge; the word that I have spoken will judge him on the last day.John 12:49; For I have not spoken on my own authority, but the Father who sent me has himself given me a commandment—what to say and what to speak.John 12:50; And I know that his commandment is eternal life. What I say, therefore, I say as the Father has told me.”
LikeLike
John,
I appreciate what you are saying, but I think Luther would assert that his authority is Holy Scripture. Having said that, I believe it is all too easy to read Luther in a way that supports one’s own view, whether it be the would-be perfectionists or the neo-nomians.
I happen to agree with Darryl’s conclusion. Our faith in Christ should lead us to delight in and strive towards the law of God as we see the Saints before us doing; but also to delight in Christ who both lifts us up as He is lifted up, and like a toddler learning to walk, to get up and persevere in faith when we fall.
LikeLike
Erik says: Federal visionists want to substitute “faithfulness” for “faith”, as if they are the same thing.
Just what is the difference between faith and faithfulness? And where do you see this distnction taught in Scripture? Isnt faith, always fathfull? Someone help me out on this!
LikeLike
Doug,
Since you asked for help, I would say that faithfulness is the right response to faith. As I said above, our faith in Christ should lead us to delight in and strive towards the law of God as we see the Saints before us doing; but also to delight in Christ who both lifts us up as He is lifted up, and like a toddler learning to walk, to get up and persevere in faith when we fall.
LikeLike
John Y says: However, the covenant with Moses was not the Gospel- it was a covenant with conditions attached to it.
Me: I’ve heard this distinction made before. I am a bit uncomfortable with it because it could be used to conclude that the new covenant has no conditions attached to it. That is not true. The covenant of grace in both OT and NT comes with the condition of faith. That faith is purely a gift of God that, as I have said twice already, leads us to delght in the law. Because Christ is the law, our faith also unites us to Him who lifts us up when we fall.
LikeLike
I am not avoiding the fire here I am just in the middle of moving what few personal possessions I have left in my life to a new location and a new job. So, I am in a rather hectic state of mind. A brief of what I want to say in a longer version later. The deeper point that I think is being missed here is that it is the mercy of God which leads many to repentance and a more joyful obedience. It is hard for some of us to really believe that God can forgive their numerous failures and sins. And how one judges failures and sins can be a very subjective matter. To really “hear” that the mercy of God is for elect individuals of varying degrees of understanding and awareness of their sin can take a long time to sink in. I am not sure threats and exhortations with the imperatives is always the way to go with some individuals. I think most people are aware of their sin and can’t seem to get out from under it. They know they are unworthy of the grace of God and suppress their need for it in ways that we often do not understand. That is why we constantly need to hear and talk about the Gospel. That is the gist of what I want to say. I will answer specific remarks by others later.
LikeLike
John,
Well said.
LikeLike
Here, I won’t equivocate. The working principle at sinai as pronounced in Lev. 18:5 is contrary to working principle of the NC as pronounced in Gal. 3:10-14. If the contrast was good enough for Paul, none of us should shy away from it.
LikeLike
Take your time John Yeazel, I’m waiting 🙂
LikeLike
Sean,
I’m not quite sure what you are saying you won’t equivocate on. Lev 18 is about polluting ourselves with fornication and adultery. The NC says a lot about those subjects as well. Can you clarify? What do you see as the working principle of Sinai but faith in Christ, if rightly understood?
LikeLike
Don,
Lev 18:5 is descriptive of Sinai as a covenant of works; ‘do this and live’. Paul contrasts that principle with the NC in Gal 3 of grace and faith, and concludes that the Law is NOT of faith. 12 “But the law is NOT of faith, RATHER “the one who does them shall live by them”. Again, none of this is controversial or new.
LikeLike
Sean:
Lev (18:5) is analogous to Jesus saying, “if you love me, then keep my commandments” which is just another way of saying “do this and live”. How can we “do this and live”? By grace through faith! It’s called faith working itself out in love! Or doing the good works in Christ that he predestined for us to walk in. When we walk by faith, (that is life!) because Christ delights in a broken and contrite spirit! Moses could have just as easily said, “the just shall live by faith” Hey, I think he did, and that was in the law!
Could the Israelites “do this and live” in there own strength? No, but God’s elect did walk this way by grace through faith. Was Moses faithful and pleasing to God? Did Moses, “do this and live”? Of course! Was it by works? God forbid!! Moses was saved by grace through faith, just like we are!
Moses proved the law was to be appropriated by faith, (sorry Sean) because he was a man of faith! Moses, “did this and lived” for 120 years with the vigor of a man in his twenties. What was Moses secret? He was the most humble man in the world!
Both the old and new administrations are the same covenant in substance in that they require God’s people to trust and obey. Both the old and new covenant administrations have blessings for obedience and curses for disobedience. On that point, they differ not.
How can anyone deny this, when there is overwhelming Biblical evidence?
LikeLike
Doug, you’re ignoring Paul’s entire argument. Paul crafted the comparison in Gal. and made the contrast. You may wish to say more about it then what Paul has said but you can’t gloss over the contrast that Paul is making. Your issue isn’t with me. Paul says the Law is NOT of faith. It’s a direct contrast with Lev. 18:5 as the working principle of Sinai.
LikeLike
Doug,
Did you answer my question as to whether you are a member of a church that teaches the stuff you advocate here?
LikeLike
Doug,
If I step outside I have faith that gravity will keep me from flying off into space. My faithfulness or lack thereof has nothing to do with me not flying off into space.
LikeLike
Doug,
You seem to like the OPC. At least you liked Bahnsen. Have you read the OPC Report on Justification? You really do say things that run counter to the report. Are you or have you ever been an OPC officebearer?
LikeLike
Sean, it may not be new, but it’s certainly controversial!
How could an Israelite, “do this and live”? As if it were by works? God forbid! Answer, by faith! Did Moses “do this and live”? Duh! As if it were by works? God forbid!! Sean, faith has always been the key to obeying “do this and live”! The law was never a works righteousness proposition! The just shall live by faith! That was just as true in both administrations!
For you to read Paul “who was referring to the ceremonial law being forced on Gentile Christians” (which was not of faith) as seriously implying the Mosaic Law had nothing to do with faith, is ridiculous! You have completely garbled and twisted Paul’s words into absurdity. The just shall live by faith! Pssst, that’s in the law as well!
LikeLike
Erik, no I am not an officer, just a layman. Let me look up the OPC’s paper on justification and I’ll get back at you.
LikeLike
Erik, I am talking about evangelical faith, which is a gift of God. Not faith we can manafacture in our own strength.
LikeLike
Doug, calm, breath. Go compare the context of Lev. 18 and 19 with Exodus 20, even the preamble. Paul is making a direct comparison to the very heart of the siniatic covenant. Yes I do believe in the typical aspect of the mosaic covenant and yes I believe the Abrahamic covenant is undergirding the whole structure. BTW, I get that from Paul in Rom and Gal. I didn’t make it up.
LikeLike
Erik, what I’m advocating is pretty standard stuff. I find it all in my WCF work book published by P&R.
LikeLike
Sean,
A good argument has been made (not sure by whom), that Paul wrote Galatians as opposition to the Judaizers who wanted to keep converted Gentiles under the old covenant as though Christ never came. Lev 18:5 has a totally different context (adultery), which if a Jew disobeyed, he was killed. I suggest you are comparing apples and oranges.
LikeLike
Don, that analysis doesn’t really work when you compare Lev 18 & 19 with Exodus 20. Not to mention Gal 3 and 4. Gal 3 is already noted, but then look at Gal 4 when he contrasts the two women allegorically and calls Hagar, Mount Sinai, who bears children born into slavery and the other woman, a free woman, who bears Isaac, the child of promise, correlates to the Jerusalem above and is our mother and is free. He then says cast out the slave woman and her son for they will NOT INHERIT with the son of the free woman, and then declares WE(you and I) are children of the free woman and NOT of the slave. This is the same thing he says outright in Gal 3 contrasting the Law(Sinai) with the NC and faith. Paul declares the Law is not of faith.
LikeLike
I would also add that “the law is not of faith”, according to Paul in Galatians, means that the law was a custodian to protect and lead the adolescent church (the nation, Israel, upon whom God placed His favor) to maturity until Christ came. As Paul said, the law was necessary because of sin to prevent God’s people from becoming just like the surrounding nations (which was happening anyway and would have happened had not Christ come when He did). Once He came, we no longer live under that covenant (as though Christ had not come), but by faith in Christ who has now been revealed.
LikeLike
Don, here’s a really good exegetical treatment of the topic; http://www.tdgordon.net/courses/rel_488_sr_seminar/romans_932.pdf
LikeLike
Don, the law wasn’t given to keep them from becoming just like the other nations. The pedagogical use of the Law was given so that they might be imprisoned in their sin(conscience bearing witness) and look to Christ and a righteousness that came by faith, NOT by the works of the law. This is foundational, necessary and protestant. You lose this ground and you have no principled soteriological distinction from Rome. That’s not a scare tactic, that’s simply the ground on which we stand.
LikeLike
Paul clearly lays this out to the Jews in Romans when he tells them their possession of the law, earns them NOTHING but greater condemnation, for it is the doers of the law who are Just. Paul then goes on to argue that their is NONE good not even one their is NONE that pursues after God. They all, jew and gentile alike, stand condemned.
LikeLike
Sean,
Read the entirety of Gal 4. Beginning with verse 1 Paul says the heir, as long as he is a child, is no better than a SLAVE, though he is the owner of all the estate; 2 but he is under guardians and trustees until the date set by the father.
Then in verse 24 Paul says these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar. 25 Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother.
Paul is using an allegory for those who live under the two covenants. He allegorizes the old covenant as Hagar and associates her with Mount Sinai because that covenant was a fleshly covenant, written on stone tablets, signed by removal of flesh. While it was still in affect, it stood as a testimony to faith in the OT saints, but the new has come, and Jerusalem still wants to live under the old fleshly covenant. She is therefore now in slavery to the guardian who has been revealed and replaced by Christ, the promised One.
LikeLike
Sean stanchly states “Paul is making a direct comparison to the very heart of the siniatic covenant.”
Balderdash! Then take an exception! I just quoted the WCF which states they (old and new administrations) are not two different covenants but the “same in substance” just differing administrations, the same way of salvation, same rule of life, FAITH! Both old and new administrations have stipulations for blessings and curses based on our obedience. How can you miss the obvious?!
Come on Brother! Just read Revelations where Jesus evaluates the 7 churches. It’s as plain as the nose on your face. Jesus promises great blessings for obedience, and curses “even death of children”, for disobedience. Don’t try to hide from Scripture Sean. Repeat after me, “they are not two covenants”.
LikeLike
Sean,
The Romans 3 passage that you cite regarding no one seeking God references Ps 14. That Psalm is castigating the workers of iniquity who are eating up the generation of the righteous.So clearly, the those who were walking by faith under the OT are the righteous. Now in Rom 3, the distinction between those who walk by faith and those who don’t must pertain.
Having said that, I will look at Gordon’s treatment.
LikeLike
Doug
I’ve only skim read the last few comments so forgive me if my comment is not at the heart of what is being discussed, I hope it is. Unfortunately (since you’ve supported me so well) here I must disagree with you. Paul uses ‘do this and live’ as a summary (from Lev 18) of the principle of law, that is, it offers life upon obedience (and obedience so detailed that for a fall;en man it is clearly impossible). It’s principle is the exact opposite of grace. Law says’ do this and live’ grace says ‘live and do’ (or even, more accurately it says ‘believe.
I won’t cite the various Scriptures for they have largely already been cited. It was always true that the just shall live by faith BUT ‘the just shall live by faith’ was not the principle upon which the Mosaic covenant was based. The Law, was just that, law. It was a series of commands and none of these was a command to ‘believe’. There is no promise of aided grace. God’s grace is of course working within the covenant in that he makes provision for failure and the very exposing of sin was gracious in the sense it underlined the need for Christ and salvation. BUT the covenant principle is not ‘gracious’. It is basically do and live or don’t do and die. It is consequently an ‘administration of death’.
Although the Abrahamic Covenant requires faith we should avoid turning faith here into a work. The point Roms 4 makes is that Abraham simply believed God and that belief constituted him righteous. At that point his faith was simply believing the promise. At that point Abraham was righteous and ‘lived’. He had ‘life’.
The Mosaic covenant does not assume those under it had circumcised hearts, indeed it assumes the opposite for ‘do this and live’ tells us it assumes those who in its administration do not live and therefore do not have circumcised hearts.
Paul in Romans compares in Ch 10 the simplicity and ease of faith with the difficulty of law. The law called for the impossible ascend to God but the word of faith is near and in our mouths.
Of course, Israel was never intended to ‘do this and live’. They were intended to see the impossibility of this and so rest on the promise of the Abrahamic covenant and the promise as it is revealed (typologically) in law. This is what the godly in Israel did. They saw their sin and trusted God for forgiveness (David in Roms 4). It was this faith in promise that gave them circumcised hearts, not the Mosaic covenant.
I may add, although redeemed from Egypt and thus God’s people who owe him allegiance as their redeemer this redemption was only political and typological, it was not a redemption from sin. It did not give any a renewed or circumcised heart.
Look at the covenant in Ex 18-25 and see this. When Israel break the covenant before it has time to dry God says he will wipe them out. Moses does not appeal to grace within the covenant for there is none. The essence of the covenant is the ten words and these are pure law. Moses appeals to God’s promise to the patriarchs and to God’s own glory which he has tied to this people. He appeals too (if I remember rightly) to God’s heart which he knows to be gracious and he invites God to make him (Moses) a substitute object for judgement but there is no appeal to covenant mercy for there was none. Later God makes provision for sin but the essence and nature of the covenant is pure law on tablets of stone.
Anyway, I’ll stop for now. I hope this contributes to the discussion.
LikeLike
Sean,
I would add that Paul really means what he says about doers of the law, but it is referring again to those who do the law by faith/inwardly (certainly not perfectly, else there would not have been the need for sacrifices which foreshadowed Christ – also check out Rom 9:30-33). And that is what he says at the end of the chapter:
And here again, you see the inward/invisible versus the outward/visible distinction which Calvin is adamant about.
LikeLike
Don, I’m not sure what you mean by ‘fleshly’. If you’re looking for a spirit/letter distinction you’re failing to grasp Paul’s entire argument which includes in both Rom and Gal, the normative TRUTH of strict justice; It’s the doer’s of the Law who are justified, and then rendering the judgement that none, not one are good or seek after God.
Gal 3; 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.” Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.” But the law is not of faith, rather “The one who does them shall live by them.”
(Galatians 3:10-12 ESV)
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. But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.
(Galatians 3:21-22 ESV)
I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.
(Galatians 2:21 ESV)
It wasn’t a mere failure to ‘Live by the Spirit’ or a determination to live ‘Fleshly’ For if a law had been given THAT COULD give life……………… That’s why Paul sets off the Abrahamic(children of promise) from the Siniatic and argues that the Siniatic that came 430 years later, does not annul the Abrahamic.
Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many, but referring to one, “And to your offspring,” who is Christ. 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. For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise.
(Galatians 3:16-18 ESV)
There is in Sinai an elemental contrariness to grace and faith. Those OT saints were saved per the promises in the Abrahamic.
LikeLike
Sean, Paul is using irony to jar the Judiazers out of their stupor. When he said “the law is not of faith” he meant the way they (Judiazers) were clinging to the shadow of Christ, (ceremonial law) and trying to force new Christians under its yoke. Since Christ Jesus had already accomplished redemption, clinging to the shadow was not of faith. Why sacrifice animals anymore? Not that the law wasn’t to be appropriated by faith before Christ!
What was the problem with the Church at Galatia? Jewish Christians wouldn’t have table fellowship with “former” Gentile Christians unless they submitted to the yoke of the ceremonial law including circumscion. Peter even got sucked into this view. For new Christians to submit to this yoke would in so many words be denying that Christ had come! (Which wasn’t of faith?) This was not an indictment on the Mosaic law, which Paul said was good.
LikeLike
Doug, I’m familiar with the ‘misuse’ argument. My problem is it doesn’t hold up to what Paul is actually saying. I know monocovenantalists want to emphasize continuity and so they cling to this argument, I’m convinced by what I’ve read that Paul is elucidating a discontinuity on the level of ‘working principle’ and I’ve cited both a very good exegetical treatment by T. David Gordon and thrown in my two cents. Just as an aside our favorite roman catholic apologists are basically using the riff you and Don are arguing for, to argue for Rome’s soteriology, it doesn’t necessarily prove anything but it’s something to ponder.
LikeLike
Sean, have you ever read the Psalms? I challenge you to read Psalm 119 and try to tell me the law is not of faith! By the way the law is neither faithful nor unfaithful, its all how we approach the law. But if you read David’s view of the law, it’s marvelous! And the implications from some of David’s pronouncments are profound indeed.
Oh how I love your law, its my meditation all through the day and night!
David saw the law though eyes of faith, like we’re supposed too!
LikeLike
Doug, I confess that the law is good but I’m not. I confess that God is good and I’m not. I also confess that before the law I was free, but the law ‘discovered’ all sorts of sin within me(this is Paul’s confession as well-Romans). It’s not the law’s fault it’s mine. Thank God for Jesus Christ and a righteousness conveyed through faith in Him apart from the Law.
LikeLike
Sean,
Who are “my people” and “the generation of the righteous” in Ps 14:4-5. Are they coounted among those who do not do good?
LikeLike
Sean, it always was by grace. David knew that listen:
“Give me understanding, that I may keep your law and observe it with my whole heart.”
Notice Daivd asking for grace, so that he can keep the law with all his heart? Was David saying he was perfect? No! David saw the law aright!
“Let your steadfast love come to me, O LORD, your salvation accrding to your promise;
Notice how David see salvation coming from the promise, not the law? Yet he still loves the law!
“I will run in the way of our commandments when you enlarge my heart!”
Doesnt that say it all? King David is saying he will obey when God moves in his heart! Faith and obedience, right there!
So Sean, King David was a man after God’s own heart, he saw the law as beautuful. He saw the law as something to aspire too, WHEN GOD ENLARGES HIS HEART. See brother? It’s grace by faith even during the time of the law.
LikeLike
Don, Doug, Do you guys hold that the law demanded perfection to be declared righteous? Do you guys believe in the imputation of Christ’s righteousness?
And btw, I’m not arguing that ANYBODY was saved apart from faith in Jesus Christ. I’m merely tracking, along with Paul, the connection between the Abrahamic promisese to fulfillment in the NC. It’s Paul in both Romans and Galatians making the connection between Abrahamic promises and NC fulfillment apart from the law which was added 430 years later. This discussion shouldn’t be this difficult.
LikeLike
Sean, that wasn’t Paul’s confession in Romans 7. Paul is using the first person describing apostate Israel’s plight and why they (the natural man) in general were not able to perform the law aright. They lacked faith, meaning they were not born of God! They thought it was by works, but the law was never offered as a works righteousness arrangement. Paul certainly wasn’t describing himself at that moment being sold under sin!
Just a quick commentary. 🙂
LikeLike
Sean, the law was added because of their sin. Through the proper use of sacrifices and ordinances offered in faith, God’s people could have their sins forgiven and he would dwell with them! Which was good enough for the time, until Christ came and accomplished redemption once for all. After Christ came, the whole Jewish sacrificial system needed to be set aside. To cling to the shadow of Christ, after Christ had gone to the cross was not of faith.
To suggest that the Mosaic covenant offered a work for salvation proposition for Israel is absurd. Is that how Moses thought he got saved? Because he *thought* he had to earn salvation? After all, Moses wrote most of the law, right? Did Moses think Israel had to earn their salvation? God forbid! Does anyone remember the Pascal lamb? “And your sins shall be forgiven”. Does that sound like earn your salvation??
LikeLike
Doug, I’m going to pass over some very remarkable statements you just made, I reserve the right to revisit them however, and ask the question again;
Don, Doug, Do you guys hold that the law demanded perfection to be declared righteous? Do you guys believe in the imputation of Christ’s righteousness?
LikeLike
Doug
‘Sean, have you ever read the Psalms? I challenge you to read Psalm 119 and try to tell me the law is not of faith! ‘
The Psalms reveal how a circumcised heart lived under the law. It does not say anything about the principle of law. When Paul says, ‘the law is not of faith’ he is saying it is not based on the principle of faith but works. Men of faith in the OC became of faith because they believed in the promise thereafter they lived by the demands of the law much like you say believers ought to live today only not merely by the ten commandments but the whole law. Even for circumcised hearts this law was ‘a burden’ as Peter reminds us in Acts.
Acts 15:10 (ESV2011)
Acts 15:10; Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?
The regenerate heart under the OC delighted in God’s law. This is what Roms 7 is all about. It describes a regenerate heart under law (not I think, apostate Israel but believers in Israel) seeking to live by the law of God without the presence of the NC gift of the Spirit. He recognises the law is good, holy, just and spiritual. He wants to do good but cannot. He delights in it in his inner being (something apostate Israel didn’t do). He loves it but he cannot keep it, therefore he is wretched.
God’s people will delight in any revelation of himself that God gives but that is a different matter from being able to keep it and says nothing about its intention or purpose. The believer under law had a new heart but no power so that even for a believing Jew the law was a failure.
Thus he needs deliverance from law ALTOGETHER. He needs a new covenant with new relationships and responsibilities and a new power. He needs to be taken by death out of the world where law had authority and into new creation where it has no authority.
LikeLike
Sean,
I have not seen your answer to my question: Who are “my people” and “the generation of the righteous” in Ps 14:4-5. Are they counted among those who do not do good?
Neither our righteousness nor the righteousness of the saints of the OT or NT has been imputed to us on the basis of a single thing we have done, but solely on the basis of Christ’s righteousness imputed to us. This is not something new. What is new is that Christ has come, the old (covenant) has passed away.
LikeLike
Sean, the ceremonial ordinances and sacrifices presupposed that no one could keep the law perfectly! The law itself taught you not to trust in the law, if you saw it aright. David could say
“Let your steadfast love come to me, O LORD, your salvation accrding to your promise,:
The law couldnt save, but it pointed to Jesus if you approached the law in faith, “and your sins shall be forgiven.” Notice how David’s faith looked ahead to Christ? So the law gave provisions for the sin of God’s people.
LikeLike
Sean, I hope you realize that you’re splitting the covenant of grace into two covenants calling one of works and the other by faith; you’ll need to take an exception. The WCF calls them the same covenant in substance. How can you say, the law isn’t of faith, if our Confession calls them the same covenant? I’m scratching my head……it doesn’t even make sense of the surface of things.
You know Calvin didn’t believe this, no? This is very new stuff; will you at least admit that? I smell Kline all over this!
LikeLike
John T, here is some food for thought on Romans 7
I encourage you to try and read Romans 7 with this perspective, (just try it) Paul is using the first person describing Israel his countryman whom he loved in starting in verse 7. But prior to this in verse 1 he is speaking to those who know the law—obviously Israel. And Paul then morphs into the first person in verse 7. Paul knew how the Jewish mind worked better than anyone. Israel gloried in the law, but for all the wrong reasons. The fell in love with the ceremonial trappings that made them feel special, but they were not born again… So they became puffed up and proud.
There heart was far from God because they were not born again. So they didn’t see the law like David. I’m fairly certain that Paul is talking about corporate Israel and how they couldn’t ever live up to the law, using first person. Israel approached the law zealously as if it were by works! They didn’t have a circumcised heart. They lacked the power to do good because they were not born again. What was there only hope? Being in Christ Jesus, which is the start of chapter 8.
So Paul is describing apostate Israel’s heart issues. Proving that God must first do a work before sinful man can respond. But union in Christ by grace though faith is still the key. And we read about this in chapter 8
LikeLike
Sean soberly states, I won’t equivocate. The working principle at Sinai as pronounced in Lev. 18:5 is contrary to working principle of the NC as pronounced in Gal. 3:10-14. If the contrast was good enough for Paul, none of us should shy away from it.
Sean your completely miss-reading Paul in Galatians 3 and yanking him out of context. Proof being if you were correct I couldnt find all the new covenant curses I”ve been able to find Please look:
Revelations 2:19
“I know your works, your love and faith and service and patient endurance, and that your latter works exceed the first. But I have this against you, that you tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess and is teaching and seducing my servants to practice sexual immorality and to eat food sacrificed to idols. I gave her time to repent, but she refuses to repent of her sexual immorality.”
Get read for some curses!
“Behold, I will throw her onto a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her. I will throw into great tribulation, unless they repent of her works, and I will strike her children dead. And all the churches will know that I am he who searches mind and heart, and I will give to each of you according to your works.”
Did you catch Jesus last sentence? How is that different than the promises and warnings found in the law? Sean, how can you say with a straight face, that the new covenant doesn’t have curses and blessings based on our works? This doenst sound like the new covenant you’ve been talkng about where are works don’t matter. Jesus say they do matter!. Perhaps in your zeal to protect Sola Fide, you have neglected Scriptures on sanctification. Both are necessary! This is strong language from the Lord Jesus to his new covenant churches, no? Will you take heed?
LikeLike
Sean, maybe this will help us get to the crux of the issue. Did God expect Israel to walk by faith?
LikeLike
Doug
I have thought about your position before. It is Moo’s position (and M Bird’s and some others). I like Moo a lot. I thoroughly agree it is Israel but I do not agree it is apostate Israel. No apostate says he delights in God’s law in the inner man and longs to keep it. Nor does an ‘apostate’ say the law ‘kills him’. This for me makes the category simply those ‘under law’.
Paul is simply demonstrating the inadequacy of law. All of Roms 7 is simply a demonstrating of 7:1-6. It live under law is to live in the era of flesh but to be married to Christ is to live in the era of the Spirit.
Rom 7:4-6 (ESV2011)
Rom 7:4; Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God.Rom 7:5; For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death.Rom 7:6; But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code.
‘Flesh’ is not primarily an anthropological category but an epochal or eschatological category; it designates even believers in the era before the Spirit. Any who are not ‘in the Spirit’ (all before Pentecost, including believers) were in the flesh.
I’m enjoying this discussion however. While I am not convinced by apostate Israel I think it is a much more text sensitive view than the normal Reformed one.
LikeLike
Doug, a belief in the re-publication of the COW doesn’t require an exception. I’ve already explained and championed the undergirding of the entire Siniatic covenant with the Abrahamic covenant. It’s why Paul asserts that Abraham is the father of ALL believers both Jew and Gentile, before Moses, during Sinai and now. Rom 3-4
Don, do you believe in the perfect demands of the law? And if so, how would you understand Psalm 14:4-5. I can think of a couple of ways for it to be applied. Eschatologically, typically, nationally considered (ethnic Israel) conformity under the OC. I’m thinking more eschatologically or even typically particularly in consideration of vs 1-3.
LikeLike
Loving the law (Psalm 119) is not the same thing as equating it with faith. Even if you love it you are still screwed when you break it (which you do — frequently). Christ is the only lawkeeper, which is why faith in Christ and his imputed righteousness is your only hope.
LikeLike
Guys,
It seems like this discussion has been focused on abstractions instead of the true and organic, though invisible, change which occurs in the souls of all those who are regenerated. Calvin describes this change beautifully in his commentary on Rom 7:21-23:
LikeLike
Sean says: Don, do you believe in the perfect demands of the law? And if so, how would you understand Psalm 14:4-5. I can think of a couple of ways for it to be applied. Eschatologically, typically, nationally considered (ethnic Israel) conformity under the OC. I’m thinking more eschatologically or even typically particularly in consideration of vs 1-3.
Me: I think it must be understood as God looks down and sees into the souls of unregenerate men. In them, there is only wickedness. In light of what I posted by Calvin, this makes total sense. When David says “God is with the generation of the righteous” he is saying that God is really, organically with them in the regenerated portion of their souls.
LikeLike
Don, Doug, here’s the excerpt from Luther in the original post;
“This is the main article which we have to learn. It gives us authority, even if we feel the lust of our flesh or even fall into sin, to say: “Howbeit, it is my will to be rid of the Law, neither am I still under the Law or sin, but I am devout and righteous.” If I cannot say this, I must despair and perish. The Law says: “thou art a sinner.” If I say, “Yes,” I am lost; if I say “No,” I must have a firm ground to stand on, to refute the Law, and uphold my “No.” But how can I say it, when it is true and is confirmed by Holy Scripture that I was born in sin? Where then shall I find the “No”? Of a truth, I shall not find it in my own bosom, but in Christ. From Him I must receive it and fling it down before the Law and say: “Behold, He can say ‘No’ against all Law, and has the right to do, for He is pure and free from sin, and He gives me the ‘No,’ so that though if I look on myself I should have to say ‘Yes’ because I see that I am a sinner and could not stand before the Law, and feel that there is nothing pure in me, and see God’s wrath, yet I can say that Christ’s righteousness is my righteousness, and henceforth I am free from sin.” This is the goal, that we should be able to say, continually, we are pure and godly, for evermore, as Christ Himself can say, and this is wrought through faith.”
What sayeth you? Affirm or deny?
LikeLike
Eriks says Loving the law (Psalm 119) is not the same thing as equating it with faith. Even if you love it you are still screwed when you break it (which you do — frequently).
Huh? How was David screwed? He could offer sacrifices EVERYDAY for the forgivness of sin!
Is this sound like faith Erik?
Vs 30 “I have chosen the way of faithfulness; I will set your rules before me.”
Does David see the law as agisnt faith? God forbid!
Vs. 32 “I will run in the way of your commandments, when you enlarge my heart.”
Vs 29 “Put false way far from me and graciously teach me your law!”
Sounds like David approached the law in faith! He saw it as gracious! Sounds like David would take issue with Sean, eh?
LikeLike
And (Abraham) believed the LORD, and he counted it to him as righteousness.
(Genesis 15:6 ESV)
I don’t see Abraham doing a lot of lawkeeping here to be considered righteous. Just believing in God’s promises.
How helpful was David’s lawkeeping and love of the law when he sinned with Bathsheba?
You have trouble seeing the big picture of Scripture, Doug. Bahnsen throughly worked you over decades ago and you have yet to recover.
LikeLike
Sean, I love Luther, I really do. But Luther wasnt perfect and neither are you or I. And Luther’s biggest blunders are in his understanding of Galatians imho.
But let’s deal with Scripture okay? I just proved (in Scripture) that David walked by faith and loved the law all through the day. In other words, David threw a monkey wrencth in your theory that the law wasnt to be approprited by faith. David says he was walking in faith, and he loved the law, so there you have it. You can’t be right!
LikeLike
Doug – “David says he was walking in faith, and he loved the law, so there you have it. You can’t be right!”
Erik – Doug solved it. Lets turn out the lights and we can all go home. And to think the OPC spent all that time writing hundreds of pages to reach a different conclusion…
LikeLike
Don says this: “I think it must be understood as God looks down and sees into the souls of unregenerate men. In them, there is only wickedness. In light of what I posted by Calvin, this makes total sense. When David says “God is with the generation of the righteous” he is saying that God is really, organically with them in the regenerated portion of their souls.”
John Y: And where is that regenerated portion in our souls? It sounds that you believe that God changes the sinner ontologically and it is this which makes them righteous. Luther really went ballistic over that and so does Horton in his book COVENANT AND SALVATION. The only reason believers are called righteous is because of the imputed righteousness of Christ. Those with the imputed righteousness of Christ are the generation of the righteous. It seems to me that you are saying that those ontologically changed (in that regenerated portion of their subjective souls) are the generation of the righteous. That is a huge difference. It causes one to hope in ones subjective changed soul rather than the objective work of Christ. I see no evidence in the Scriptures where regeneration can be defined as a change in a portion of someone’s subjective soul. Regeneration always seems to refer to believing in the work of Christ where the person did not believe in that before regeneration. This is not a change in a portion of one’s soul. This is where I think those who emphasize union with Christ by the Spirit go wrong and the word organic does imply some kind of mystical union rather than a legal union which results in imputation of righteousness.
That is all I can write today. Tomorrow I want to try to answer whether there is any kind of conditions attached to the Covenant of Grace. This is what Doug keeps posting about. How does one ever know he is meeting the conditions if the Covenant of Grace has “conditions” attached to it? We are never able to meet the conditions- even our good works cannot be considered conditions we must meet. And we do not meet the conditions of the threats made in the first 3 chapters of Revelation. God always has things against the church in their conduct. To look for ways in our conduct to find favor in God’s site is to misinterpret what the Scriptures are getting at. Romans 2 is all about that. Paul is asking the Jews if you do good you can inheret eternal life. But Romans 3 then explains no one is righteous. Christ and his imputed righteousness is mankinds only hope before God. Revelation chapters 1 through 3 is a call to the Church to turn to Christ.
LikeLike
Erik, no one keeps the law perfectly except Christ (and amen) BUT we are called to be obedient! That’s everywhere in both old and new testaments! Works are necessary in both old and new testaments! Just read Jesus letters to the 7 churches. Jesus was ready to throw some of them in a sick bed and even kill their children if they wouldn’t repent! That sounds just as bad as any curse in the Old Testament!
Works are necessary for salvation! Just ask Jesus! The difference between the reformers and the RC’s was in the nature of our works. Are they the ground of our salvation, or are they the evidence or fruit of our salvation. The RC’s didn’t see a distinction between justification and sanctification. But both sides agreed that works are necessary. So should we! I side with the reformers; our good works are the fruit of our union with Christ, not the meritorious ground of our justification, which is in Christ alone.
LikeLike
Doug, Last I checked I held to the 3 uses of the law. What you seem to struggle with is the pedagogical use of the law given at Sinai. You and I don’t see Galatians the same. You resist a bi-covenantal structure, you don’t like the law/gospel distinction, you resist the re-publication assertion, you seem to view even the 1st use of the law as gracious,as opposed to evangelical, and you want to argue for the interchangeability of faith and faithful obedience. Now, that all sounds like a neo-nomian to these ears. I think I understand your position. I’m not sure what further inspection of scripture gets us at this point.
LikeLike
John Yeazel says: God always has things against the church in their conduct.
Not true brother John! Jesus had nothing but praise for two of the seven churches. He had nothing against the church of Philadelphia and Pergamum. Get that John?! He had nothing agaisnt two churches, so your just wrong on the facts. There are conditions in the new covenant,blessings for obedience and curses for disobedience. Just read the text! The conditions are the same because they are the same covenant!, We must trust and obey, PERIOD!
LikeLike
Sean says Doug; Last I checked I held to the 3 uses of the law.
Hallelujah! That settles it, let’s all go home! LOL!
Huh?! What does your holding on to the 3 uses of the law have to do with anything? I thought you were supposed to get back with me, (after days of study) and explain how I miss-understood Jesus warning 5 out of 7 churches in Asia Minor that their works were not complete in his sight
I thought you were supposed to show me (from Scripture) that Jesus was just teasing about putting his church in a sick bed and killing her children, if they didn’t repent? What happened to your promise, Sean? I suspect your floundering right about now, because have no idea how to deal with the Scriptures I offered for consideration.
The words of Jesus are crystal clear, and they put a stick in the spokes of your merit theology ideal. (Jesus did it, so I don’t have too) Both you and Jesus can’t be right, so I’ll stick with Jesus. Good works done in Christ are necessary, or else get ready for some curses! True in both testaments!
Talk to me bro!
LikeLike
You got me Doug. I’m busy floundering, can’t talk. BTW, I never did reach a better conclusion on Rev 3 than what I gave you. I’m often brilliant from jump however, so no surprise there.
LikeLike
John,
If you read the commentary on Rom 7:21-23 you will understand exactly what I am saying. What does the imputed righteousness of Christ mean? Christ by His Spirit mystically (if you don’t like organically) dwells with us. Christ gives us life when we were dead. Are you denying this?
I’m not sure what you are thinking of regarding Horton as I have not yet read it.
LikeLike
John,
I meant to say the commentary by Calvin which I posted earlier. Have you read it? Do you disagree with it?
LikeLike
@Don Frank:
Brother please be aware that we have more than one John. For those of us who would like to follow, it would help if you gave us the last initial. Sometimes I’m not sure if your talking to John Y or John T.
Peace in Him
LikeLike
John Thomson:
Acts 15:10; Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?
John here is some more food for thought. I don’t think Peter is saying the yoke was hard to bear for the elect. Or else we’d have to call David a liar. Rather he was giving an overview of Israel’s corporate history at following the law, (not the elect’s ability to keep the law, for we know that some did joyfully) knowing how and why Israel corporately couldnt live up to the law, although the elect did.
Nevertheless setting aside these traditions (ceremonial laws) was very hard for even truly born again Christian Jews. Can we fathom traditions that had gone on for over 1500 years? Ceremonial laws that were commanded by God? Ceremonial laws that offered forgiveness of sins?
And because Paul came down so hard on the Judiazers misuse of the law (ceremonial) I think we can fall into a trap of seeing the moral law in general as a picky picky pain in the ass. Forgive us God! David didn’t feel that way about the law; he loved the law and thanked God for giving us his gracious law. Notice David calls the law gracious all through the Psalms!
And even though Paul said things that could be construed as negative, (when understood out of context as I contend) he also said, “We know the law is good, if one uses it lawfully.” The (so called problem) with the law wasn’t in the law, it was in the people. Proving the Holy Spirit was necessary to give life BEFORE they could obey the law in a way that was pleasing in God’s sight. The same was true in both testaments!
Kind of like us, now in reverse! In the new covenant we are promised God will pour out his Spirit on all flesh, from the lowly to the greatest. So during our time (now) we are blessed with greater ability to obey the law because now the majority we given new life (regenerated) and united with Christ. Where as in the Old Testament God only saved the minority. Plus, now that our redemption has been accomplished, we press on to the higher calling in Christ, knowing that anything apart from faith is sin.
There it is!
LikeLike
Sean states: You resist a bi-covenantal structure, you don’t like the law/gospel distinction, you resist the re-publication assertion, you seem to view even the 1st use of the law as gracious, as opposed to evangelical, and you want to argue for the interchangeability of faith and faithful obedience.
Sean, the WCF calls both the old and new administrations the same covenant, why not take an exception and move on? You’re the guy (along with Horton, Clark, DGH, and a host of others) who’s out of accord with the Westminster Confession of Faith! You see the covenants more like our Baptist brothers than our Reformers. Here I’ve shown you (in the Bible) how works are necessary in both covenants, and you go mute. (Psssst, there is no difference in that regard!) So put that in your bi-covenantal pipe and smoke it! If Jesus himself can say; “I see your works, and they are not complete in my sight” then your understanding of the covenant needs a major overhaul!
Is it dawning on anyone that works are necessary in the new covenant according to Scripture? Do we need more Scriptural evidence? Because I will be happy to provide some if need be. You shouldn’t sit in your ivory tower of theology, and think you’re above the Word of God. Even our Confessions say, Scripture is the final court of appeal.
And Sean, your appeal (of bi-covenantalism) was just revoked in Revelations by the Lord Jesus himself!
Case closed!
LikeLike
Doug; “you can have cake”-Issued from my ivory tower of theology, and sealed with the apostolic authority of Paul. Sorry, I don’t have a fisherman’s ring, the dude in Rome hoards it. Tell him; “whatever’ from me when you get there.
LikeLike
Doug,
Thanks for the reminder. I was actually addressing John Y.
LikeLike
Doug
There is much you say that I agree with. I would like to make it clear that I do think there are obligations in the Christian life. I simply don’t think the Mosaic Covenant fits the bill for some of the reasons below.
I don’t think Acts 15 is referring to unregenerate Jews but in any case Peter is saying that they ought not to impose it on believers whoever had found it a burden. He does not want believers to be under this burden.
Re
1Tim 1:8-11 (ESV2011)
Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.
I think this is an important verse for showing the law is not intended for believers. He says ‘it is not for the just (believers) but for the ungodly and sinners… (his list is people who are clearly unbelievers).
I think you make a mistake to divide the law into ceremonial/moral/civil etc These distinctions have some validity for identifying different kinds of laws within the Law but when Paul speaks of ‘the Law’ he means the whole Mosaic Covenant for the law is an indivisible covenant. It is either accepted as a whole or not at all.
have you noticed that only on a couple of occasions does Paul refer to the law when speaking about christian obligations and he doesn’t makes it an authority but simply a back up.
In point of fact 9 out of the ten commandments all accept Christians should keep, not because they are in the ten commandments but because they are are part of natural law. The tenth (remember the sabbath day,,,) no one obeys for none keep the sabbath (a saturday).
LikeLike
John Thomson says I think you make a mistake to divide the law into ceremonial/moral/civil etc These distinctions have some validity for identifying different kinds of laws within the Law but when Paul speaks of ‘the Law’ he means the whole Mosaic Covenant for the law is an indivisible covenant. It is either accepted as a whole or not at all.
John, we must divide the law into ceremonial/moral/civil ect, unless we want to reduce Scripture into absurdity! Either Paul is contradicting himself worse than Bill Clinton on one of his worst lying binges, or else he’s talking about the law in different senses. You can’t have it both ways! We do the same thing with the word, “world” Jesus so love the world, yet we’re told not to love the world, which is it? Obviously the word “world” is used in different senses just like Paul uses law in different senses. By the way, I hate to go guilt by association, but you’re using C.I. Scofields main argument, that since the law was never divided up in Scripture; it must be illegitimate for the reformers to do so. I know that argument, I was raised regular Baptist GARB and we all had our Scofield Bible’s in hand.
But is that valid? Does God divide up justification and sanctification in nice neat sections in Scripture? No, but we can make a distinction! We had better! Keeping the law on bestiality didn’t teach being justified by faith in vicarious sacrifice, only the ceremonial law was the shadow of Christ. The ceremonial was distinct from the moral law. It made you right with God. If we can’t get that right, God help us! So when Paul is talking about the school master in Galatians he’s exclusively talking about the ceremonial law. Luther was so wrong on this!
This is why context is crucial, lest we pit Paul against King David. God forbid! There is a perfect harmony in Scripture if we understand that Paul uses *law*, in different ways. Sometimes when Paul say, we know the law says, he quotes Hosea! So in one sense according to Paul the whole Old Testament is the law. Other times, Paul is using law, in the ceremonial sense exclusive, (Galatians and parts of Romans) lest we accuse Paul of contradicting himself in other places in Scripture. Other times Paul uses law to mean the universal moral law. But if we try to force all three meanings into each passage, we are in HUGE trouble. May it never be!
Give me some feed back brother
LikeLike
Doug
I think the burden of proof falls on you to prove Paul was talking merely about the ceremonial law. I agree that law can have other frames of reference however when he speaks of the Mosaic Covenant I maintain he regularly means it in entirety.
I would note the following:
1. In Roms 7 the aspect of law he cites is from the decalogue, (coveteousness)
2. While in Galatians the material or presenting issue is circumcision (and ceremonial distinctions of foods) the debate is about the law in its entirety.
a) for Paul, to accept one aspect of law is to accept all (“Cursed be everyone who does not p abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” Gals 3:10… Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law Gals 5:2,3.)
b) in 2:19 when he says he has died to the law and the law has killed him (his reason for not giving in the Jewish cultural pressures) he means the whole law including the decalogue. Indeed in Roms 7 it was specifically the decalogue coveteousness that ‘killed him’. We do not die to one aspect of the law but to the entire covenant.
c)He speaks in Galtians of ‘righteousness through the law’ and ‘the works of the law’ phrases which normally mean the whole law.
d) 3:15 Paul specifically speaks in terms of the law as a unitary covenant. ‘Gal 3:15 To give a human example, brothers: even with a man-made covenant, no one annuls it or adds to it once it has been ratified.’ Notice Paul is making the point covenants cannot be changed or cancelled . The only way one can be freed from a covenant is by death thus the Jew must die if he is to be free from the Mosaic Covenant which is what has happened in Christ.
e) in ch 3 when he says ‘ So then, as the law was our at guardian until Christ came,’ again he is not referring to one aspect but to the whole law. God’s son is ‘born under the law’ to redeem those ‘under the law’ to accept food laws and ceremonial distinctions is to put oneself ‘under the law’ (as soon as I accept any part of the law as an obligation I must keep I have put myself under the law).
f) Paul clearly sees his discussion of the law in much broader terms than simply the ceremonial when he writes Gal 5:22-23 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.
In summary, I agree the presenting issues are circumcision and ceremonial laws but Paul’s discussion is about the whole law for law is indivisible.
Doug, I exhort you to read Galatians through this prism and see its consistency. I agree Scofield taught what I am teaching but not all that he taught was wrong. I was brought up in dispensationalism and I like you do not accept it but as I say, I do not reject it all. Furthermore, most writers today outside of Reformed confessionalism would agree with the view that the covenant is unitary, and these are not dispensationalists.
LikeLike
Don,
Yes, I did read and I just read it again. I am not sure if Doug read it though. Here is one paragraph of what Calvin said:
“As to the first clause, many interpreters take the word law in its proper sense, and consider κατὰ or διὰ to be understood; and so Erasmus renders it, “by the law;” as though Paul had said, that he, by the law of God as his teacher and guide, had found out that his sin was innate. But without supplying anything, the sentence would run better thus, “While the faithful strive after what is good, they find in themselves a certain law which exercises a tyrannical power; for a vicious propensity, adverse to and resisting the law of God, is implanted in their very marrow and bones.”
It seems from Doug’s posts that he never experiences that “tyrannical power” which Calvin speaks of “resisting the law of God” and which is “implanted in the very marrow and bones” and even remains in the faithful.
No, I am not denying that Christ gives us life when we were dead. My time is about to go on this computer I am at. I will have to post again.
LikeLike
Don,
Calvin does seem to imply that some kind of ontological change does take place in an individual during regeneration which he calls the inner man. I find that biblical human psychology is hard to decipher and understand correctly. I am not sure how Calvin came to the conclusions which he did in those remaining paragraphs. It does make for interesting reading but I would like to know more about some proofs he uses to get to where he did. I tend to agree with McMark in regards to the imputation of righteouness occuring before regeneration. This makes forensic union with Christ having logical priority to spiritual union with Christ, ie., without the forensic union there would be no spiritual union because Christ always gives the Spirit. When spiritual union is given the logical priority all sorts of problems occur I think. I think this manifests itself most commonly in our psyches by having doubts about our salvation when going through difficult periods. We look upon spiritual union as some kind of extra-spiritual power to live the victorious Christian life more fully. Or, in Doug’s case to obey the Law better than the unregenerate. I am not sure that is really the case. I could go on and on about this but I am just putting that out as some food for thought.
LikeLike
I should say the imputation of righteousness occurs simultaneously with regeneration. The important point being is that the forensic imputation has logical priority to spiritual union. Without the forensic union occuring the spiritual union would not occur. So, the forensic takes priority.
LikeLike
I read this a couple of weeks ago and throw it out as some more food for thought. It has to do with the conditionality of the Covenant of Grace:
“The signficant contemporary development of covenant doctrine….concerns the issue whether the convenant of God with His people in Jesus Christ is unconditional or conditional. The new teaching that troubles the Reformed churches, and threatens to carry them away, is the natural, indeed inevitable, development of the doctrine that the covenant (of Grace) is conditional. It is necessary, therefore, that we have the issue of the conditionality or unconditionality of the covenant clearly in mind. In considering the controversy, we must remember that the convenant of God with His people is central to the revelation of God in Scripture and to the redemption that is at the heart of biblical revelation….
That the covenant (of Grace) is unconditional means that the establishing, maintaining, and perfecting of that blessed relationship of love and communion between God and man do not depend on the sinful man; that the blessings which the covenant brings to the man do not depend upon him; and that the final, everlasting salvation enjoyed by one with whom God makes His covenant does not depend upon that man. There is no work of the sinner that is a condition he must fulfill in order to have the covenant, or to enjoy its blessings.
Unconditionality rules out merit, or earning. It also rules out all effort by the sinner, even though not meritorious, upon which the covenant and its blessings are supposed to depend, or which cooperates with God in establishing and maintaining the covenant and in bestowing the benefits of the covenant….We do not earn, and thus deserve, the covenant of Grace. But unconditionality also rules out all works that distinguish one man from another, or that are the reason why the covenant is given to one and not to another, or that obtain the covenant, which God merely makes available….The reason why all such works are excluded, along with meritorious works, is that these works, as much as meritorious works, would make the sinner his own savior and rob God of the glory of salvation.
Such is the development of the doctrine of a conditional covenant in our day that it overthrows the entire theological system of salvation by sovereign grace as confessed by the Reformed faith in the Canons of Dordt and in the Westminster Standards. The doctrine of a conditional covenant is explained by its advocates (in a way that denies) the heart of the Gospel of grace, namely, justification by faith alone on the basis only of the life-long obedience and atoning death of Jesus Christ.”
LikeLike
John Y says: Calvin does seem to imply that some kind of ontological change does take place in an individual during regeneration which he calls the inner man. I find that biblical human psychology is hard to decipher and understand correctly.
Me: I am grateful that you sincerely considered my response to you. Like you, I too am trying to think all this through in order to more fully understand and love our Lord. I have found Calvin to be extremely helpful in that regard.
Concerning biblical human psychology, Calvin, according to my understanding of his writings, would say that our feelings and desires are subject to and struggle between the remaining parts of our soul referred to as the outer man, and the spiritual part of our regenerated soul, the inner man. Calvin is insistent that the spiritual part possesses the heart and secret feelings and is only apprehended by faith.
It seems to me that on this basis, forensic and spiritual union occur simultaneously. Do you see any problems with that?
LikeLike
John Y,
I cannot go along with this view of the covenant that you have posted. The covenant is external, marked by visible signs and seals (water, wine, and bread) that have their efficacy by faith. If the covenant is unconditional, what can you say about those who are baptized and fall away. According to the unconditional view, you have to say that their baptism was not a true baptism. In that case, the sacraments really don’t signify or seal anything for certain. If you say conditional, then the sacraments signify and seal entry into the external covenant family and the many blessings entailed. If one does not apprehend by faith the substance of the sign and seal, they are not elect. They are still in the covenant, just as one who is married but lives in adultery. This is why Israel is so often referred to as an adulterous people.
The view you have presented is more appropriately associated with election, not the covenant.
LikeLike
Don,
I appreciate the tone in which you dialog. I do think the forensic and spiritual union with Christ occurs simultaneously. However, as I said, I give logical priority to the forensic union and it is this union which is what causes us to stand with strength and steadfastness through difficult times. When everything around us and within us is causing us to doubt whether we really belong to Christ. The spritual rennovation and transformation of our “inner man” can be a difficult process for the believer. I have some questions about what Calvin said in that last paragraph but I found the description of the four laws within man to be very helpful and clarifying. Those who make obedience to the Law an easy thing to do and accomplish are living a pipedream in my opinion. And I think Calvin, Luther and the Apostle Paul agree with that assessment. Jesus is the only one who did it and he therefore is highly exalted and the Savior of His elect and chosen ones who believe in what He did for them. In regards to your distinguishing between election and covenant I have a lot of questions about that. I know the Shepardites, the Thenomists and Federal Visionists do not like talking about election and make it a shelf doctrine that you don’t talk about. They would much rather go Covenant on you (which they redefine to fit their theology). And to be honest- I don’t know what to think about the sacraments anymore. I think the Federal Visionists misunderstanding of them have caused them severe problems in their theology.
LikeLike
John Y.,
I view our union with Christ as the basis upon which God declares us righteous. I see Christ as the initiator of that union purely because of His mercy, and nothing that we have done.God will never condemn us because Christ dwells by His Spirit with/in us.
I have observed that many folks on this blog seem to want to downplay union with Christ, and I don’t quite understand why? To me, this is a comforting truth that is brought out in passages of scripture like “do not fear, for I am with you”; or “surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age”; or nothing “will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.”
LikeLike
“I have observed that many folks on this blog seem to want to downplay union with Christ, and I don’t quite understand why?”
Don, great question! I will try my best to answer this but other may help and offer better answers.
It’s not that we want to downplay union with Christ, but we are concerned with how it is being used.
There are two aspects of union with Christ, decretal (or federal) union, which is in eternity God elects us to be in Christ, that he is our federal head and that is the source of all our spiritual benefits, And mystical (or existential) union, which is what occurs when the benefits of our decretal union are applied to the soul; the Holy Spirit entering our soul, justification, adoption, sanctification, the branches united to the vine, etc…When some speak of union they fail to distinguish between these two aspects, which is dangerous, but even more, some are suggesting that the doctrine of union with Christ makes the ordo salutis unnecessary, or at least diminishes its importance.
This is the aspect of the way union is recently taught that makes many of us nervous. You see, if all our spiritual benefits are applied to us through union with Christ, when or how does this happen? This is where union cannot replace the ordo salutis. We cannot say, as some do, that it doesn’t matter which comes first, justification or sanctification, as long as we see that both benefits are given through union by free grace, as if seeing them as gracious simultaneous benefits is all that needs to be said.
We must see mystical union coming through faith, not before, or else we can do what Federal Visionists have done, suggesting that baptism unites us to Christ. Those in our Reformed circles who reject FV, but who minimize the ordo by emphasizing union, or suggest that mystical union occurs at regeneration, certainly are not denying the gospel, but we believe they might be opening the door for others to sneak works into justification. For if we receive the holy life of Christ through union, and union can occur before faith, then you have holiness and good works inside a person before they are justified, in that sense God has sanctified first those he then justifies, which is quintessentially the RC position (without all the other baggage).
If we are to find comfort in union, and we should, we must first see that our union was applied to us through the instrumentality of faith in the gospel. As I often do, let me quote Calvin:
“What a remarkable commendation is here bestowed on faith, that, by means of it, the Son of God becomes our own, and ‘makes his abode with us!’ (John 14:23.) By faith we not only acknowledge that Christ suffered and rose from the dead on our account, but, accepting the offers which he makes of himself, we possess and enjoy him as our Savior. This deserves our careful attention. Most people consider fellowship with Christ, and believing in Christ, to be the same thing; but the fellowship which we have with Christ is the consequence of faith. In a word, faith is not a distant view, but a warm embrace, of Christ, by which he dwells in us, and we are filled with the Divine Spirit.” (Commentary on Eph. 3:17)
And note WSC A. 30 “The Spirit applieth to us the redemption purchased by Christ, by working faith in us, and thereby uniting us to Christ in our effectual calling”
The faith God works in us is the instrument by which we are united (mystically) to Christ. So we do not exhibit saving faith because we have been mystically united to Christ, we are mystically united to Christ because we exhibited saving faith. So while decretal union precedes saving faith, saving faith must precede mystical union to preserve justification by faith alone. We cannot be given the holy life of Christ before we are justified. As long as the biblical ordo salutis is preserved we have no problem with loving the doctrine of union, for both decretal and mystical union are glorious truths.
Let me know if this helps at all.
LikeLike
Todd,
That is an excellent explanation. Thanks so much for taking the time.
I find myself in perfect agreement with all that you have posted. I suppose I never viewed sanctification as in any way preceding justification, but rather that mystical union is the basis for both, logically beginning with justification.
The point that you raise is an important qualifier that the mystical union is the result of the Spirit working faith in us to warmly embrace Christ as our own.
With regard to baptism, and what I believe gives baptism its supernatural power, is that it marks out the child as being a member of the covenant family of Christ (the church) through which the Spirit performs His work in us to embrace Christ. The person who does not embrace Christ (i.e., all the non-elect), actually resist the Spirit’s work to produce that faith.
Does that make sense?
LikeLike
Don,
Are you Lutheran, because unless I am reading you wrong that sounds like the Lutheran position on baptism?
Todd
LikeLike
And, Todd, don’t forget the evangelicals who make a “personal relationship” instrumental in ways Protestant orthodoxy assigns to faith, as in a personal relationship with Jesus saves. It’s why Roman Catholics (and FVers) sound so similar to evangelicals. To the extent that “evangelical” is defined as a “personal encounter with the risen Christ,” evangelicals effectively agree with Rome that we are justified to the degree we are sanctified.
LikeLike
Todd,
Its funny you ask. I was actually raised Lutheran, but am now PCA. Perhaps my Lutheran upbringing has affected me more than I thought. I do get frustrated with the PCA’s view of baptism as what I would characterize as a low view. Our Pastor always begins every baptism with what it does not do. Its also why I am always refreshed when I return to my liturgical Lutheran church.
LikeLike
Don,
Yes, that is the Lutheran position. I can relate to your pastor, ministering in a Roman Catholic state (New Mexico) I also begin my explanations of infant baptism with what it doesn’t do, for once I quell their fears, (and many baptists assume we hold something akin to a RC view anyway) they are more open to receiving the proper understanding of why we Presbyterians baptize babies.
LikeLike
Todd,
What I find most confusing about the union with Christ debate is when the imputation of Christ righteousness occurs. Those who make mystical union with Christ by the Spirit the logical priority place the imputation after the union by the Spirit. Those who make forensic union with Christ by the declaration of God (justification of the ungodly) and God placing the elect person into Christ the logical priority place it before the mystical union by the Spirit. If they both occur simultaneously what difference does it make. I tried to e
LikeLike
I got cutoff. If they both occur simultaneously, what difference does it make? I tried to explain what difference it makes in some of my earlier posts. The spiritual union logical priority people claim that those who make forensic union the logical priority have to place regeneration after faith, ie. faith precedes regeneration. This thus makes them arminians. However, what if the imputation of righteousness by the declaration of God causes the regenerating work of the Spirit? It seems to me that problem would be solved but it does cause some confessional problems. On the other hand, the forensic union logical priority people claim that those who make spiritual union the logical priority lose the justification of the ungodly, ie., how can those who are renewed and sanctified by the Spirit be considered ungodly? That seems to be where the problems in the debate occur. At least that is the way I see it right now. Maybe somebody else has more insight into the debate and help clarity it for me.
LikeLike
“The spiritual union logical priority people claim that those who make forensic union the logical priority have to place regeneration after faith, ie. faith precedes regeneration. This thus makes them arminians.”
John,
I have not encountered this criticism of our position before; that it is arminian. I think the key is not to confuse regeneration with mystical union, they are distinct works of God. While regeneration opens the mind and enables the will to believe, we are not filled with the Spirit and made partakers of all his benefits until we believe the gospel.
LikeLike
Don, while Todd can relate to your pastor, I can feel your pain. Conveying what baptism doesn’t do seems appropriate, but an emphasis seems misplaced (even if well intentioned).
Todd, just curious: I know you have other reasons, but is your resistance to weekly communion also somewhat informed by your particular location (as in, don’t confuse the locals or give them ammunition to confuse us with the RCs)?
LikeLike
Zrim,
Not really, I wrote my article against weekly communion while living in the buckle of the Bible Belt; Dallas-Fort Worth. My objection is mostly theological.
LikeLike
Zrim,
Don’t be too hard on Don’s minister, nothing wrong with being pastorally sensitive to where people are at. I doubt if he spends more time warning against misunderstanding than explaining it. Remember, n Presbyterianism, opposed to Dutch Reformed circles, we allow baptists and arminians into membership as long as they have a credible profession and want to be taught by the leadership. And in smaller churches like mine, a pastor maybe has one shot a year in administering infant baptism, so for both reasons he would feel the need to cover all the bases on the subject on that Sunday, given the centuries of abuse and misunderstandings that still abound. I would imagine in larger churches with lots of babies that he simply could read the vows/explanation from the BCO (or whatever they use) and people would get it over time.
Being sick, I think I have blogged more this past week than in the last six months, so I think I will shrink back into obscurity (where life is beautiful all day long, ho ho…)
LikeLike
Todd, I try to give a man who may have reason to feel an OldLife chill a little warmth when I can, especially one with Lutheranism in his veins (you know, our closest theological relatives). So while your point is well taken, I’m still not persuaded that rare occasion is good reason to emphasize baptism’s limitations. For that matter, neither is abuse. Surely abuses abounded during the Reformation, but to read the Belgic on the sacraments emphasis is clearly placed on their efficacy rather than their limitations.
PS, you should be sick more often.
LikeLike
Todd and John Y.
First, I think that what John Y. may be referring to is that on a Reformed Forum episode last year, Lane Tipton said something to the effect that if you hold that justification is logically prior to regeneration, you are semi-Pelagian.
Second, I can get on board with the notion that mystical union is logically prior to the benefits, e.g., justification, adoption, etc., and even the idea that we receive all the benefits simultaneously, but what I’m not so sure about is when I hear Tipton say stuff like (to paraphrase), “First, you must possess Christ by faith, only then do you receive Christ’s benefits.” But how exactly does one “possess Christ by faith”? I notice that in the Larger Catechism (for example), faith is linked directly to justification, rather than union, in the q&a on “justifying faith” (#72). (Interestingly the q#a that soon follows on adoption makes it clear that justification is logically prior to adoption.)
I know how to trust in Christ for justification, but I don’t know how to trust in Christ for union (at least not until I’ve done the former). Any thoughts?
LikeLike
Dave,
Since you ask I won’t shrink quite yet. Thanks for that reminder about the Forum. I guess because we do not believe justification precedes regeneration I assumed the semi-pelagian comment was not directed at us.
“Second, I can get on board with the notion that mystical union is logically prior to the benefits, e.g., justification, adoption, etc.,”
This is what I was arguing we cannot say. Mystical union preceding justification throws the gospel into confusion; for then you do not have God justifying the unrighteous.
“First, you must possess Christ by faith, only then do you receive Christ’s benefits.” But how exactly does one “possess Christ by faith”?”
That sounds right – I’m not sure I am understanding your concern.
“I know how to trust in Christ for justification, but I don’t know how to trust in Christ for union (at least not until I’ve done the former). Any thoughts?”
Well, we do not usually use that language, but if I want my sins forgiven, and I want to lead a life pleasing to God, you would point me to faith in the gospel, first for justification, then you would explain to me that once I am justified by faith God pours his Holy Spirit into me, thus sealing me as his own and empowering me to live a life pleasing to him. In that sense I would be trusting Christ for union as well as for justification, it’s just that the language of union is not how we usually speak of the benefits to unbelievers.
LikeLike
Todd,
Thanks for sticking it out for a bit. I will ponder your response, but there is something I’m not understanding, that seems contradictory. Hopefully, you can help:
“Second, I can get on board with the notion that mystical union is logically prior to the benefits, e.g., justification, adoption, etc.,”
This is what I was arguing we cannot say. Mystical union preceding justification throws the gospel into confusion; for then you do not have God justifying the unrighteous.
“First, you must possess Christ by faith, only then do you receive Christ’s benefits.” But how exactly does one “possess Christ by faith”?”
That sounds right – I’m not sure I am understanding your concern.
As I understand it, “possess Christ by faith” = mystical union.
But you must not see it this way; if you did, you would be contradicting yourself by disagreeing with my first statement (i.e., “mystical union is logically prior to the benefits”), but then agreeing with my second (i.e., “possess Christ by faith, only then receive benefits”). What am I missing?
LikeLike
Hi Guys I was off line over the weekend, so that is why I haven’t responded. First off John Thomson correctly pointed out
“Doug think the burden of proof falls on you to prove Paul was talking merely about the ceremonial law.”
Fair enough Brother John, I think Hebrews gives us the clearest teaching on the weakness of the law, and it had nothing to do with the moral commands.
Let’s check out Hebrews 7:12
“For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well.
and then;
“For on the one hand, a former commandment is set aside because of its *weakness* and uselessness (for the law made nothing perfect) but on the other had, a better hope is introduced, through which we draw near to God.”
And in chapter 10:1
For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near.
and then in vs 8-10
“When he said above, you have neither desired nor taken pleasure in sacrifices and offering and brunt offerings (these are offered according to the law), then he added, Behold, I have come to do you will.”
This is crucial!
“He does away with the first in order to establish the second. And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.”
And finally vs. 18
“Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer an offering for sin.”
What changed in the law? Moral duties? God forbid! Ceremonial duties! Yes! What part of the law was weak? Moral commandments? No! They are still the rule for life. What part of the law taught the people of God about the vicarious sacrifice and how to get right with God? What part of the law taught sanctification? Only the ceremonial law! Christ fulfilled the Levitical Priest hood making the old form obsolete. And Christ also broke the power of the law’s demand of death, paying price of redemption once for all, for his people. Making animal sacrifices obsolete as well. Moreover, the old form had to be repeated, showing that sin hadn’t been fully dealt with.
Now to put someone under the ceremonial yoke would be denying the finality of what Christ had just accomplished, that’s why Paul said in Galatians “the law is not of faith”. Surely we can’t put Paul at odds with King David when David said he will walk faithfully in all of Gods commandments, blamelessly.
So the moral demands are fulfilled in Christ, we are NOT relieved of any moral responsibilities. God forbid! Now just because Christ had accomplished redemption, by justifying and sanctifying us, we have peace with God, we have greater ability to trust and obey God’s commands because the law is written in our hearts. Which is the promise of the new covenant, which are summed up in loving God and our neighbor with all our heart.
So a close reading of Hebrews makes the clear what the problem was with the law, animals couldn’t ultimately take away our sin, and a sinful Priest hood was only a weak shadow of Christ.
But the moral demands are still the same~
LikeLike
David,
I think the confusion might lie with the phrase “possessing Christ by faith.” I am not used to that construct, it is somewhat unusual to me. I can see how that might lead to equating faith with mystical union. How about – believing in Christ for salvation results in a mystical union that God establishes though the pouring out of His Spirit into his justified servant. Does that clear it up at all?
LikeLike
Todd,
Yeah, that helps. That phrase is the one I recall Gaffin/Tipton using in those RF lectures. Only in their construct, it’s the “possessing Christ” (not the faith) that equals mystical union. (I think they say that faith is the instrumental cause of union.) My problem with this is that it seems to me that Scripture directs sinners to trust in Christ for justification, not (first) for mystical union (and only second for justification). Maybe I’m splitting hairs though….
LikeLike
David R.: Todd, Yeah, that helps. That phrase is the one I recall Gaffin/Tipton using in those RF lectures. Only in their construct, it’s the “possessing Christ” (not the faith) that equals mystical union. (I think they say that faith is the instrumental cause of union.) My problem with this is that it seems to me that Scripture directs sinners to trust in Christ for justification, not (first) for mystical union (and only second for justification). Maybe I’m splitting hairs though….
RS: Perhaps the concept of union as to what it is causes trouble. The purpose or work of faith is to receive grace and Christ, and Rom 4:16 tells us that it is by faith in order that it may be by grace. Eph 3:17 tells us that Christ dwells in our hearts by faith. If think of union as mutual indwelling, that is, the believer is in Christ and Christ is in the believer, that is true. If we think of union as a legal marriage, then that is the two being united as one in name and that is true. If we think of union as a union of love, then the love of God for the soul brings it to where it loves God and that is true. In other words, faith is what receives Christ and He dwells in His people by faith. But faith is the work of Christ (WCF). So faith is the instrumental cause, but it is simply Christ preparing the soul for marriage to Him that Christ and the soul may live in mutual love. The soul in union with Christ is in Christ and Christ is in that soul, so this is pictured by marriage and unity in love. In some writers faith is thought of as the union itself.
LikeLike
Richard’s description of mutual love makes a better romance novel than biblical narrative. We just started an evening sermon series through the book of Hosea. God tells Hosea to go and marry a whore, a harlot, a prostitute, to demonstrate the love that he shows for unfaithful people. That’s what’s great about God’s love — it’s not equal to our love for him, it’s far better.
LikeLike
This one goes out to Richard:
LikeLike
Todd, David R., Richard,
I find that phrase “possessing Christ by faith” confusing too. I think you have to go back and define exactly what “saving” faith is. There are great differences in what people think faith means. And there is a difference between faith and saving faith. The author whose book I read thinks that a lot of the confusion is related to how the reformed have broken faith down into 3 latin words which have distinct meanings ,ie., the content of faith, the assent to the content and the deep trust of the content. The author was arguing that making faith a deep trust issue causes more confusion than clarity and he found no biblical warrant for it. And then he showed how some Catholic theologians added this third trust element and so did Calvin, Warfield and Owen. He concluded that saving faith is assent to certain propositions which the scriptures teach concerning who Christ was and what he did. The belief that “possessing” the person of Christ as something different (or deeper and more spiritual) than assenting to who Christ is and what he did is nonsense. It makes the person believe he is missing something or you believe that you have this deeper faith and the other person does’nt. And then you write paragraphs like Richard did in his last post. What exactly does that mean Richard?
LikeLike
And, I might add, I think the route that Richard is going is what happens when you make the mystical union the top and logical priority in the union with Christ debate.
LikeLike
And, I had not read Erik posts before I posted- so, I think I am on a similar page as Erik. I guess I will have to look at the video too now.
LikeLike
Guys, if we afirm that God initiates the efficacious call of the Father straight to our heart and that God regenerates prior to our response, then why fret over the logical priority of his saving benefits? We all agree that God makes the first move, (grace) and even our response (faith) is a result of God dealing with us on a heart level amen? So then, even our good works are merely the fruit of being united to Christ by faith, amen?
It seems to me, some of us are trying to plumb the depths of a work that Paul calls “unspeakable”. As long as we’re willing to affirm we’re saved by grace, through faith, which a gift from God, let’s quit calling each other Arminians!
LikeLike
@John Yeazel, who wrote the book you’re reading at present? He sounds Clarkian.
LikeLike
@John Yeazel;
Blessings brother, I’ve been out of the loop over the weekend, but I haven’t seen a response from you, (like you promised) regarding Jesus requiring good works from the 7 churches in the book of Revelations. Remember? You said the Old Testament was conditional, and the new covenant is not. I say Balderdash! Since they are the same covenant the people of God have always been expected to trust and obey God. Here are just two examples
old testament
“Do this and live”
and the new testament,
“Repent and be baptized”
How can anyone obey such commands?
By grace though faith, that’s how! And what does Jesus say will happen to fruitless branches in the new covenant? They will be cut off! Just like in the older testament! See Romans 11.
Peace in Christ,
LikeLike
Doug,
It was written by Clark- but I’ve gathered that Clark is a dirty word at oldlife. The book is WHAT IS SAVING FAITH? It is the only book I have read by Clark but I really got a lot out of it. I thought it made a lot of things clear about faith.
LikeLike
Since you probably lean VanTillian Doug, you probably don’t like Clark much either. Clark liked Machen so I don’t get the inhouse quarrel. I am probably trending into dangerous ground without knowing all the ins and outs of the debate.
LikeLike
Erik Charter: Richard’s description of mutual love makes a better romance novel than biblical narrative. We just started an evening sermon series through the book of Hosea. God tells Hosea to go and marry a whore, a harlot, a prostitute, to demonstrate the love that he shows for unfaithful people. That’s what’s great about God’s love — it’s not equal to our love for him, it’s far better.
RS: Erik, try to understand a post (and perhaps the theology behind it) before you start knocking it. If you will read carefully what I wrote, you will see that the love a justified human has for God actually comes from God. When God loves a soul He gives it love for Himself. Here it is again: ” If we think of union as a union of love, then the love of God for the soul brings it to where it loves God and that is true.”
LikeLike
Erik Charter: Richard’s description of mutual love makes a better romance novel than biblical narrative. We just started an evening sermon series through the book of Hosea. God tells Hosea to go and marry a whore, a harlot, a prostitute, to demonstrate the love that he shows for unfaithful people. That’s what’s great about God’s love — it’s not equal to our love for him, it’s far better.
RS: Without making any direct comments about your pastor (you are so sensitive in that area), look at what you posted again. Indeed God commanded Hosea to go and marry a prostitute, but that does not change her. The Church of Jesus Christ is changed by Christ and is made holy and blameless in His sight. The Church is sanctified by the water of the Word. But there is no holiness apart from love and so God changes the Bride of His Son by giving them a true love, though indeed it is less. I said nothing about a mutual love as if it the love a human being has for God is equal to the love God shows a human. Again, a false deduction that you then take for granted is what I believe.
LikeLike
Doug,
Your bluntness can be humorous at times. I am in a good mood today so I will not take offense and try to give you an answer. I think you are misreading Revelation and the point of the first 3 chapters. You want to make the chapters into a proof that good works are necessary and a condition for justification. And that if you have commited any sins or broken any laws you will come under a curse. At least that is how I am taking your response. I don’t think you can read those chapters with that kind of context in mind. It is a book about God’s wrath and judgment and how this age will come to its end. And just because there were no “conduct” corrections for 2 of the churches does not necessarily mean there was no “conduct” problems there. I think all of the elects sins- past, present and future are covered and forgiven by the work of Christ. That is why it is a better Covenant than the Old Covenant. “The sinner’s performance, before or after baptism or circumcision, contributes precisely nothing to his salvation. The (New) Covenant is sovereign; its terms were set unilaterally; and those terms are fulfilled by the God-man who represents his people….Paul explains the Covenant of Grace in terms of God’s election of individuals (Rom. 9:27-33). Any interpretation of the Covenant that excludes or minimizes the doctrine of individual election is a false interpretation. Today ministers in good standing in several denominations, not just Wilson’s, are teaching that the Covenant of Grace is conditional, that it is made with all who are baptized, that it is better understood if we ignore the doctrine of election, and that the salvation of the baptized depends upon their fulfilling the terms of the covenant.”
LikeLike
@John Yeazel, I do tend to side with Van Til, although I think the Clark, Van Til controversy was an in house Presbyterian tragedy. I think both men were talking past each other. I do think Clark was brilliant, so Clark had his moments, who doesn’t? But I, being sympathetic to Bahnsen, find it odd that Old Lifers are opposed to Clark. I’m obviously missing some parts of the story, but he sounds a lot like what I’m hearing from folks here; or maybe it’s just you John Y, lol! I need to understand all you guys better.
But in all seriousness John, if you stand with Clark on what saving faith entails, then you must take an exception to the WCF because it clearly states that saving faith has three elements that Clark did not hold too. Just saying,
Blessing brother,
LikeLike
John Yeazel: He concluded that saving faith is assent to certain propositions which the scriptures teach concerning who Christ was and what he did. The belief that “possessing” the person of Christ as something different (or deeper and more spiritual) than assenting to who Christ is and what he did is nonsense.
RS: Yet Ephesians 3:17 says that Christ dwells in the heart by faith. Surely you would not say that is nonsense. Then if we go to Hebrews 11, we see faith as doing a whole lot more than an assent to propositions.
Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.
13 All these died in faith, without receiving the promises, but having seen them and having welcomed them from a distance, and having confessed that they were strangers and exiles on the earth.
27 By faith he left Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king; for he endured, as seeing Him who is unseen
28 By faith he kept the Passover and the sprinkling of the blood, so that he who destroyed the firstborn would not touch them.
29 By faith they passed through the Red Sea as though they were passing through dry land; and the Egyptians, when they attempted it, were drowned.
30 By faith the walls of Jericho fell down after they had been encircled for seven days.
31 By faith Rahab the harlot did not perish along with those who were disobedient, after she had welcomed the spies in peace.
John Y: It makes the person believe he is missing something or you believe that you have this deeper faith and the other person does’nt. And then you write paragraphs like Richard did in his last post. What exactly does that mean Richard?
RS: That union with Christ can be seen by faith, mutual indwelling, and love. Instead of trying to figure out what a union is in and of itself, look at it through the prism of what it includes. For example, can a person know if s/he has faith by looking to see if s/he has faith? No, we cannot see faith by looking for faith. We can only see faith by the things that go along with it and the object of faith Christ. So look for union in the things that go along with it as well. Christ dwells in His people and His people are in Him.
John Y: And, I might add, I think the route that Richard is going is what happens when you make the mystical union the top and logical priority in the union with Christ debate.
RS: I am simply pointing out that looking at union in and of itself may not be the way to go, but instead look at the things that this union consists of.
LikeLike
Todd and David R.,
I read your posts about the union with Christ issue and it just proves to me more how much lack of clarity there is in the debate. I think it is an important issue but I am not sure exactly why. David R. was right about my refering to the Lane Tipton debate at Reformed forum. I recollected him saying arminian rather than semi-pelagian. They were critiquing some of Horton’s conclusions in his COVENANT AND SALVATION book. I don’t think the forum clarified much either.
LikeLike
Doug Sowers: @John Yeazel, I do tend to side with Van Til, although I think the Clark, Van Til controversy was an in house Presbyterian tragedy. I think both men were talking past each other. I do think Clark was brilliant, so Clark had his moments, who doesn’t? But I, being sympathetic to Bahnsen, find it odd that Old Lifers are opposed to Clark. I’m obviously missing some parts of the story, but he sounds a lot like what I’m hearing from folks here; or maybe it’s just you John Y, lol! I need to understand all you guys better.
But in all seriousness John, if you stand with Clark on what saving faith entails, then you must take an exception to the WCF because it clearly states that saving faith has three elements that Clark did not hold too. Just saying,
RS: While one who has a great appreciation for Clark in many ways, I am not so confident that he was correct or at least understood in his book on faith. He was trying to defend the rationality of faith over an “emotional” or feeling type of faith. He would also go way down the road to what it means in making propositions and what it means to really believe those.
LikeLike
John Yeazel says Doug,
Your bluntness can be humorous at times.
Please keep taking me that way! I’ts not my intention to offend you brother!
LikeLike
John Yeazel says you want to make the chapters into a proof that good works are necessary and a condition for justification.
No sir! Good works are a necessary condition for being *saved*! Salvation encompasses more than justification. That was my point from the beginning! A justified Saint must be also sanctified. You can’t have one without the other, logical order be damned!
If you set the logical order aside, we have perfect agreement. Our Confession says there is not a temporal order, so let’s not divide ourselves over pseudo questions like non-temporal orders. What a waste of time!
LikeLike
John Y,
I think your concern is how someone can exercise belief in God prior to union with Christ since there is nothing good in man to elicit a believing response to God.
While Aquinas can be very difficult to understand, he has a lot to say about this very subject. I’m not sure how well accepted his thinking is by reformed theologians today, but I found an article by J.A. West that described his thinking in a way that I can almost understand it. Here are a few excerpts which I hope don’t confuse you even more.
So, the power to respond to God is innately planted in the soul of everyman, but God’s grace to elicit the response of belief in Him is only extended to the elect.
LikeLike
Without addressing the hazards of Aquinas on faith and grace and lack of depravity caused by the fall, in RC theology, how about just sticking with the WCF on Saving Faith;
“I. The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls,[1] is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts,[2] and is ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the Word,[3] by which also, and by the administration of the sacraments, and prayer, it is increased and strengthened.[4]
II. By this faith, a Christian believes to be true whatsoever is revealed in the Word, for the authority of God Himself speaking therein;[5] and acts differently upon that which each particular passage thereof contains; yielding obedience to the commands,[6] trembling at the threatenings,[7] and embracing the promises of God for this life, and that which is to come.[8] But the principal acts of saving faith are accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace.[9]
III. This faith is different in degrees, weak or strong;[10] may often and many ways assailed, and weakened, but gets the victory:[11] growing up in many to the attainment of a full assurance, through Christ,[12] who is both the author and finisher of our faith.[13]”
LikeLike
Sean,
Please, please daddy, we want to go a little further than what the WCF says. Can we, can we, please, please? 🙂
LikeLike
Forgive me if this has already been posted, but following is a pertinent section from the OPC Report on Justification:
In addition to the doctrine of union with Christ, the idea of the ordo salutis makes clear that justification is prior to sanctification. This is not priority in the sense that one is somehow more important than the other. Neither is it a temporal priority, strictly speaking, for there is no such thing as a justified person who is not also being sanctified. But while justification is the necessary prerequisite of the process of sanctification, that process is not the necessary prerequisite of justification. It is true to say that one must be justified in order to be sanctified; but it is untrue to say that one must be sanctified in order to be justified. Justification and sanctification bear a relationship to each other that cannot be reversed.
Minimally, Scripture teaches that sanctification is not incompatible with a justification that comes by
grace alone through faith alone. Paul, for example, after acknowledging the objection to his doctrine of justification in Rom 6:1, goes on to explain (6:2-7:6) that in fact those who by faith in Christ are united to him in his death and resurrection and so are no longer slaves to sin now live in newness of life, offering up their bodies as instruments of righteousness. Paul is clear that the grace of God in Christ that justifies also sanctifies and does not nullify sanctification, as the Reformed tradition has consistently affirmed.
Beyond this minimal perspective, however, Scripture and the Reformed tradition have made a stronger
affirmation. It is not simply that justification is compatible with sanctification, but also that justification is necessary for sanctification. Reformed theologians have expressed this conviction in various ways. Calvin, for instance, when explaining why justification, “the principal ground on which religion must be supported,” must be given such great care and attention, writes: “Unless you understand first of all what your position is before God, and what the judgment which he passes upon you, you have no foundation on which your salvation can be laid, or on which piety towards God can be reared.” Turretin comments: “justification stands related to sanctification as the means to the end.”
These claims rest upon solid biblical and theological considerations. Christ’s words in Luke 7:47, in regard to the sinful woman who anointed him at a Pharisee’s home, are on point: “Therefore I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven—for she loved much. But he who is forgiven little, loves little.” The fact that this woman loved much was the proof that her many sins had been forgiven. If her love was possible apart from the forgiveness that comes in justification, then Christ’s appeal to this evidence loses its force. Without the experience of forgiveness there is no love; where there is love one can be sure that there has been forgiveness. Perhaps Paul’s most powerful statement of this necessity of justification for sanctification is Gal 5:13: “For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another.” Both Martin Luther (1483-1546) and John Calvin perceived the profundity of what Paul writes here, connecting Christian liberty, and thus justification, with sanctification. Earlier in Galatians Paul has argued that it is only through justification by faith in Christ that one receives freedom—and thus Calvin rightfully calls the doctrine of Christian liberty “a proper appendix to Justification.” Following Paul’s lead, Calvin reflects upon why the Christian’s freedom, far from discouraging good works, in fact enables them. He writes: “Being constantly in terror so long as they are under the dominion of the law, they are never disposed promptly to obey God, unless they have previously obtained this liberty”; and later: “how can unhappy souls set themselves with alacrity to a work from which they cannot hope to gain anything in return but cursing? On the other hand, if freed from this severe exaction, or rather from the whole rigour of the law, they hear themselves invited by God with paternal lenity, they will cheerfully and alertly obey the call, and follow his guidance.” For Calvin, no one can hope to begin pursuit of the good works that God requires, nor in the way he requires, apart from
the peace of conscience gained only in justification.
LikeLike
David R. Listen to the essence of the OPC report on justification
“This is not priority in the sense that one is somehow more important than the other. Neither is it a temporal priority, strictly speaking, for there is no such thing as a justified person who is not also being sanctified.”
I have said that repeatedly! I have said we need both! You can’t have one without the other! You can’t fly a plane with one wing! And there it is! Right in the OPC report! He sounds just like me!
Why was I getting push back for saying you can’t be justified and not be sanctified?
LikeLike
Doug,
Sorry but that is definitely not the “essence” of the OPC report. You are truly amazing.
LikeLike
Okay David R, Forget the essense, don’t let that throw you. I quoted that section of report word for word! Why is it, when I say those exact words, that “one is not more important than the other”, or that “you can’t be justified if your not sanctfied”, I never get an amen? I get castigated!
That is the essense of what I’ve been saying, that we need both and one is not more important than the other! Why the push back?
LikeLike
Because what you are insisting on is precisely the opposite of what the report is saying….
OPC Report: “But while justification is the necessary prerequisite of the process of sanctification, that process is not the necessary prerequisite of justification. It is true to say that one must be justified in order to be sanctified; but it is untrue to say that one must be sanctified in order to be justified.”
LikeLike
David, the “logical priority” has nothing to do, with the *truth* of what I was saying. I could care less about “logical” priority to be honest. God ahead and believe it if you want to, but rather it’s true or not has nothing to do with which saving benefit is more important! Justification is not more important than Sanctification! Just read the OPC report! You can’t have one without the other! And that is what I have been saying over and over again! And yet some how, you want to construe “logical priority” to mean it’s more important, and that is not true to the OPC report.
It seems to me you’re fighting hard for an abstract point that has nothing to do with trusting in Christ. Its s pseudo question that theologians like to wonder about, which can not be proven clearly in Scripture. And has no practical value that I can see, in our daily walk with God.
I’m beginning to wonder why you’re fighting so hard on this point. Will you affirm that both justification and sanctification are of equal importance like the OPC report? And will you affirm that you can’t be justified if you’re not sanctified? Yes and amen? Then this is much to do about nothing! Everything I’ve said has been born out in the OPC report.
LikeLike
Don,
As a notoriously “strong union” guy, I would endorse what Todd wrote above (Jan 14) concerning union.
LikeLike
Doug S: Why was I getting push back for saying you can’t be justified and not be sanctified?
Well, because it’s not crystal clear.
(Without outside forces) I can’t drop a ball without it falling; and a ball cannot fall without it being dropped, but those two statements express exactly opposite cause-effect relationships.
Catholics, for example will say that “you can’t be justified and not be sanctified” because they believe that justification is a declaration of the sanctification that has taken place in us.
Is *that* what you want to say? (Rhetorical qn)
LikeLike
Jeff exclaims Catholics, for example will say that “you can’t be justified and not be sanctified” because they believe that justification is a declaration of the sanctification that has taken place in us.
Is *that* what you want to say? (Rhetorical qn)
I mean it like the OPC report:
“This is not priority in the sense that one is somehow more important than the other. Neither is it a temporal priority, strictly speaking, for there is no such thing as a justified person who is not also being sanctified.”
I mean it exactly in that sense! I have said this word for word, and have got nothing but push back!
LikeLike
Jeff,
I absolutely endorse what Todd posted. I was responding to a point/question that John Y. had posed which relates to the ungodly person before he is justified.
LikeLike
Don,
I’m cautiously optimistic that OL has reached “union detente.” 🙂
LikeLike
Doug S:
Good. So walk with me a little bit. The OPC report found it good and necessary to distinguish between the simultenaity (in time) of sanctification and justification (hereafter: S and J) while affirming the logical priority of J over S. Here’s the backstory.
Gaffin has, for what I call “supersymmetry” reasons, affirmed a “final justification” in which the believer’s works are vindicated. So has Peter Leithart, for what appear to be exegetical reasons. I sense that you would also use this terminology?
Anyways, Gaffin’s work raises this question: Is the justification of believers, meaning their being accepted as righteous in God’s sight, contingent upon a successful completion of sanctification? Catholics would say Yes.
Gaffin in this report unequivocally says No. The sanctification process is a necessary result of and not a cause of justification. The language of logical order is an essential feature of Protestant theology in order to say
Not This: Our final standing before God will be determined by the works we do.
But That: Our standing before God is the basis for our adoption and the giving of the Spirit, whose work will necessarily result in our works, which will be vindicated at the final judgment.
So we all are hoping that you affirm the latter, and are trying to nudge you to use that language. 🙂
LikeLike
Jeff, I will be happy to affirm the later, although I prefer John Murray’s construct: “Sanctification is a process that begins; we might say, in regeneration, finds its basis in justification, and derives its energizing grace from the union in Christ which is effected in effectual calling.”
I was just reading Murray’s “Redemption Accomplished And Applied.” What a good read! One thing I appreciate is Murray’s ability to prove his points in Scripture, using the language of the Bible.
I am troubled that so many men at Old Life, including DGH, down play sanctification. DGH went so far, as to call his works done in faith a bunch of dirty rags! How can DGH be a teacher?! Is that what God calls our works refined like pure gold, yes even fine gold? No. So why the disconnect with Darryl and sanctification? Darryl seems to question if good works are necessary at all!
When I stated that justification is not more important than sanctification the response here at Old Life was incredulous! Yet that exact statement word for word was found in the OPC report.
Why is it, when I attempt to exhort us to press on, *some* Old Lifer’s get their panties in a wad? Especially since sanctification is emphasized so clearly in Scripture. It’s only in our sanctification (which is subjective) that we have assurance. Because if we’re not trusting God in our daily life, then how can we say we trust his promise that we are truly saved?
When I asked DGH point blank, how does he know his faith isn’t dead? He responded, “I seek after the Lord”. Bingo! In other words, if we are not seeking the Lord, then we have no right to believe we were ever born of God.
Finally, John Murray had no problem talking about the deepest aspects of salvation, using language found in the Bible. I would encourage Sean, David R, and Todd and DGH to follow suite, and try to use the language of Scripture to make their points. Latin doesn’t help those of us who don’t speak it.
Press on brothers!
LikeLike
Doug Sowers: I am troubled that so many men at Old Life, including DGH, down play sanctification. DGH went so far, as to call his works done in faith a bunch of dirty rags! How can DGH be a teacher?! Is that what God calls our works refined like pure gold, yes even fine gold? No. So why the disconnect with Darryl and sanctification? Darryl seems to question if good works are necessary at all!
RS: Without attempting to defend or offend, here is the basis for what D.G.H. was saying. Yes, he did make some statements that were interesting, but that one came from Scripture.
Isaiah 64:6 For all of us have become like one who is unclean, And all our righteous deeds are like a filthy garment [some translations use rags here]; And all of us wither like a leaf, And our iniquities, like the wind, take us away.
Doug Sowers: Why is it, when I attempt to exhort us to press on, *some* Old Lifer’s get their panties in a wad?
RS: Doug, I would be interested to know which of the Old Lifer’s wear panties. Maybe that is why they are so opposed to pressing on in sanctification.
LikeLike
Doug, you continue to be hot and bothered over any notion that even our best works are all imperfect and defiled with sin (HC 62). Would it help to know that even mediocre works done in faith glorify God in ways that better works done not in faith don’t? In other words, the believer’s good works, no matter how seemingly weak and ordinary, still glorify God in ways completely disallowed the unbeliever, as in the believing baker’s cake glorifies God in a way that the unbelieving Olympic champion will never achieve.
LikeLike
Jeff, not really, just tired of hitting my head against a wall.
LikeLike
Jeff,
I have observed and participated in the debates that have led to that detente, and by no means wish to open that can of worms again.
The WSC, to my knowledge, does not address how faith can be elicited from an unjustified person since that person has not yet been unitied to Christ. We all agree that faith is purely a gift of grace, but how can an unjustified person accept that gift in his unjustified state. I was pointing out how Aquinas answered that question, primarily because I thought that John Y was asking it.
I can understand why some people would prefer to avoid discussing it, but I don’t see a problem if others want to investigate how our Church fathers, including Augustine and Aquinas, have dealt with it.
I also completeely agree with your response to Doug that justification of believers, meaning their being accepted as righteous in God’s sight, is not contingent upon a successful completion of sanctification. I also understand Doug’s frustration with some who want to downplay the importance of good works because they are not perfect.
LikeLike
Doug, just how clueless about Scripture and the Reformed confessions can you be? Here’s the Scottish Confession on Good Works — notice the conflict within saints:
For the record, my sense of talking about personal sanctification is a function of pride. Does it ever occur to you that you might actually be self-righteous when you talk about sanctification? Also, have you ever considered that when talking about sanctification you may be in denial. Any good believer, who knows the depths of his heart, also knows that his good is a very mixed bag.
LikeLike
DGH, you shouldn’t have pride in your good works, since its God who is at work in and through you. He gets all the glory! Moreover, I don’t recall anyone asking you to toot your horn about your good deeds. But you did down play sanctification, as if it’s not a big deal. Huh? Sanctification is our subjective response to God saving us! Without sanctification, you’re still dead in your sins! Because no is saved who hasnt repented, which is a work of the Spirit in our heart.
If we don’t have a subjective response to the overture of the gospel then we’re still dead in our sins. And sanctification is ALSO an ongoing saving benefit of being born of God. We don’t rest in our works, God forbid! We rest in Christ, and press on knowing God will work in and through us! Why did God save us? For good works!
DGH they day you cried out to God with a broken and contrite heart with true repentance, confessing your sins and trusting in his work on the cross, and declaring him as your Lord and Savior; (conversion) do you think God saw your confession as a filthy rag?
If you do, then we have a different religion.
LikeLike
Doug: Jeff, I will be happy to affirm the later
OK, so you do actually care about logical priority, which is a good thing.
LikeLike
Jeff, while I can’t get too harsh with the OPC report on justification, and there is much to agree with, but I’m not sure about this logical priority argument. I’m in full agreement with Murray when he says
“Sanctification is a process that begins; we might say, in regeneration, finds its basis in justification, and derives its energizing grace from the union in Christ which is effected in effectual calling.”
Jeff, I say a hearty amen to that discription! Jeff, are you justified before you repent, or after?
LikeLike
Don and Todd,
I sent an email to a friend whose theological knowledge and insight I respect a lot. Along with the email I sent Todd’s long post about union with Christ and his explanation of it. The following is how he responded back to me. And Don, I did read that Aquinas post but I think the confusion lies in what grace consists of. I think the grace is the imputation of Christ righteousness which results in faith. So, the grace is not the faith in particular. It is a result of the grace. To answer Doug’s question- I believe repentance follows justification. And I believe imputation precedes justification. Here is how my friend responded to my email:
I hate that phrase, “mystical union”. It reeks of Pentecostalism. Not that I am suggesting that Todd is encouraging Pentecostalism, but he is using a phrase that Scripture never warrants. He is further dividing union with Christ into two categories – the forensic (which he calls decretal), and the mystical (which he calls existential). Scripture never does this. It never divides union like this. Even in John 17, “I am the vine, you are the branches”, Christ is not speaking to a mystical union whereby we are enabled to live a holier life than we would have been otherwise, but rather a forensic one, whereby we are declared just in God’s sight.
Todd is confused about the timing of justification. He, like most Calvinists, believe faith is the cause of justification. Romans 8:10, among other passages, flatly rejects this. “The Spirit is life BECAUSE OF RIGHTEOUSNESS.” Imputation precedes faith. It is imputation that he is confusing with justification. Imputation is union. Justification is a verdict. He writes: “So while decretal union precedes saving faith, saving faith must precede mystical union to preserve justification by faith alone.” That is a logical contradiction. It is like saying, while the cart precedes the horse, the horse must come before the cart in order to preserve the horse preceding the cart. We are not justified based on an infusion of Christ’s holiness into us. Rather, we are justified by a forensic union with Christ’s death.
Galatians 2:20 I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.
The crucified part must always come first.
Todd writes: If we are to find comfort in union, and we should, we must first see that our union was applied to us through the instrumentality of faith in the gospel.”
I answer: If we are to find comfort in union, and we should, we must first see that our union was applied to us through the GRACE OF GOD. Not through the instrumentality of faith, but rather through the grace and kindness of our Lord Jesus Christ. Otherwise, faith becomes a work.
LikeLike
Hi Guys, listen to John Murray’s logical priority from “Redemption Accomplished And Applied”, one which seems really good to me.
Murray says the order is thus: (calling, regeneration, faith and repentance, justification, adoption, justification, perseverance, and finally glorification.)
I really like this because I see this taught clearly in the Bible. The efficacious call is the first step THEN regeneration, THEN faith and repentance, THEN justification, adoption and sanctification. Although, according to Murray faith and repentance are sisters in that they are a work wrought by the Holy Spirit (a free gift) preceding both justification and sanctification.
How do you guys feel about John Murray? Is he no longer reformed?
LikeLike
John,
Just a quick response to your friend. Most of us are Calvinists on this site, so you should not be surprised that our view of union flows from our view of predestination. And the term “mystical union” is hardly Pentecostal, (though I can see how it would sound that way to some) but long-standing in Reformed systematic theologies. Here is a brief snippet from L. Berkhof that may help where we are coming from:
D. The Significance of the Mystical Union.
1. The mystical union in the sense in which we are now speaking of it is not the judicial ground, on the basis of which we become partakers of the riches that are in Christ. 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 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 special grace which we receive lies in the fact that the righteousness of Christ is freely imputed to us.
LikeLike
Todd, do you think justification comes before faith and repentance?
LikeLike
Doug,
If we are justified by faith, faith must logically precede justification. Repentance is a bit trickier, depending how you want to define it, but no man can repent with evangelical repentance without a hope in the gospel that his repentance matters to God and will yield anything. That is what the Marrow Controversy was about.
LikeLike
Todd,
I don’t follow how “our view of union flows from our view of predestination.” I think what my friend was saying was that his view of union flowed from decretal union too. But I am assuming that you are using predestination as a synonym for decretal union. And it is unclear how Berkhof distinguishes between “legal unity” with Christ and “spritual oneness” with Christ. Why do most Calvinists refuse to call “legal unity” union with Christ? When you add the word mystical or spiritual union it seems like you are saying something different and/or higher and more important than mere “legal union”. And that it is this “spritual” union that propels or motivates us to more holy living than legal union does. I don’t know anything that propels or motivates someone to holy living (or putting themselves into situations like the Apostle Paul did knowing that he might get beaten or stoned to death by self-righteous Jews who had a zeal for the Law) more than knowing your grievous sins are covered by your legal union with Christ. And we usually don’t consider self-righteous sins as very grievous. We don’t know how many times Paul commanded the death of Christians he was persecuting. He was basically a murderer many times over (and oblivious to his self-righteousness). It was the knowledge of Christ’s promise of infinite forgiveness that drove him to do what he did and what he became. So, I would conclude that legal union had much more to do with what became of Paul than the mystical or spiritual union that most Calvinists want to emphasize all the time. The good news to anyone who really knows he is a worthless sinner who deserves death is the knowledge and faith that believes in the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. It is like being let out of prison for free while on death row. And this continues ad infinitum in the believers life. That is really liberating when really seen. Who would’nt want to do good works for someone who did this for them?
Doug, I have heard some people argue that it was Murray who bred Shepherd, Gaffin, North and other theonomists. They drew on him a lot. I think we are all dogmatists- it is a matter of whose Kool-aide you keep imbibing on.
LikeLike
“Why do most Calvinists refuse to call “legal unity” union with Christ?”
We don’t, we just see that there is more to union than the forensic, so we distinguish different aspects of union.
“And that it is this “spritual” union that propels or motivates us to more holy living than legal union does.”
No, I would never say that. It is our justification that motivates our good works, but we need more than motivation, we need power. God not only forgives us, but fills us with his Spirit and empowers us to live for righteousness.
LikeLike
Thanks Todd, repentance IS more tricky, and since its something we do, (repent) can we call repentance a good work?
Now, of course repentance is our subjective response to the Holy Spirit doing the work of regeneration. However, God doesnt repent, we do! Our faith and obedience is a gift of God lest anyone should boast. . Have I mixed up faith with works? Please tell me it aint so!
LikeLike
John Y, I would also stress that justification is something outside of us. It’s forensic, it’s a legal declaration. A completely distinct work from sanctification although the two can not be separated. Sanctification is our subjective response to being born of God. If we are truly justified and “in Christ”, we must walk by faith, lest our profession be found fraudulent.
What do you think of this logical order? Calling, regeneration, faith and repentance, justification, adoption, sanctification and glorification?
LikeLike
Here is Cranfield, on “the obedience of faith” as well as the interchange between faith/obedience in Romans, and Paul’s thought generally:
“upakoen pisteus (the obedience of faith) has been variously understood as meaning:
1. ‘obedience to the faith’ (i.e.,to faith in the sense of fides quae creditur, the body of doctrine accepted);
2. ‘obedience to faith’ (i.e.,to the authority of faith);
3. ‘obedience to God’s faithfulness attested in the gospel’;
4. ‘the obedience which faith works’
5. ‘the obedience required by faith’
6. ‘believing obedience’;
7. ‘the obedience which consists in faith’
The first three of these interpretations assume that the genitive is objective, the fourth and fifth that it is subjective, the sixth that it is adjectival, the last that it is a genitive of apposition or definition (cf. “the sign which was circumcision” in 4:11). Of these, the one which seems to us to suit best the structure of Paul’s thought in Romans is (7).
Cranfield again: “For example, compare 1:8 (’your faith is proclaimed throughout the whole world’) with 16:19 (’your obedience has become known to all’); 10:16a (’but all have not obeyed the gospel’) with 10:16b (’for Isaiah says Who has believed our report?’); 11:23 (’and they also if they do not continue in unbelief) with 11:30 (’their disobedience’) and 11:31 (’these also have now been disobedient’) and 15:18 (’For I will not dare to speak of any of those things which Christ has not accomplished through me, in word and deed, to make the Gentiles obedient’)
…THE EQUIVALENCE FOR PAUL OF FAITH IN GOD AND OBEDIENCE TO HIM MAY BE ILLUSTRATED AGAIN AND AGAIN FROM THIS EPISTLE”. Cranfield here cites the following substantiation:
“For example, compare 1:8 (’your faith is proclaimed throughout the whole world’) with 16:19 (’your obedience has become known to all’); 10:16a (’but all have not obeyed the gospel’) with 10:16b (’for Isaiah says Who has believed our report?’); 11:23 (’and they also if they do not continue in unbelief) with 11:30 (’their disobedience’) and 11:31 (’these also have now been disobedient’) and 15:18 (’For I will not dare to speak of any of those things which Christ has not accomplished through me, in word and deed, to make the Gentiles obedient’).
He concludes: “Paul’s preaching is aimed at obtaining from his hearers true obedience to God, the essence of which is a responding to his message of Good News with faith. It is also true to say that to make the decision of faith is an act of obedience toward God and also that true faith by its very nature includes in itself the sincere desire and will to obey God in all things.” From there, it’s interesting to note that Cranfield further cites two LUTHERAN giants, Adolf Schlatter (neglected due to people’s lust for Bultmannian subjectivism/heresy) and Paul Althaus, with the former arguing that “the gap between faith/obedience only appears when God’s message is replaced by a doctrine offering instruction about God”(pp. 66-67 Vol 1 of ICC Romans Commentary).
LikeLike
Doug, I would say that faith is always accompanied by repentance, but repentance is not the ground of justification.
LikeLike
Try some Turrentin:
The question is not whether faith alone justifies to the exclusion either of the grace of God or the righteousness of Christ or the word AND SACRAMENTS (BY WHICH THE BLESSING OF JUSTIFICATION IS PRESENTED AND SEALED TO US ON THE PART OF GOD), which we maintain ARE NECESSARILY REQUIRED HERE; but only to the exclusion of every other virtue and habit on our part…. For all these as they are mutually subordinated in a different class of cause, CONSIST WITH EACH OTHER IN THE HIGHEST DEGREE.
LikeLike
Thank God The fat little German and the rest of the Reformers came to dismantle the ecclesiastical machinery that was largely human in origin and content, and restore to us the doctrine of Justification by faith alone. spurge on said there can be no peace with Rome. We can’t have peace with them and they can’t have peace with us. He said this War! We shall love their people and not touch a hair on their Priests head. But we shall fight this giant with all that is in us. We shall pray against it. For they piled the Rubbish high, but the dismantling has more than begun. Andrew never forget the words of Spurgeon.
LikeLike
Kevin from CCC,
Welcome.
Over and out,
Andrew
LikeLike