Apparently, my reaction to Brad Gregory’s chapter on ethics went the way of Facebook updates. So let me return to the subject of Roman Catholicism and Aristotle.
Out of curiosity, I went over to Called to Communion to see what the folks there have to say about Aristotle. I ran across this from Mr. Cross himself:
That is why Aristotle is so important. Aristotle shows how from what we already know through our common human experience of the world, we can understand virtue and vice, and their epistemic grounding in philosophical truths about human nature and the human person. Our shared human nature provides the shared rational framework and criteria by which to adjudicate between various hypotheses, and so reason together. It is only by this mutual participation in rationality that Hitchens and Wilson can criticize each other’s positions, in something more than a solipsistic way. What both are missing, is Aristotle. And that is why watching them debate is like watching the skeptic Sextus Empiricus debate Nicolas of Autrecourt, whose fideism was condemned by the Catholic Church in the fourteenth century. So when I reflect on ten years of teaching Aristotle, in light of my position twenty years ago, I see the way in which Aristotle provides an important philosophical understanding of nature, the very nature that grace perfects and upon which grace builds.
This comes in the context of the debates between Christopher Hitchens and Doug Wilson, where Bryan Cross’ veneration of philosophical certainty leads him to conclude that “there is no common rational ground by which to adjudicate between the positions of Wilson and Hitchens. That is why Hitchens is exactly right when he says, “There is no bridge that can suffice.” (6:39) . . . . If one’s whole epistemic edifice is built upon a mere leap-in-the-dark assumption, as Wilson’s is, then since nothing can be any more certain than that upon which it rests, one still does not get any certainty.”
Well, where exactly is the common ground between Aristotle and Paul (or Jesus for that matter, or the Magnificat while I’m at it) when it comes to good works? Christians believe (or are supposed to) that sinners can’t be good apart from grace. But Aristotle is all about virtue apart from grace. How could he be otherwise, since he knew nothing about grace? This doesn’t mean we need to throw Athens overboard in good Tertullian fashion. We do happen, this side of glory, to live with a lot of people who do not have grace. So finding ways that they can be good apart from grace is useful at least for proximate ends of communities and neighborhoods. Still, at the end of the day what Aristotle and Thomas meant by virtue is a long way apart thanks to the advent of Christ.
And by the way, curious is the charge that Protestants are wrong to appeal to Paul apart from papal approval but Roman Catholic teachers of virtue may appeal to a pagan without the slightest criticism.
I also ran across a defense of transubstantiation at Called to Communion that made an interesting point about historical development. To the charge that Rome’s teaching on transubstantiation depends on Aristotelian metaphysics, the blogger appealed to Jaroslav Pelikan:
. . . the application of the term “substance” to the discussion of the Eucharistic presence antedates the rediscovery of Aristotle. In the ninth century, Ratramnus spoke of “substances visible but invisible,” and his opponent Radbertus declared that “out of the substance of bread and wine the same body and blood of Christ is mystically consecrated.” Even “transubstantiation” was used during the twelfth century in a nontechnical sense. Such evidence lends credence to the argument that the doctrine of transubstantiation, as codified by the decrees of the Fourth Lateran and Tridentine councils, did not canonize Aristotelian philosophy as indispensable to Christian doctrine.
So, Called to Communion recognizes that Aristotelian metaphysics may be a problem. But Aristotelian ethics are okay?
This was not the historical point, though. Since Roman Catholicism of the Protestant era was heavily dependent on Aristotelian ethics (see Gregory and Alasdair MacIntyre), and since the West did not really appropriate Aristotle until the medieval renaissance associated with Aquinas and the rise of universities, just how ancient is the ethical framework that rejected Luther and Calvin’s constructions? For all the talk about the ancient church and the early church fathers, do the Called to Communion folks believe that Ireneaus and Polycarp were thinking about the Christian life in Aristotelian categories?
I ask partly because I don’t know, partly because the way some put the past together looks remarkably arbitrary.
Old Life 
Darryl,
If you really wanted to know, you could have just asked our position, if you had questions, rather than speculating here.
You wrote:
Aristotle is speaking of natural virtues, but the goodness we cannot attain apart from grace is supernatural. That does not mean that there is no common ground between pagan philosophies and Christiainity, but they are not speaking (in all cases) of the very same thing, particularly in the cases of virtue and justice.
I don’t agree. St. Thomas distinguishes between natural virtue and supernatural virtue. And what he means by natural virtue is very much what Aristotle means by virtue simpliciter.
Once again, no Catholics (at least at CTC) claim that it is wrong to appeal to Paul apart from papal approval. That straw man has already been addressed, many times.
The statement you cited to the effect that the Fourth Lateran and Tridentine councils “did not canonize Aristotelian philosophy” does not mean that “Aristotelian metaphysics may be a problem” or that CTC recognizes that Aristotelian metaphysics may be a problem. It means only what it says.
Feel free to point out some arbitrary way any of us have put the past together.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
Bryan, on the way you put together the past, I have referred to this many times (how’s that response grab you?).
As for checking with you before speculating, did you check with David VanDrunen (for instance) before writing about his article on Vatican 2? Come on, play fair.
If Protestants were not wrong to appeal to Paul, then what exactly happened in the sixteenth century? Which way are you reconstructing history (again)?
Please refer me to where you reconcile pagan and Christian ethics and where you wrestle with the implications of baptizing a pagan system of moral goodness.
LikeLike
The biblical depiction of capacity both pre and post lapse much less the standard(perfection) by which Rome evaluates such, isn’t shared by protestants. Primarily because of Rome’s indebtedness to Aquinas and his subsequent reliance upon Aristotle and because Scripture isn’t a final rule by which the faithful instruct their life.
LikeLike
SB Rome doesn’t share with protestants the requirement of perfection. The attempts at biblicism by Rome is still odd to these ears. ‘Course it’s odd to them too, that’s why newly minted prot-catholics are doing the bible classes at the local parish and when push comes to shove they pull the lexicon and tradition card.
LikeLike
Exactly, the Romanism (as distinct from the church catholic) rejected by the Reformers was very recent. The Reformers were conscious that Romanism represented novelty and not genuine catholicism. That’s why they didn’t labor with guilt. That’s why they called and worked for Reformation and why they were not radicals (as were the Anabaptists).
The entire Romanist argument is built on anachronism, reading the present (or the 13th century) into the 2nd. On historical-textual-exegetical grounds, however, it just doesn’t work. The fathers were not thinking in the same categories because they weren’t much interested in Aristotle and didn’t appropriate his substance metaphysics until much later. That’s why it’s not until the 9th century that there was any serious attempt to formulate what would become transubstantiation and that’s why Rartramnus’ response to Radbertus was so vigorous and so much truer to the fathers than Radbertus’ arguments.
The rest of the Romanist sacramental system really came into shape after that and wasn’t consolidated until 4th Lateran (1215). When the Reformation began systematically rejecting Romanism, they were rejecting accretions that were only a few hundred years old. That’s the equivalent of our rejecting 17th century pietism. That’s easy!
LikeLike
Darryl
Your reply is just hand-waving, once again, no actual citations of something we have written, and showing how it is arbitrary.
As a general rule we don’t use our site to speculate critically about what another living person might or might not believe, because we don’t believe this to be charitable or good faith dialogue. Instead, among other things we affirm common ground and refute false claims and arguments. If we have questions about a living person’s beliefs, we write that person. Or we lay out all the theoretical possible positions, and show the implications of each.
The former question is not something that can be answered in a combox. The latter is a “when did you stop beating your wife” loaded question, and no genuine dialogue is possible when persons resort to loaded questions.
I don’t have to do this work; it has already been done by many others before me, including saints like St. Thomas Aquinas.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
Here’s the big duplicity of CTC, they argue scripture purely for it’s evangelical traction with protestants, then when their exegesis is thwarted they throw out the ‘lexicon and tradition’ card and argue that you can’t know what you know from scripture anyway because you have no unassailable earthly authority(according to them) by which you can verify and authenticate, but they do, but then when you try to find the unassailable authorities official exegesis of the scriptures, they ain’t got one. It’s all a big con.
LikeLike
Bryan Cross: Once again, no Catholics (at least at CTC) claim that it is wrong to appeal to Paul apart from papal approval. That straw man has already been addressed, many times.
D.G. Hart: If Protestants were not wrong to appeal to Paul, then what exactly happened in the sixteenth century? Which way are you reconstructing history (again)?
Bryan Cross: The former question is not something that can be answered in a combox. The latter is a “when did you stop beating your wife” loaded question, and no genuine dialogue is possible when persons resort to loaded questions.
RS: The former is a question that cannot be fully answered in this medium, but surely an attempt could be made. Luther argued from Paul and Roman Catholicism answered that this was not how the Pope interpreted Scripture. I am not sure how you could get around that, but it appears that your backside is being revealed as you flee from the point.
But of course the second question was not a question that was intended to be answered but was instead a thrust to the heart. If you don’t accept the fact that Luther appealed to Paul and Roman Catholicism appealed to the Pope, then how can you avoid the charge of reconstructing history? You can’t. In other words, both of D.G. Hart’s “questions” made points that you avoided and tried to turn them back on him. One cannot have a genuine dialogue when one resorts to tactics like that.
LikeLike
Bryan,
As a Protestant you had nagging doubts about the doctrine of Sola Scriptura which eventually led you to join the Roman Catholic Church. Are there any Catholic doctrines that you have nagging doubts about? Things that you are thinking about and hope to resolve, but may not be able to? It seems to me that there is a lot more that must be affirmed and reconciled as a Catholic than as a Protestant. Maybe you disagree.
I had a really interesting conversation last week with a fairly prominant atheist and one of the many topics he brought up was the Virgin Mary’s Apparitions at Medjugorje. He said that atheists consider that a “living laboratory” of sorts that in some ways parallel the early days of Christianity. Of course atheists reject both as being figments of people’s imaginations. How do you view Medjugorje?
LikeLike
Bryan, thanks for your response. If you don’t have to wrestle with reconciling the ancients and Christianity because it’s already been done, so has most of what CTC does — argue for the faith. So why not take CTC down?
LikeLike
Sean, and yet many converts to Rome think this is an intellectual move. I get it about submitting one’s will. Maybe even one’s mind. But if you can’t question (at least as some converts construe it), how can this be intellectually satisfying? That’s not to say that Protestants are the intellectuals (or rationalists as we are often accused). We sometimes think we have all the answers. But at least our confessions admit we err. This opens up debate.
LikeLike
Darryl,
If I expressed what I really think is going on with a number of these guys I’d get skewered for playing pop psychologist on the internet. So, I guess we just let their behavior and their ‘new’ pursuits speak for themselves. The intellectual satisfaction I guess would have to do with the ability to resolve intellectual tension with an appeal to authority or for someone like Cross being able to reconcile, even if falsely or less than exhaustively or ‘conveniently’, to philosophical certainty. Other than that, it’s a kind of vicarious celebrity intellectualism; Georgetown, Notre Dame, U of D, Boston College, the Jesuits at Berkeley, and on and on. Certainly, these brainiacs haven’t missed a turn?! It’s an argument however, that hinges on the fact that their ‘brain trust’ don’t take the scriptures at their word, and part of the reason they attract these types is that Rome doesn’t require them to. So they’re intellectually ‘free’ to develop in ways of religious philosophy that otherwise would be restricted in a fundamentalist(simpleton) or even confessional setting. Rome is so large and unrestrained by doctrinal fidelity, that there’s actually more freedom in Rome than without. The CTC likes to point out that since JPII they’ve(Rome) has been trying to reign in this ‘liberal’ contingent, well ok, and reconcile them to what? Ultimate authority in the holy see? Please. Go talk to sister simone about that or Matthew Fox or any thousands of others both in the clergy or in the academy.
LikeLike
Now as far as converting to Rome via CTC type apology as being ‘intellectual’, maybe if you’ve never been exposed wittingly to Aristotle or Aquinas, you might think you’ve stumbled upon an heretofore undiscovered intellectual treasure. But, for me, if I can’t reconcile it to the original apostolic tradition, then I’ve converted to something other than the testament of Jesus Christ, and since He’s the one who reconciles me to an angry God(first cause or otherwise) or better, reconciles an angry God to me and secures me life beyond the grave, you can have your Aquinas and Aristotle I’ll take Paul.
LikeLike
Couple of questions/remarks for Darryl and the OL crew here:
1) Does anyone here think that the CtC contingency takes seriously at all the innovations within Rome with the rise of the Scholastics in the 12-13 centuries? This is to piggy-back on Dr. Clark’s point that nobody in the CtC ranks seems to be taking the developments in Rome during the medieval period very seriously, all while trying to assert an unbroken chain of unanimity of tradition from Peter to Ratzinger?
2) I wonder how reticent some of these Reformed seminary grad’s like Stellman, Cross, Stewart, et. al. would have been to convert to Rome had they paid close attention to the findings of those like Richard Muller. Muller and Reformed scholars sympathetic to his work have gone a long way to show how the Reformed Scholastics (who BTW were honest about their doctrinal developments strove to prove their genuine catholic bona fides – often appropriating both Aristotelian language and categories, and Thomistic developments, especially with respect to Doctrine of God matters – were highly conscious of their place within the historic and theological sweep of catholic Christianity. From the Apostles to the Fathers, to the Medieval Scholastics and to other catholic traditions in the East, it seems like our Reformed forebears were rightly concerned with showing how the Reformation was a return to true catholic Christianity?
3) As an aside, from this confessionalist’s perspective, modern Reformed Christians would be far better off exemplifying a Thomistic approach to apologetics as exemplified in Summa contra Gentiles with certain modifications befitting a Reformed perspective, than continuing to utilize solely on certain Kuyperian and Van Tillian apologetic models. This is not to say Van Tillian apologetics is a total waste – but from a 2k perspective that would seek to have NL as the hallmark of secular ethical and political constructs, I am not so sure how compatible 2k thought is at a structural level with Van Tillian and Kuyperian ideals.
LikeLike
Sean, but John, Peter, Paul, Matthew, and Luke — they’re the sources that evangelicals cite. Ewww.
LikeLike
Jed, 1) I think they take the scholastics seriously selectively. So they can concoct a magnificent intellectual tradition without warts. If you point out the tensions and contradictions — voila — development of doctrine to the rescue. It’s a perpetual beauty machine.
2) In addition to Muller, what would they have done with the leading Roman Catholic historians — like John O’Malley, Francis Oakley, John McGreevy — who are center left in the church and hardly proponents of infallibility or papal authority.
3) Agreed. Faith and reason have more give and take than a presuppositional method sometimes allows.
LikeLike
Sean, keep it coming. Your perspective is valuable, helpful for understanding all this.
LikeLike
DGH,
Thanks, I’ll have some follow-up questions tomorrow. BTW, sorry for the atrocious grammar in the last post – typing on an iPad feels a bit like being a one-legged man in a butt kicking contest.
LikeLike
Ok, so I’ve read the piece by Cross, Darryl’s response, and all the comments that have been offered. I believe Cross has made a compelling argument. I suspect that the strong reaction is based on fear that unaided human reason can aspire to faith. But I don’t see that in Cross’s piece.
What I see Cross opposing is fideism which argues that faith is the authoritative starting point for ultimate truth. Quoting an article from the Catholic Encyclopedia, he asserts that the correct starting point is intellectual assent:
Intellectual assent can only aspire to faith by grace. This does not attribute any merit to man because God has put the unquenchable desire for universal good (Augustine) into the soul of every man. apart from grace, however, that desire will be spent on worldly, not eternal goods.
LikeLike
Don: “I suspect that the strong reaction is based on fear that unaided human reason can aspire to faith.”
Sean: The strong reaction is based on knowing Aquinas view of the capacity of the soul for virtue and the idea of super added grace lost per the fall and restored per sacramental grace post-fall and how Aquinas’ view undermines total depravity and consequently sola gratia, sola fide, and sola Christus. It’s also a reaction against a ‘brand’ of Rome being sold at the expense of poor souls who may not know any different. Having said all that; I agree with aspects of Jed’s point 3
LikeLike
Jed,
It would be the idea of antithesis and how Kuyper and Van Til employ it that’s the rub?
LikeLike
Sean,
But total depravity has not destroyed our ability to reason correctly. When we are converted, we do not get a new ability to reason do we?
LikeLike
Don, yes and no. Yes, in that we still confess the need for the spirit’s illumination to ‘know’ savingly and no, the unregenerate can process logically and reach sound conclusions. That’s why I have some regard for Jed’s point # 3 and what I think will be his resistance to a Van Tillian emphasis on antithesis that effectively trumps the idea that non regenerate can reason, ‘really’ or only after a fashion.
LikeLike
sb can not reason, ‘really’………….
LikeLike
Would Van Til say that non-regenerate people can’t reason or would he say that they can’t account for their ability to reason? (i.e. laws of logic do not make sense apart from God).
James Bratt has some interesting things to say about how Kuyper and some of his associates went overboard on the idea of the antithesis in his “Dutch Calvinism in Modern America”. I need to take another look at that to remember exactly what he said about them. I think his basic criticism was that some things are just more grey than black or white.
LikeLike
Erik, that would be the ‘after a fashion’ line.- can’t account for. This move is still a move too far.
LikeLike
Don, so you recommend Aristotle to Christians for understanding how to be good?
LikeLike
The problem with the antithesis is when we use it to try to discern “Christian art” from “Non-Christian art”, “Christian plumbing” from “Non-Christian plumbing” and “Christian baseball” (The Cubs) from “Non-Christian baseball” (The Phillies). I can attest that Mike Schmidt was the devil incarnate whenever he came to Wrigley field with the wind blowing out.
LikeLike
Darryl,
I am not all that familiar with Aristotle, but I would say that philosophy, generally speaking, can teach anyone how to better exercise our powers of reasoning.
LikeLike
Sean,
Are you saying that the Spirit gives us a higher level of reasoning power that enables us to “know” savingly?
LikeLike
Sean,
t would be the idea of antithesis and how Kuyper and Van Til employ it that’s the rub?
I understand where Kuyperians and Van Tillians, who often overlap ideologically, are going with the notion of antithesis, but my contention is their formulation of antithesis is more of a product of Enlightenment philosophy than it is a faithful appropriation of biblical conceptions of human sin and depravity, or even an appropriation of pre-Enlightenment Christian conceptions of the same. I think that the way Kuyper, and Van Til even more so, appropriate the antithesis end up obliterating the imago dei, which according to Reformed orthodoxy has been marred by the fall, and subject to total depravity, but not ultimately lost. I don’t want to impugn Kuyperians or Van Tillians too much, because, in a period of time when many were abandoning orthodoxy, they sought to recover it and restate it in a way that modern man could understand, but the post-Enlightenment idealism that they fought so hard to combat seems to me to pervade nearly every corner of their recapitulation of Calvinism and Reformed orthodoxy. To shoot straight to the point, while I think there are aspects of their thought that are beneficial, I think that on the whole Kuyperianism and Van Tillianism should be left behind. In their place I would prefer an older, more small-c catholic approach to both theology and apologetics should return to the fore, with the addition of some of the contributions of biblical theology to the field of exegesis being the best contemporary developments in theology guiding our path forward.
My problems with both Kuyper and Van Til run much deeper than disagreements over the antithesis – they bought into the collective optimism of their age that a “total system” could be attained, and all of Christian theological, and philosophical reflection could be united into a unified worldview by employing biblical presuppositions. I reject this off hand – I think that part of the image of God in man working through certain innate Categories of thought (discovered by Aristotle, and recapitulated in Aquinas and many of the Reformed Scholastics) affords us, Christian or not, limited but effective skills in reasoning that enable us to discover certain truths about God, the created order, and morality that have been stitched into the fabric of reality by God himself so as to leave men without excuse. This capacity of reason, rather than achieving grand “total systems”, allows men through the tedious plodding of observation and logic, to attain a limited but sufficient understanding of the cosmic order, and human ethical duties to both God and man – regardless of whether or not these rational capabilities are properly applied.
I think the work of systematicians like Van Drunen, historical theologians like Muller, Clark, and others, alongside the historical analysis of Hart, and even Trueman has revitalized the very notion of Reformed orthodoxy, or paleo-Calvinism – and if their analyses are right, which I tend to think they are, demand a recovery of an older Reformed orthodoxy. Such a return would necessarily demand at minimum radical overhauls on how we approach Kuyper and Van Til and their intellectual predecessors, if not an abandonment of their neo-Calvinist project for a return to our older Reformed roots that gave rise to our confessions, a robust understanding and appropraiation of Natural Law, and a recovery of intellectual liberty that was swallowed up by the presuppositionalists’ imperialistic urges for a comprehensive Christian/Reformed worldview that was once viewed as the answer to Modernism. As much as Van Til and Kuyper sought to combat modernism, I think they imbibed too much of it’s intellectual foundations to do anything but create a Christian spin on modernism. I am of the opinion that Chrisitianity, and it’s particular expression in confessional Reformed orthodoxy defies attempts to be framed as an ism, and the best way to do this is to return to our confessional and orthodox roots and to begin rebuilding from there.
LikeLike
Erik, Mike Schmidt was good away from Wrigley. Don’t forget all those homers Steve Carlton hit against the Cubbies.
LikeLike
Don, can philosophy tell you how to be good? The point of my post was about Rome’s appropriation of Aristotle’s ethics. But leave it to you to take another side (wherever it is).
LikeLike
Don, what Sean may be saying is what Paul says — wisdom (philosophy) doesn’t give you the son of God dying on the cross for sinners. It is not reasonable, apart from the work of the Spirit that makes it so.
LikeLike
Jed, well said (not simply because you include me in your list of recoverers). I especially your appreciation of AK and CVT. But if we agree that the pope is infallible, why not Dutch Calvinists? And I believe the whole comprehensive Christianity notion is tied to sources having little standing in the New Testament (as much as pietists and neo-Cals go gooey over “all things” passages — when John 3:16 says “the world” don’t Calvinists know how to preserve particularity?).
LikeLike
Thanks Jed. I concur, even if my reasoning would be because it would relieve me of having to redress another 8 weeks of the annual Schaeffer course.
Don, No. What I’m saying is I don’t appropriate the knowledge of God or the scriptures unto salvation apart from the illumination of the Holy Spirit. As Darryl pointed out, the foolishness of the cross shames the wise of the world.
LikeLike
“I am of the opinion that Chrisitianity, and its particular expression in confessional Reformed orthodoxy defies attempts to be framed as an ism…”
Jed, good stuff, and I just want to point at this sentence. Philosophy and apologetics are human endeavors. As such, they are fallible and tied to the eras in which they are developed.Any particular perspective tends to be useful in uncovering some worthy insights but it also tends to have blind spots as well. But Christians, who above all people should recognize the fallibility of human endeavors, latch on to one attempt – Kuyperian, Van Tilian, etc. – and treat it as the Final Word. But there isn’t a final word in such things, and it’s no slam on either Van Til or Kuyper that their work didn’t come down from a mountain on stone tablets.
LikeLike
Jed,
I agree with MM — good stuff, and the need to recognize that philosophy and apologetics, as human endeavors, are fallible. I suspect you agree with that.
I also agree with your opinion that best way to do this (I believe “this” is a referant to reformed orthodoxy) is to return to our confessional and orthodox roots and to begin rebuilding from there.
What I’m not so sure about is just how to do this? The approach that has been taken, in my opinion, has been top down, from the church as institution to the pastors, but not really getting to the people. I suggest that a more liturgical approach within the bounds of a reformed confession would cultivate confessionally reformed habits of thinking.
LikeLike
Darryl,
It is difficult when you begin with the end of another person’s argument and then takes the argument in a different direction. Your simple strawman representation of Cross’ point as Rome’s appropriation of Aristotle’s ethics does not really get to the nub of Cross’ thinking.
Cross begins his argument with a contrast between divine command theory, on the one hand, and natural law and virtue theory on the other.
Your very simple question about whether I recommend Aristotle to Christians for understanding how to be good reveals either that you did not understand Cross’ argument, or that you are being manipulative.
I suggest that if you really want to debate the soundness of an argument, you have to deal with the premises, not the conclusion. Maybe then my responses will make more sense to you.
LikeLike
Sean and Darryl,
I would argue that the cross can be understood by reason, but is rejected by the so-called wise because their reason is appropriated to their glory, not God’s. If it were not reasonable, Paul could not have used reasoning to discuss why it was necessary. Don’t you think that even Satan now understands the reasoning behind the cross.
LikeLike
Don, and I would reply that you don’t understand the serious difference between pagan and Christian accounts of virtue, nor do you appreciate my point about what happens to Christianity when you try to appropriate an account of virtue that does not know the Holy Spirit or grace.
As you can see from my post I was not entering into the Wilson-Hitchens debate. I was looking for a recommendation of Aristotle. And I found one.
Which goes back to my question to you: do you recommend Aristotle or any pagan the way Cross does. BTW, I also know that epistemology (the substance of Cross’ post) is different from ethics. Do you?
LikeLike
Don, what philosopher or smart person (apart from Christianity) has suggested that a god-man dying for sins is man’s hope for eternal life?
LikeLike
I might also add that if the cross is unreasonable, how could anyone be held accountable for rejecting it?
LikeLike
Darryl,
The problem is that you can’t divorce epistomology and ethics. Furthermore, you can’t divorce the Spirit’s work in creation from His work in redemption. This is what you are arguing for and Cross is arguing against.
LikeLike
Darryl,
No philosopher or smart person (apart from Christianity) has suggested that a god-man dying for sins is man’s hope for eternal life, but no smart person is unable to understand the reasoning behind it. That is the crux of the debate. We don’t start from a position that forces us to abandon our reason.
LikeLike
1 Cor 1:23 – “But we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles.”
Try telling the atheist that I met with a week ago that the cross is reasonable. He would have none of it. You need to get out more, Don.
LikeLike
Q: I might also add that if the cross is unreasonable, how could anyone be held accountable for rejecting it?
A: Original sin
You sound like my Baptist friends who want to affirm election but also want to affirm that man has a duty to choose. They can’t reconcile the two so they chalk it up to a mystery that should not be further probed.
LikeLike
Literate Commenter,
I commend you for trying. I suspect he would have none of it because he rejects your reasoning as an alternative that will bring him the most satisfaction. He will never accept your reasoning until and unless the Spirit testifies to his spirit that your testimony is true, and that it is the only reasonable alternative to true satisfaction.
Christ crucified is a stumbling block because hearing, they do not hear, not, fundamentally, that they do not understand.
Thanks for your recommendation to get out more. I can’t agree with you more.
LikeLike
LC,
It sounds like you are saying that a man does not have a duty to choose? I suggest that both are indeed true, but am arguing that the Spirit works through our ability to reason. Before you next accuse me of being an RC, I am arguing that God’s grace is found in nature, thus validating our reason as God’s gift and the testimony of His Spirit as the outside Agent who turns our reason to its intended purpose, glorifying God and not ourselves.
Btw, I am not a baptist.
LikeLike
Don,
Capitalizing on your epistemology ethics tie in. What if a ‘natural man’s’ sense of justice is informing his religious convictions? What if that man’s religious convictions and sense of justice makes the cross sound like nonsense, even unnecessary? What if a man’s sense of what a powerful God is, makes foolish the idea of both God dying and also bearing the accountability of another? What if the guilt of conscience makes God both distant, horrible, capricious and feared, a tyrant? What if man’s ascendance to Glory renders the Cross both an insult and a hindrance to his own pursuit of glory? What if we baptize such an such an epistemology and marry it to redemptive history? What if in doing so, in accommodation to a pagan epistemology and metaphysics, redemptive history, interpretation and language is changed or blunted to accomodate the former? What if I made the argument that the later is what Rome has done?
LikeLike
Don, am not. I am arguing for a different set of rules for salvation after the fall. You’ve heard of that, right? Creation doesn’t work on natural grounds any more for eternal life.
LikeLike
Don, is not. The issue is whether someone believes it. There is understanding and then there is understanding. You’ve read Paul, right?
LikeLike
Don,
What I’m not so sure about is just how to do this? The approach that has been taken, in my opinion, has been top down, from the church as institution to the pastors, but not really getting to the people. I suggest that a more liturgical approach within the bounds of a reformed confession would cultivate confessionally reformed habits of thinking.
Thanks for the response, I must admit I was surprised to see you amongst those who agreed with my comment. From what I have read of your comments here, I think you tend more toward a transformational model – but I admit, there could be something I am missing here regarding your opinions on Reformed worship, piety and practice. I think that Clark lays out an admirable plan in Recovering the Reformed Confession, the book hit me like a ton of bricks at a time when my thinking was shifting more and more to the confessionalist model. As it stands, I think that Reformed confessionalism faces a few major obstacles:
1) There is a real lack of confessional churches in many areas in the country, which makes it hard for those who would like to be part of a confessional Reformed congregation to actually find a church. The only way to remedy this is to plant more confessional churches, especially in areas where they are geographically lacking.
2) For the confessional churches that do exist out there many lack the appeal of other evangelical churches in their area, and even other less confessionally minded Reformed congregations. Typically confessional churches are small, struggle for a lack of resources, don’t have the nifty programming that brings in the families, and lack the polish and glitz of churches that are in the community “really shaking things up.” What they do have is a small, typically devoted base of membership who are hungry for the gospel and the deep rootedness that the historic Reformed faith holds out. As far as a remedy for this, I am all ears, part of the problem is owing to the spirit of religious consumerism, and an overall lack of interest in sound doctrine and practice amongst conservative church goers; I honestly don’t know how to change this.
3) At the leadership level, only WSCal is advocating this brand of Reformed church at an institutional level. In the PCA, which I belong to, churches like Keller’s are held up as the exemplar in many circles of what a Reformed church can/should be. This isn’t to say there aren’t bright examples in other Reformed seminaries of those who would agree to the need to return to our historic roots, but the institutional advocacy for confessionalism is lacking. This does end up filtering down to the congregants, who often don’t even have the option to attend such a congregation. Since I am not a seminarian at this point, though I am mulling that option in the future, I can’t pretend to know how individual Reformed institutions return to this point of emphasis – but I think it has to start with the admission that our current piety and practice looks little like that of historic Reformed churches, and a commitment to make an effort to return to it on the part of institutional leadership will eventually lead to the training of more confessionally minded pastors.
As for your point about more robust liturgies – I am all for that. I have only seriously attended two Reformed congregations, and the one I am now a member of does utilize a very solid liturgy week in and week out. It includes the call to worship, reading of the law and the gospel, corporate confession, pastoral prayer, corporate recitation of the Lord’s Prayer – solid preaching, recitation of the Apostles/Nicene Creed, weekly communion (which to me is crucial), presentation of offerings, and the benediction. Our worship is very basic, including both Psalms and historic, theologically rich hymns (I would even be fine if we went for the exclusive Scripture singing that Clark advocates). A well structured, theologically rich liturgy can be of great use in helping us understanding the heavenly, otherworldly nature of Christian worship as we, by faith are taken into the presence of God every Lord’s Day. It can also open one’s mind to the fact that this is how our Christian forebearers worshiped down through the ages, and that we are simply taking our part in the history of the Church’s 2000 year legacy of rendering worship to God. So, yes, I think liturgy is a very important step in returning to our historic reformed roots – and I think the more that churches can use or modify historic Reformed liturgies, the better off we are in making meaningful moves in that direction. But, I think some of the other issues I listed need to be addressed if there is to be a larger movement of Reformed churches to return to our historic piety and practice.
LikeLike
Sean,
You threw a lot of “what ifs” at me. I may be wrong but I sense that what you are saying is if we begin to appropriate Aristotle in our theology we risk going the way of Rome, and adopting Aristotilean concepts such as transubstantiation.
If that is all Darryl is trying to say, more power to him. I mistakenly thought that Darry was engaging in a thoughtful debate about Cross’ argument, not a superficial attack on Aristotle and Roman Catholicism.
I believe Old Life should think about renaming this blog to Neo-Cal, Christian Right, and Roman Catholic Basher society.
LikeLike
Don,
Ignoring all the pejorative language in what you wrote, my point to you was that Rome in incorporating Aquinas’ views of metaphysics and epistemology which owe a great deal to Aristotle has led Rome to craft a gospel which in many ways avoids the intentional offense of the gospel. Thus, the sentiment; I’ll take Paul over Aristotle. I’m simply rehearsing what happens when you baptize Thomistic-Aristotelian concepts, in service of apologetics, but uncritically employ those same epistemological and metaphysical categories to redemptive history and interpretation. Remember Cross is an apologist for Rome and if you’ll reread the article you’ll see part of his effort is to punch holes in sola scriptura and total depravity. Which of course he would, he’s RC and doesn’t hold to either position as both positions undermine RC soteriology.
LikeLike
Sean,
I’ll take Paul over Aristotle. I’m simply rehearsing what happens when you baptize Thomistic-Aristotelian concepts, in service of apologetics, but uncritically employ those same epistemological and metaphysical categories to redemptive history and interpretation.
Ding, ding, ding, ding!!! Aquinas can be incredibly helpful, especially how the early Reformers appropriate him. I would go as far to say that a Reformed/Thomistic approach to apologetics would be far preferable to presuppositional apologetics. But the problem is, while Thomistic approaches to apologetic, trinitarian, and doctrine of God matters are nearly unparallelled in Christian history in terms of clarity and usefulness to orthodoxy to this day, his soteriology and sacramentology are highly suspect. Which is to say, one can push the role of reason/philosophy too far, and one of the areas where the church has historically gone wrong is when they have tried to synthesize soteriology with philosophy.
An interesting aside, I was listening to a Trueman lecture on iTunes U a couple of weeks ago on the topic of Aquinas and the degree to which he appropriated Aristotle. Trueman, citing other leading Thomistic scholars, argues that while Aquinas appropriates Aristotelian terminology, to say he appropriates Aristotle’s philosophy carte blanche is a misunderstanding of Thomas’ aims. He argues that while certain elements of Aquinas are influenced by Aristotle, it is a stretch to call Thomas an Aristotelian. I don’t know how accurate Trueman’s assessment of Aquinas is, but I found it very interesting to say the least.
LikeLike
Jed,
You may have drawn the conclusion that I tend toward a transformation model because I have opposed the thinking that the Church can grow in its purity primarily through right thinking. I am an advocate of understanding culture, not in order to transform it, but to participate in it with our eyes wide open: and to practice a church culture that mirrors the truth, beauty, and holiness of God. My thinking in this area has been influenced by Jamie Smith’s Desiring the Kingdom and Ken Myers Mars Hill Audio. But that is another subject altogether.
Regarding your thoughts, I have read Clark’s book Recovering the Reformed Confession and fundamentally agree with it. The reservations I have about recovering the reformed confessions is how it is done in individual churchs. The top down approach that I referred to in my earlier post was not the Church at the top, but the General Assembly (I am also PCA) at the top handing down its decisions to pastors and thinking that the reformed confessions will thereby get into the bloodstream of the corporate bodies of individaul church members.
I once attended, and thankfully left under good terms, a church where the pastor held rigidly to his understanding of the reformed confessions and thought that if everyone conformed their thinking to his, the church would be kept pure. He viewed his authority as justfication to to harass parents who did not home school or Christian school their children, and married women who pursued careers other than home making. I know that this is not the norm, but I think that it is an example of how if the church rigidly enforces right thinking, Christians will become more Christ-like.
LikeLike
Sean,
Sorry for the pejorative language, and thank you for ignoring it. I guess I’d like to think that people from different theological backgrounds can carry on a debate without impugning each other’s motives. And maybe that’s exactly what I did with my pejorative language. Let me try again.
Sola scriptura and total depravity are concepts that were developed at a time when tradition trumped scripture and mortal man was the head of the visible kingdom of Christ. If Cross is arguing for a return to that state, he is on a fool’s errand. I, however, did not read him from that perspective, and therefore encourage a less pejorative view of Aquinas, and philosophy in general.
LikeLike
Don,
Thanks for clarifying. I do agree that a move toward a more robust confessionalism wouldn’t work very well if decreed by the GA, or even at the presbytery level. I think that seminaries do play an important role, as they are so influential on the pastors they develop. But, even more so, I think that any moves are best conducted at the congregational level. I don’t have any delusions of grandeur, but I do believe that especially amongst my generation (I am in my mid 30’s), there are generally a couple of directions that younger folks take in Reformed churches. The first direction is toward a YRR/Gospel Coalition type expression, and the second (and smaller group) who don’t think that YRR/GC types really address evangelicalism’s lack of rootedness, and opt for a more confessional approach, which makes me hopeful that while confessionalism might not be the dominant expression of Reformed Christianity in N. America, it might gain more influence in NAPARC churches.
As to the example you gave, that sounds like a really difficult church situation. While confessionalism and 2k theology are not identical to each other, there is a lot of overlap. I do think this pastor you describe would have done well to heed the freedom of conscience that 2k champions on matters such as education, parenting, and vocation. This isn’t to say that there aren’t 2k critics who aren’t strongly confessional, but to say 2k lends itself to confessional. There is a real difference between being strongly confessional and being a tyrant, and unfortunately not everyone in the pastorate gets that, and some are unnecessarily turned off to historic confessionalism. A pastor’s theological convictions do not absolve him of the responsibility to “speak the truth in love”. And quite frankly what passes for love in some Reformed circles is quite saddening.
LikeLike
Don – “He viewed his authority as justfication to to harass parents who did not home school or Christian school their children, and married women who pursued careers other than home making.”
Me – What does this have anything to do with being Confessional? Where do we find these things in the Reformed Confessions? The reason to be Confessional is to not be like this. When there are no Confessions defining what we believe it is an invitation to this sort of stuff.
Read Rev. Bret McAtee, Norman Kloosterman, Doug Sowers, or Richard Smith sometime and ask yourself how much their various agendas flow from the Reformed Confessions vs. being added onto them.
LikeLike
Literate Commenter: What does this have anything to do with being Confessional? Where do we find these things in the Reformed Confessions? The reason to be Confessional is to not be like this. When there are no Confessions defining what we believe it is an invitation to this sort of stuff.
Read Rev. Bret McAtee, Norman Kloosterman, Doug Sowers, or Richard Smith sometime and ask yourself how much their various agendas flow from the Reformed Confessions vs. being added onto them.
RS: Erik, if you are not going to reply to a post of a person, then you should not talk about them either. However, Jonathan Edwards thought he could agree with the Westminster and I can too apart from other issues. In the book that Todd brought up (Evangelism: A Reformed Debate), John Kennedy (older Scottish Presbyterian type) ended the book by telling the person who was calling him (Kennedy) a hyper-Calvinist this: “I stay not, though the task is easy, to show that I could not adhere to the Westminster Confession if these were not my views.” He goes on to say this: “If, because I am determined thus to preach the grace of the Triune Jehovah, I am to be called a Hyper-Calvinist, let me never cease to be branded with the name.” Erik, it may be the case that you are not familiar with the confessions as you think you are.
LikeLike
LC,
He believed that if you follow carefully prescribed guidelines for everything, God would bless you. The reformed confessions fed nicely into his program.
You don’t need to convince me of the value of the reformed confessions. However, right thinking alone does not guarantee righteous behavior.
LikeLike
Richard,
I didn’t say you were necessarily wrong, just that your emphases are not required by the Reformed Confessions. This is also the case with the other men I mentioned. I was objecting to Don saying that Confessionalism was to blame for the other extra-confessional behavior he brought up. All of this comes from the attitude, to quote the title of a Doug Wilson book, that “Reformed is Not Enough”.
LikeLike
Don – “He believed that if you follow carefully prescribed guidelines for everything, God would bless you.
Me – Where in the world did he get this idea from the Reformed Confessions? If he is right, what in the world is the Heidelberg talking about when it says that “whatever evil He (God) sends upon me, He will turn to my good.” I think your pastor has been reading Joel Osteen or Norman Vincent Peale, not the Reformed Confessions.
LikeLike
But Erik, why did God give us apostles, prophets, evangelists, shepherds and teachers?
To equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by ever wind of doctrine.”
Me. isn’t that beautiful? Iron sharpens iron brother! We should have a heart for unity in the true knowledge of Christ for all Christians as much as possible. That presupposes we likely get a lot of things wrong since we all see through the glass dimly. So with humble hearts, let’s encourage each other to press on while it’s still day.
Peace in Him,
LikeLike
Literate Commenter: Richard, I didn’t say you were necessarily wrong, just that your emphases are not required by the Reformed Confessions.
RS: So there is a lot of truth that is not contained in the Reformed Confessions? Does good and necessary consequence apply to the Scriptures only or to the Reformed Confessions as well?
WLC: Q. 25. Wherein consisteth the sinfulness of that estate whereinto man fell?
A. The sinfulness of that estate whereinto man fell, consisteth in the guilt of Adam’s first sin, the want of that righteousness wherein he was created, and the corruption of his nature, whereby he is utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite unto all that is spiritually good, and wholly inclined to all evil, and that continually; which is commonly called original sin, and from which do proceed all actual transgressions.
RS: So unconverted majestrates are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposine to all that is spiritually good, and inclined to all even, and that continually. Unconverted plumbers are are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposine to all that is spiritually good, and inclined to all even, and that continually
WLC Q. 31. With whom was the covenant of grace made?
A. The covenant of grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in him with all the elect as his seed.
RS: In this question the covenant of grace is made with Christ and all His elect seed.
WLC: Q. 32. How is the grace of God manifested in the second covenant?
A. The grace of God is manifested in the second covenant, in that he freely provideth and offereth to sinners a Mediator, and life and salvation by him; and requiring faith as the condition to interest them in him, promiseth and giveth his Holy Spirit to all his elect, to work in them that faith, with all other saving graces; and to enable them unto all holy obedience, as the evidence of the truth of their faith and thankfulness to God, and as the way which he hath appointed them to salvation.
RS: In the Gospel God promises and gives His Holy Spirit to all His elect to work faith in them and to enable them to ALL holy obedience which is the evidene of the truth of their faith and thankfulness to God. It is this way which He has appointed them to salvation. I would argue that most of my “distinctives” that you have argued with are covered in these questions and answers.
LikeLike
Don, what exactly is superficial about critiquing Rome’s ethical paradigm (thank you, Mr. Cross)? It may actually be at the root of the Reformation.
LikeLike
Jed, Trueman is likely correct. Aquinas can’t be pigeonholed. But it is not unfair to think that by introducing Aristotle into Rome’s reflection, Aquinas allowed Aristotle a large influence among Roman Catholics. You see traces of Aristotle’s ethics everywhere in intellectual conservatism.
LikeLike
Don, you want the church to mirror God’s beauty. Should the church sponsor painting and sculpture?
LikeLike
Don, you wrote; “Sola scriptura and total depravity are concepts that were developed at a time when tradition trumped scripture and mortal man was the head of the visible kingdom of Christ. If Cross is arguing for a return to that state, he is on a fool’s errand.
Me: This is exactly what Cross is arguing for. The whole purpose of CTC is to present an apology that PARTICULARLY targets reformed protestantism. Much of this work is done, positively, on the ‘back’ of Aquinas’. In being ‘Thomistic’ one of the first, if not the first, move is to make an apologetic move from forensic-protestant, to ontological-RC. In order to make this ‘move’ the first protestant construct that has to be discarded, in a post-lapse world, is total depravity. Total depravity strikes at the ontological heart of infused grace and sacramental endowment/participation in the ‘movement of God’. This ‘beatific vision’ and future ‘participation’ in the divine nature is the bedrock of RC soteriology. It is the idea that grace PERFECTS nature. Total depravity throws a huge monkey wrench in that construct, in that it stipulates that our nature isn’t merely missing supernatural aid and subject to our ‘lower’ appetites, but in fact is corrupted and fallen beyond mere assistance. Rome has at best, a semi-pelagian, understanding of grace and work. As protestants we posit a ‘dead’ nature in regards to God, RC posits a ‘wounded’ nature or even a nature intact in it’s edenic essence but without supernatural aid, that is regained per baptism and participation in the sacraments.
LikeLike
Sean,
Good post. Rome really does want to present itself as a “kindler, gentler” theology, especially Post Vatican II. I would argue that many of the Reformed perfectionists here (Richard, Doug) are actually not pushing people towards Reformed churches, but toward Rome. When people figure out they can’t meet their burdens of sanctification or revivalistic fervor they might just look for a church with a lower bar. I’ve heard from a reliable source that Stellman was very fixated on sanctification.
Richard – So there is a lot of truth that is not contained in the Reformed Confessions? Does good and necessary consequence apply to the Scriptures only or to the Reformed Confessions as well?
Me – The confessions are an adequate summary for me and I refuse to be bound by another man’s “good and necessary consequences” of the Confessions, especially if they involve bread baking or my wife wearing a denim jumper.
LikeLike
Darryl says: Don, you want the church to mirror God’s beauty. Should the church sponsor painting and sculpture?
Me: Of greater urgency, and with your concurrence, is that
Should this lesson be applied to paintings and statues? Probably not, since they are not a scriptural element of worship. So your point is well taken, limits must be established on the basis of sound theology.
But I don’t think you would say that there is no sound theology in Aquinas who incorporated philosophical thinking in his theological constructs, would you?
LikeLike
Erik why in the name of God, would you call me a perfectionist? When have I ever claimed we could walk in sinless perfection? Our WCF states that in terms of importance both justificaton and sanctificaiton are equal. So I am merely pointing out what our Confessons teach, and you call me a perfectionist?
LikeLike
Try a little 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
Doug,
Have you finished that OPC Report on Justification yet?
LikeLike
Doug,
Try a little more Turretin
Thirteenth Question
Whether the form of justifying faith is love or obedience to God’s commands. We deny against the Romanists and Socians.
V. The Socians, the more easily to overthrow the fiducial apprehension of Christ’s satisfaction (in which the orthodox constitute the essence of faith) and thus retain the righteousness of works (as so expressly distinguished from the righteousness of faith in Scripture), hold that faith is nothing else than obedience to God’s commands. Thus good works are not so much the fruit of faith as its form…
VI. But on the other hand, faith cannot be obedience to the commands because thus two virtues would be confounded which are mutually distinct-”faith and love” (1 Cor. 13:13). The former is concerned with the promises of the gospel; the latter with the precepts of the law (which on this account is said to be the end or “fulfilling of the law,” Rom. 13:10). The former is the cause, the latter the effect: “For the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of faith unfeigned” (1 Tim. 1:5). That is the instrument of justification, while this is its consequent fruit. Hence in the matter of justification, faith and works are opposed as opposites and contraries (Rom. 3:28).
VII. Nor can it be replied that works (not of any kind, but perfect and in every respect agreeing with the law) can be opposed to faith in justification. It is clear from Paul that all works entirely, whether perfect or not, are opposed to faith in justification and that faith does not justify as a work (which is the fundamental error of our opponents, who thus confound the law with the gospel and the condition of the covenant of grace with a legal condition…)
VIII. Although to believe is to obey the command to believe prescribed in the gospel (1 J. 3:23), faith is not on this account rightly said to be obedience to God’s commands in the sense of our opponents (who here understand by commands the precepts of the law which are to be done and fulfilled on our part by good works; not the commands of the gospel which enjoin point us faith in the promises of grace). And if faith is called the “work of God” (Jn. 6:29), this was rather done imitatively, regard being had to the petition of the crowd, who had asked “What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?” Faith was able to give them what they had vainly sought in the works of the law…
Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Vol. 2, pgs. 580-582, 1994 P & R Publishing, Phillipsburg, NJ
LikeLike
Erik;
Philppians 2:12
“Therefore my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, 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 brother, how do you understand this verse, please expound.
LikeLike
Erik, YES, and I answered you. I have even used the OPC report to admonish Sean! For the most part I liked it, but I thought some of it was a little too abstract.
Todd, I’m neither Romanists or Socianian! Why muddy the waters broher? Can’t you deal with what I posted, or are you just trying to change the subject?
LikeLike
Todd, I havent asked you yet; how do you understand Philppians 2:12
“Therefore my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, (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.”)
Quick question Todd, how does this verse jibe with your understanding of salvation? And why don’t you ever talk like this?
LikeLike
Doug,
What do you want this verse to say? The Philippians, whom Paul calls “Beloved,” were to together (note the plural “you”, that’s important) strive to live out the salvation they had received in the way they relate to one another.
“because you are already saved, because God has already entered your life in the person of the Holy Spirit, because you, therefore, have His power at work within you—because of these things you are now to strive to express this salvation in your conduct…..“The verse does not say, ‘work for your salvation’ or ‘work toward your salvation’ or ‘work at your salvation.’ It says ‘work out your salvation.’ And no one can work out his salvation out unless God has already worked it in.”
(James Montgomery Boice)
LikeLike
I always like it when I’m admonished by Doug, it’s not dissimilar to prot-catholics telling me I don’t understand roman catholicism. I get all warm and fuzzy inside, like private Jackson citing psalm 25 to himself while he draws a bead.
LikeLike
Doug – Okay brother, how do you understand this verse, please expound.
Me – I understand it in light of the rest of the Bible and in light of the Reformed Confessions to which I subscribe (The Three Forms). You should try it sometime.
LikeLike
Nice try Sean LOL!
If you were a better reader, you would have noted I let the OPC report admonish you LOL! As in you can’t have justificaton without sanctificaiton, which I had been saying over and over again! I let the OPC report on justificaton give you a good spanking. I just hope you repented, and moved on.
LikeLike
Doug, I’m sorry would that be the part of the report insisting on logical priority for justification?! Consider me admonished. In the meantime I’ll try and double up on my Reading rockets lessons.
LikeLike
No Sean, that would be the part of the report that says they are equally important. And that you can’t have one without the other, remember now? Which was my point from the beginning!
LikeLike
Todd, I agree!
But hold on a second, isn’t Paul stressing sanctification? Yikes! Isn’t that a no no here at Old Life? Gasp! Do you think Paul was getting ready to go RC on us? He said the naughty word, “works”! Yack!
Why is it, at Old Life, when I say that sanctification is necessary I get accused of leaning RC, and yet Paul exhorts us to (press on!) all through Scripture? Why is it, when I ask how you understand Phil. 2:12, you quote someone else! Huh? Can’t you think for yourself? Or, worse yet, didn’t you know how you felt, before I asked you? I’m incredulous!
When I asked Sean his take on Phil 2:12, he acted as if I caught him off guard, like he’d never considered that passage! He fumbled and bumbled, and garbled out a very convoluted response that didnt deal with the text at all! I feel like I’m dealing with boot rookies when it comes to understanding Scripture. Most of what you and Sean seem to know for sure is ordo and nothing else! If you can’t interact with Scripture, all the (ordo) in the world is useless as tits on a boar.
LikeLike
Erik says – I understand it in light of the rest of the Bible and in light of the Reformed Confessions to which I subscribe (The Three Forms). You should try it sometime.
Does this mean you are unable to interact with Scripture? Come on bro! Something smells rotten in Demark.
Erik my point is that the new testament stresses sanctification, which is our subjective response to salvation. I find it kind of bazaar that men at Old Life freeze up when it comes to talking about sanctification. Why do you think that is?
LikeLike
That’s it! This Reading rockets program just isn’t cutting it. Doug, do me a solid and give me some of what you’re taking so I can see the inverse meaning behind the actual meaning. Joseph Smith was onto something with the whole special glasses bit. Where’s that bible code book………………
LikeLike
Don, I believe that all theologians use philosophical categories if they are going to try to think in systematic ways. The Bible does not reveal how to reason, sort, classify, or do logic.
But that’s different from judging what makes someone good.
LikeLike
The reason we don’t talk a lot about sanctification is that it either flows from justification or it doesn’t. Focus on Christ and things fall in place thereafter.
LikeLike
Sean, forget your decoder ring, and looking into hats. Read the Bible! There’s a novel idea! Quit acting afraid of sanctification! (same goes triple for DGH!) Sanctification is our subjective response to being born of God! In other words Sean, if you’re afraid of sanctification, then your justification is a mirage. Remember the Confession? You can’t have one without the other!
In your zeal to combat the RC’s you’ve forgotten to read God’s Word. You’re a novice when it comes to Scripture. So slow down, this is going to take some time. Put your theology books aside and just read the bible for a few years, you’ll get there! But until you can answer (easy jabaneezie) questions without having to run to Bavnick or worse yet Vandrunen, you’re just an empty suit quoting ordo’s with no idea how to defend these abstract concepts in Scripture. In other words, slow down bro, stick your nose in the Bible and see what it says.
I’ll leave the light on for you
LikeLike
Erik fires back: The reason we don’t talk a lot about sanctification is that it either flows from justification or it doesn’t.
Erik, what does that mean? Flows from justification? How about, it’s a direct consequence of being born of God? Sanctification is work of Holy Spirit done in and through us to bring about obedience. Justification is outside of us, it’s a legal declaration! If you have been born of God then you should want to be pleasing to God. How can we do that? Trust and obey, which is sanctification.
LikeLike
“Why is it, at Old Life, when I say that sanctification is necessary I get accused of leaning RC, and yet Paul exhorts us to (press on!) all through Scripture?”
Because you do not understand the proper relationship between justification and sanctification, and because you do not understand the difference between God’s loving and fatherly discipline of his children and being under a system of blessing for obedience and curses for disobedience. Until you get these right all talk of sanctification is superfluous. Having a proper law-gospel distinction is crucial in understanding the Bible as a whole
“Why is it, when I ask how you understand Phil. 2:12, you quote someone else! Huh? Can’t you think for yourself? Or, worse yet, didn’t you know how you felt, before I asked you? I’m incredulous!”
I exegete Scripture for a living. I don’t have the time or desire to exegete fully a text for you on a blog just because you demand it, and if I find that someone has more succinctly than me summarized the meaning of the text I will gladly quote him.
As for not talking about sanctification, if you pay attention you would realize that the entire 2k debate which this blog is devoted to is a debate about sanctification; what it looks like in this non-theocratic, new covenant age, what is and isn’t commanded in Scripture for God’s people to do in obedience to him.
LikeLike
Doug on Sanctification:
“Sanctification is our subjective response to being born of God!”
“Sanctification is work of Holy Spirit done in and through us to bring about obedience.”
Me – Well, which is it? These aren’t the same things.
LikeLike
Doug, make sure that light is one of those magic lights that illumines the invisible ink that you derive your doctrine from, cuz it just doesn’t show up when I open my bible.
LikeLike
Interesting You Tube interview with Marvin Olasky and Rosaria Champagne Butterfield up on my blog. I posted Carl Trueman’s review of her book awhile back and it has been one of my most active posts.
LikeLike
Darryl,
If all you are saying is that philosophy does not directly assist us in making ethical decisions, I would agree. I just thought that you were saying more than this.
LikeLike
Todd retorts; because you do not understand the proper relationship between justification and sanctification, and because you do not understand the difference between Gods’s loving and fatherly discipline of his children and being under a system of blessing for obedience and curses for disobedience.
Well help me out then, what is the difference between God killing Israelites for depravity in the old testament and Jesus threatening to throw his church in Thyatira in a sick bed and striking their children dead?
Explain exegete!
LikeLike
Sean whips back: Doug, make sure that light is one of those magic lights that illumines the invisible ink that you derive your doctrine from, cuz it just doesn’t show up when I open my bible.
LOL!
Maybe you’ll actually have to study your Bible Sean. I’m just asking you to be faithful to all of Scripture, even the parts that say we must do good works, if we’re really born of God. You know the parts in the bible you never focus on. You might be shocked to your core if you actually read Jesus evaluation of the 7 churches in Asia Minor. Psssst, it’s in the book of Revelations!
Because it blows a big hole, in this theory that the old testament had blessings for obedience and curses for disobedience but not the new. Ahem, ahem, take a listen to some new covenant instruction by the Lord Jesus. He both encourages and sternly warns his church at Ephesus:
“I know your works, your toil, and your patient endurance, and how you cannot bear with those who are evil, but have tested those who call themselves apostles and are not, and found them to be false. I know you are enduring patiently and bearing up for my name’s sake, and you have not grown weary.”
Take a listen Sean:
“But I have this against you that you have abandoned the love you had at first. Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent, and do the works you did at first. If not, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, UNLESS YOU REPENT. Yet this you have: you hate the works of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate. He who has an ear let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.”
Sean, it would seem that even though the church at Ephesus was doing all the right things on the surface, Jesus could see they lost their first love. He judges the heart. Notice Jesus didn’t come down on anyone for not understanding the logical priority of justification; He didn’t even say one person got justification by faith wrong! But he was ready to take their lampstand away, because they lost their first love! Put that in your (works don’t matter) pipe and smoke it.
And you don’t think we need to encourage each other to press on? And you mock Richard for talking about good works done in love?
Jesus also implied these were corporate judgments, something I never hear you bring up.
Why is that?
LikeLike
Uh-oh. It’s the day we’ve all feared. Doug & Richard are becoming one. It’s like when momma got a squeezebox. From that point on Daddy didn’t sleep at all.
No one questions sanctification & good works, Doug. We just don’t lead with them because when you do you get people all fouled up. Focus on Christ and the sanctification & good works will flow therefrom. No pressing or cheerleading required.
LikeLike
Don, let me be clear — though I’ve already said this before. Aristotle has a different account go virtue than Christians have of morality. This isn’t a question of whether philosophy helps. It’s one of whether specific philosophies are at odds with Christianity. If Aristotle’s ethics — though useful for non-believers and even for believers in pursuing some proximate goods — is at odds with the Christian conception of salvation, bringing him into the Christian fold through grace completes nature is dangerous.
I am saying more than philosophy does not directly assist us in making ethical decisions.
LikeLike
Doug,
For those in Christ there is no condemnation, and Christ has taken the curse of the law upon himself for his elect. Period. For those who profess to know him but by their deeds reveal that that really do not, they will be judged. And God’s presence can withdraw from a congregation even if there are a few genuine believers left in that congregation. Here is a lecture on these Revelation passages from an exegete much more capable than myself: Greg Beale http://www.lanesvillechurch.org/sermons/audio/900722.mp3
LikeLike
Literate Commenter: Sean, Good post. Rome really does want to present itself as a “kindler, gentler” theology, especially Post Vatican II. I would argue that many of the Reformed perfectionists here (Richard, Doug) are actually not pushing people towards Reformed churches, but toward Rome. When people figure out they can’t meet their burdens of sanctification or revivalistic fervor they might just look for a church with a lower bar. I’ve heard from a reliable source that Stellman was very fixated on sanctification.
RS: Erik, why do you continue to push the same non-truth over and over? I am not a perfectionist in any way. I have repeatedly said that and yet you continue to say the same thing. I don’t thing Doug is either. Again, you have made a horribly false deduction and continue to push it forth as truth.
Old Post Richard – So there is a lot of truth that is not contained in the Reformed Confessions? Does good and necessary consequence apply to the Scriptures only or to the Reformed Confessions as well?
Me – The confessions are an adequate summary for me and I refuse to be bound by another man’s “good and necessary consequences” of the Confessions, especially if they involve bread baking or my wife wearing a denim jumper
RS: I was making a point and you missed it again. The point is that is it not enough to say that you believe the Confessions. You have to show that you really agree with the Confessions. The Confessions may also say a lot more than you are willing to say. The question was quite pertinent if you are going to claim to say that you believe the Confessions.
LikeLike
Thanks Todd, I agree with your take on personal salvation, but you have missed my point. Christ broke the curse of the law, which was the power of sin, and amen, but that didn’t have anything to do with the LORD’s blessings and curses, on his covenant people; this is where you missed the boat by a country mile, so to speak. Just think about what your saying; the ceremonial sacrifices were sufficient to forgive sins, so even though the curse of the law was not broken, they stil had forgivness. Listen to Paul in 1 Cor. 10:6
Now these things took place as examples for us, that we might not desire evil as they did. Do not be idolaters as some of them were, as it is written, “The people sat down to eat and drink and rose up to play. We must not indulge in sexual immorality as some of them did; and twenty-three thousand fell in a single day. We must not put Christ to the test, as some of them did and were destroyed by serpents, nor grumble, as some of them did and were destroyed by the Destroyer. NOW THESE THINGS HAPPENED TO THEM AS AN EXAMPLE, BUT THEY WERE WRITTEN DOWN FOR OUR INSTRUCTION,
Clearly Paul is warning the new covenant church that what happened to Israel could happen to the church at Corinth. Want more proof?
Enter my next witness, the Lord Jesus!
“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.”
Me: Okay Todd, is Jesus going to say, well I cursed Israel for this behavior in the old covenant, but now that were in the new covenant I’ll just see you in Jesus?
No! I thousand times no! Listen to Jesus:
“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.”
Can you see a pattern? Sound familiar? Do I hear an echo? How can anyone seriously say they believe the Bible and come away saying the new covenant doesn’t have the same blessings and sacntions? They’re ramped up all the more! Jesus was threatening to kill her children! Is that a curse to you?
So what I am saying is there are still blessings for obedience and curses for disobedience, that do not infringe on a Saints personal position in Christ. The covenant hasn’t changed in that respect, because both administrations are the same covenant of grace.
LikeLike
Doug says; “Sean, it would seem that even though the church at Ephesus was doing all the right things on the surface, Jesus could see they lost their first love. He judges the heart. Notice Jesus didn’t come down on anyone for not understanding the logical priority of justification;”
Sean: Doug, why is this such a hard concept for you to grasp? How or in what manner do I love God? A: I love God BECAUSE He FIRST loved me. I don’t love God first because of His excellencies or His worthiness or because of His law. In fact, had He not loved me first I’d HATE Him because of His excellencies, worthiness, and law. My love of God is completely childlike and responsive. He loves me so I love Him back but not near as well in character or quantity or endurance. This is the WHOLE idea of logical priority of Justification. He loves me, sent his son for me, secured my salvation apart from me and outside of me, while I yet was not only ungodly but hated Him. All my ‘works’ now though tainted, derive from my RESPONSE to what He has done for me. I only appreciate His excellencies of character, attributes and Law BECAUSE He’s no longer a threat to my conscience and soul. And when I lose my ‘first love’ it’s not because of lack of works but because my faith is weak and I grow forgetful and negligent and presumptive and I have to remember AGAIN and am made remindful AGAIN of what He has done for me in Christ and His love for me. I’m a fickle child, and I never grow out of my need for Him to be the ‘adult’ the ‘parent’ in this relationship and bring me back to Him. Guilt-Grace-Gratitude.
LikeLike
Doug, I should also add He entices me with the Hope of Heaven to draw me back to repentance and move me forward in my faith. This relationship NEVER becomes a peer or one adult in loving relationship with another adult. I’m forever the lesser, the child and coming from a position of need. Fortunately, God knows this and deals with me as such. We now have a spirit of adoption by which we cry out Abba Father.
LikeLike
Can you guess who this is?
“You need to really obey God, love God like Richard does, and execute homosexuals or Jesus is going to come and tip over your lemonade stand.
Rest in His completed work.”
Generally it’s a bad sign when someone’s key proof texts are in the Book of Revelation.
LikeLike
Sean – Keep in mind that if your blood pressure rises by even one point when you read or respond to Doug or Richard you’ve taken the bait.
LikeLike
2013 Westminster Seminary California Faculty Conference – The Whole Armor of God: The Belgic Confession and Heidelberg Catechism for Today – January 18-19.
Just wrapped up. Should be some video online soon. Won’t be as good as past years without D.G., though. Any new D.G. video online anywhere?
LikeLike
Erik, no raised BP here. There’s always been this push whether in RC(ascetics) or to a lesser degree the neo-nomians to love the ‘naked God’. I don’t. God apart from His love for me in Jesus Christ is an enormous threat, and would leave me with little more than a fearful apprehension akin to how the ‘demons’ know God.
LikeLike
Sean,
Whew! I saw those all caps and thought Doug had gotten to you. I was worried about how to dial 911 in your area. The ideal 2K thinker’s pulse never rises above that of D.G.’s cats.
LikeLike
I appreciate the clarification Darryl provided — sorry if I did not get it when you said it before. But what Darryl and Sean have said about grace perfecting nature and human depravity have led me to wonder about orthodox reformed teaching as it regards these concepts.
I understand that this is a complicated subject and one that probably cannot be addressed with a simple answer, but do orthodox reformed seminaries and theologians ignore or reject, in part or in whole, Aquinas’ teaching on the being and existence of God and man; and grace perfecting nature? Furthermore, if a prospective elder holds to Aquinas’ teaching in part or whole, should that elder be denied ordination as an elder in an orthodox reformed church? If so, why?
LikeLike
Erik the Barbaric (in terms of continuing to state non-truth about others): Can you guess who this is? “You need to really obey God, love God like Richard does, and execute homosexuals or Jesus is going to come and tip over your lemonade stand.”
RS: But of course the Greatest Commandment is to love God with all of your heart, mind, soul, and strength” which is like Jesus did. As I have repeatedly said, and you continue to ignore for your own reasons, the standard is what God said. I have never claimed to be able to do one thing even remotely close to perfection, but the standard itself does not change.
Erik: Sean – Keep in mind that if your blood pressure rises by even one point when you read or respond to Doug or Richard you’ve taken the bait.
RS: Once again you continue to fire on no cylinders in terms of the truth. You know what making stuff up is, Erik? I guess we can see why you fight the truth of Scripture regarding sanctification and holiness so hard now.
Q. 144. What are the duties required in the ninth commandment?
A. The duties required in the ninth commandment are, the preserving and promoting of truth between man and man,[840] and the good name of our neighbour, as well as our own;[841] appearing and standing for the truth;[842] and from the heart,[843] sincerely,[844] freely,[845] clearly,[846] and fully,[847] speaking the truth, and only the truth, in matters of judgment and justice,[848] and in all other things whatsoever;[849] a charitable esteem of our neighbours;[850] loving, desiring, and rejoicing in their good name;[851] sorrowing for,[852] and covering of their infirmities;[853] freely acknowledging of their gifts and graces,[854] defending their innocency;[855] a ready receiving of a good report,[856] and unwillingness to admit of an evil report,[857] concerning them; discouraging tale-bearers,[858] flatterers,[859] and slanderers;[860] love and care of our own good name, and defending it when need requireth;[861] keeping of lawful promises;[862] studying and practicing of whatsoever things are true, honest, lovely, and of good report.[863]
Q. 145. What are the sins forbidden in the ninth commandment?
A. The sins forbidden in the ninth commandment are, all prejudicing the truth, and the good name of our neighbours, as well as our own,[864] especially in public judicature;[865] giving false evidence,[866] suborning false witnesses,[867] wittingly appearing and pleading for an evil cause, outfacing and overbearing the truth;[868] passing unjust sentence,[869] calling evil good, and good evil; rewarding the wicked according to the work of the righteous, and the righteous according to the work of the wicked;[870] forgery,[871] concealing the truth, undue silence in a just cause,[872] and holding our peace when iniquity calleth for either a reproof from ourselves,[873] or complaint to others;[874] speaking the truth unseasonably,[875] or maliciously to a wrong end,[876] or perverting it to a wrong meaning,[877] or in doubtful and equivocal expressions, to the prejudice of truth or justice;[878] speaking untruth,[879] lying,[880] slandering,[881] backbiting,[882] detracting, tale bearing,[883] whispering,[884] scoffing,[885] reviling,[886] rash,[887] harsh,[888] and partial censuring;[889] misconstructing intentions, words, and actions;[890] flattering,[891] vain-glorious boasting;[892] thinking or speaking too highly or too meanly of ourselves or others;[893] denying the gifts and graces of God;[894] aggravating smaller faults;[895] hiding, excusing, or extenuating of sins, when called to a free confession;[896] unnecessary discovering of infirmities;[897] raising false rumors,[898] receiving and countenancing evil reports,[899] and stopping our ears against just defense;[900] evil suspicion;[901] envying or grieving at the deserved credit of any,[902] endeavoring or desiring to impair it,[903] rejoicing in their disgrace and infamy;[904] scornful contempt,[905] fond admiration;[906] breach of lawful promises;[907] neglecting such things as are of good report,[908] and practicing, or not avoiding ourselves, or not hindering what we can in others, such things as procure an ill name.[909]
LikeLike
Sean says and when I lose my ‘first love’ it’s not because of lack of works
Sean, when we walk by faith, (good works) that is a relationship and God increases our joy, patience, love, confidence, and yes our FAITH! So you are contradicting the bible!! Good works increase faith! Yes, we are fickle, and yes we need to encourage each other, but it’s only by walking with God that our faith increases. Think about it; faith that is God given, is a living faith, meant to grow.
Jesus said the same thing, “Do the works you did before”? Why? Was Jesus a legalist teaching salvation by good works? God forbid! Doing good works is just another way of saying; walk with a broken and contrite heart in love like I created you. When we walk in good works our fickle faith grows stronger. If we don’t walk in faith, it withers, and God will confront us to our face! (See Revelations) It was the same in both testaments. Why did David love God’s law? David said, “You *made* me trust you when I was on my Mother’s breasts.” Yes God loved David first, and I would never disagree with that. But Sean, salvation wasn’t fundamentally different for David than it is for us. Trust and obey is the key for all of God’s people in all ages.
p.s. Sean thanks for hi-jacking my post, lol! Now, please re-read my post and respond to what I wrote. Do both administrations have blessings and curses? Just say yes, because it’s as plain as the nose on your face.
Peace in Him,
LikeLike
Don, an candidate for ordination in a communion holding to the Confession of Faith would have to explain how Aquinas fits with this:
LikeLike
Richard,
So it’s not enough to “believe” the Confessions, you have to “really agree”? Are you sure you don’t have to “really, really agree”? This is why debating with you is a hopeless cause. There is no “there”, there. It’s like peeling an onion with the hopes of reaching the core. But I’ve promised to be nicer to you so I’ll stop now.
LikeLike
Richard,
The boo-hoo, you’ve slandered me, you’ve misunderstood me, you’ve misinterpreted me act only goes so far when eveyone can read all of the comments for themselves. I say you’re overboard with your revivalism, Todd calls you a hyper-calvinist. People can read & judge these things for themselves. You don’t add much to the discussion when you cry & whine.
LikeLike
Darryl,
I think it is accepted that though we are dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the parts and faculties of soul and body, yet our power to reason is not destroyed, only unable if unaided to lead us to salvation. Christianity is not unreasonable, so the Spirit, through the word testifies to our spirit the necessity of Christ’s righteousness, death, resurrection, and ascension.
Does your answer mean that reformed seminaries reject Aquinas’ teaching on the being and existence of God and man? Since I am not a seminarian, I am curious how Aquinas is viewed in reformed academia.
LikeLike
Don, this is about ethics and being good in an ultimate as opposed to a proximate sense. I quoted a chapter from the confession on the fall, not about epistemology or ontology. Why are still talking about a different area of philosophy?
LikeLike
Erik: Richard, So it’s not enough to “believe” the Confessions, you have to “really agree”? Are you sure you don’t have to “really, really agree”? This is why debating with you is a hopeless cause. There is no “there”, there. It’s like peeling an onion with the hopes of reaching the core. But I’ve promised to be nicer to you so I’ll stop now.
RS: I said that one must really believe the Confessions. There is a difference between believing a Confession in a general way and having the truths of Scripture that a Confession teaches in the depths of the soul. There is a huge difference between the two. Accepting something as true because a man teaches it is something different than accepting something as true because of what it REALLY is, the Word of God. Read the text below carefully.
I Thess 2:12 “so that you would walk in a manner worthy of the God who calls you into His own kingdom and glory. 13 For this reason we also constantly thank God that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God, which also performs its work in you who believe.”
LikeLike
Erik: Richard, The boo-hoo, you’ve slandered me, you’ve misunderstood me, you’ve misinterpreted me act only goes so far when eveyone can read all of the comments for themselves.
RS: Which is not a real response. I point out to you that you are saying things about my position (and me) that are inaccurate, wrong, and simply not true. Yet you keep saying them. You can call it “boo-hoo” all you want, but what you are saying is highly inaccurate.
Erik: I say you’re overboard with your revivalism,
RS: But of course you are wrong about that too, but one can be relatively honest and simply disagree on what it means to be overboard. But I am not a perfectionist in any way. I would never tell anyone to love God like I do. Those two comments are far, far from the truth and yet you keep repeating some form of them. That is blatant dishonesty.
Erik: Todd calls you a hyper-calvinist.
RS: But many people have been called hyper-Calvinist before and yet were biblical. Anyone can throw out the term. The real question is whether the teaching of a person is biblical or not. Phil Johnson says that if a person does not believe that God loves and earnestly desires all men to be saved is a hyper-Calvinist. Did God love and earnestly desire Esau to be saved? Did God love and earnestly desire all those in the land of Canaan to be saved when He sent the Israelites in to destroy them.
Erik: People can read & judge these things for themselves. You don’t add much to the discussion when you cry & whine.
RS: Indeed people can read and judge things for themselves. You are stating things about my position that is far, far from the truth. When I point that out you, instead of bringing up some evidence you accuse me of whining. Until you can bring out some solid evidence that I believe that people should love God like I do or that I am truly a perfectionist, it is obvious that you are a serial violater of the ninth commandment. That is not a practice in line with Scripture or the Confessions.
LikeLike
Someone get Richard a tissue…
LikeLike
Richard,
If I’ve misinterpreted and misunderstood you does that mean that you do in fact finally agree with me, D.G. Hart, Zrim, Sean, Todd and the other 2K, Old-Side Presbyterians here on what the gospel is? If so, what a wonderful day this is.
LikeLike
Erik: Someone get Richard a tissue…
RS: You can continue your watering down of what you are doing and trying to blame me with your actions, but remember the One all that you think and do is before.
Erik: If I’ve misinterpreted and misunderstood you does that mean that you do in fact finally agree with me, D.G. Hart, Zrim, Sean, Todd and the other 2K, Old-Side Presbyterians here on what the gospel is? If so, what a wonderful day this is.
RS: I have not heard anyone on here say what the Gospel is (though aspects of it are discussed), so once again you are trying to move the issue back to me when the issue is over your practice of attributing positions to me that I have repeatedly denied and never asserted.
LikeLike
Richard,
My conscience is clear as the Bible says we should oppose false teaching. The more you are tangling with me & feeling sorry for yourself, the less you are promoting your agenda and leading people astray. By all means, keep the focus on me.
LikeLike
You do way less harm on defense than you do on offense.
LikeLike
Erik: Richard, My conscience is clear as the Bible says we should oppose false teaching.
RS: Then go and oppose what is false teaching in truth rather than coming up with something from your own imagination or false deductions and accusing me of it. It would also help if you would use the Bible. As far as conscience, if your conscience is clear despite your continued false accusations then that says something of your conscience.
Erik: The more you are tangling with me & feeling sorry for yourself, the less you are promoting your agenda and leading people astray.
RS: But I am not feeling sorry for myself, Erik, but rather for you and the way you continue to falsely accuse me and then try to get the focus off of your false accusations by another false accusation of how I am feeling sorry for myself.
Erik: By all means, keep the focus on me.
RS: Maybe I should try your tactics and get in touch with your elders and ask them if they think you should have a clear conscience about continuing false accusations.
LikeLike
Richard had a howler yesterday which I let pass but I can’t find it now. We were discussing the Westminster and he made a remark that the things that he advocates can be found in the “other writings” of the men who wrote the Westminster. So we don’t look at the text of the Westminster, we look at the other writings of the men who wrote the Westminster to find out what they really meant when they wrote the Westminster? That is classic. How about just reading the plain text of the Westminster instead.
I think the Mormons also like to appeal to “other writings”…
LikeLike
Richard: Maybe I should try your tactics and get in touch with your elders and ask them if they think you should have a clear conscience about continuing false accusations.
Me: Bring it on. That would be awesome. Of course we would also need to learn (1) who you are (2) where you worship (3) who your elders are. One of the other men here, Mikkelmann, is an elder in a local church with which my church is in formal ecclesiastical relationship so we have a neutral third party witness. We can also discuss your charges against my minister. I would absolutely relish this. No way you will actually do it, though.
LikeLike
Erik: Richard had a howler yesterday which I let pass but I can’t find it now. We were discussing the Westminster and he made a remark that the things that he advocates can be found in the “other writings” of the men who wrote the Westminster. So we don’t look at the text of the Westminster, we look at the other writings of the men who wrote the Westminster to find out what they really meant when they wrote the Westminster? That is classic. How about just reading the plain text of the Westminster instead.
RS: So when the men who wrote the WCF wrote books on certain doctrines that are covered in the WCF we should not read those to gain more light into what they meant? Interesting that you think that is “a howler.” The WCF is a short and to the point document. It is only reasonable, and I might add it is the standard practice of those who really study the WCF, that when one wants to know that a person meant to study more of what that person wrote on the subject.
For example, here is what the WSC says about the ninth commandment (see below). Now if I want more on what the authors meant, I can go find in their other writings more of what they meant by that. It is nothing to howl at unless you are meaning that your conscience is no longer seared as with a hot iron and you are howling in grief for your sin.
Q. 76. Which is the ninth commandment?
A. The ninth commandment is, Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.[164]
Q. 77. What is required in the ninth commandment?
A. The ninth commandment requireth the maintaining and promoting of truth between man and man, and of our own and our neighbor’s good name,[165] especially in witness-bearing.[166]
Q. 78. What is forbidden in the ninth commandment?
A. The ninth commandment forbiddeth whatsoever is prejudicial to truth, or injurious to our own, or our neighbor’s, good name.[167]
LikeLike
Richard: Hello, is this the pastor of X church?
Pastor: Yes it is.
Richard: I have a complaint about one of the members of your church.
Pastor: Who?
Richard: Literate Commenter.
Pastor: Oh, and who are you?
Richard: Richard Smith
Pastor: Richard Smith? That name sounds familiar. Literate Commenter told me about you. Aren’t you the guy who listened to 10 of my sermons and said he didn’t hear the gospel.
Richard: Yes, that was me.
Pastor: Well, what do you want to complain about Literate Commenter about?
Richard: He is spreading falsehoods about me.
Pastor: Like what?
Richard: Like telling people I am a perfectionist, an extreme revivalist, and a hypercalvinist.
Pastor: Oh. Well why do think I don’t preach the gospel in my sermons?
Richard: Because I am a perfectionist, an extreme revivalist, and a hypercalvinist.
Pastor: Are you currently on any strong medications?
(Dial tone)
LikeLike
Erik quoting Richard: Maybe I should try your tactics and get in touch with your elders and ask them if they think you should have a clear conscience about continuing false accusations.
Erik: Bring it on. That would be awesome. Of course we would also need to learn (1) who you are (2) where you worship (3) who your elders are. One of the other men here, Mikkelmann, is an elder in a local church with which my church is in formal ecclesiastical relationship so we have a neutral third party witness. We can also discuss your charges against my minister. I would absolutely relish this. No way you will actually do it, though.
RS: I never made charges against your minister. That is another false accusation. But again, if you will read carefully you will note that I said “maybe I should try your tactics.” MM has never accused me of the following things, especially on a repeated basis: 1) Making charges against your minister 2) Of being a Perfectionist 3) Of wanting people to love God as I love God. I am not so sure of the neutrality in that case. By the way, you shouldn’t be so sure of what I will or will not do.
LikeLike
Richard – By the way, you shouldn’t be so sure of what I will or will not do.
Erik – I think you are a sad and desperate man so nothing would surprise me. If you want to scare me, get a gun.
LikeLike
Erik Quoting Richard – By the way, you shouldn’t be so sure of what I will or will not do.
Erik – I think you are a sad and desperate man so nothing would surprise me. If you want to scare me, get a gun.
RS: I am not sad or desperate. I am, however, very sick and tired of your continued false accusations. According to you I am sad and desperate, which is again a false charge. Your false deductions which you then use to make personal charges are in fact more evidence of being a sad and desperate man than anything I have written. However, I am not accusing you of that.
Let us review the context of my statement that you drew the conclusion that I am a sad and desperate man. You said that you didn’t think I would contact your elder. I said that you shouldn’t be so sure of what I will or will not do. Again, the context had to do with contacting your elders, though the context of that statement was using your own methods. Erik, your practice of making false deductions and then using personal attacks is on display.
LikeLike
I’m not going to deal with someone online who I know nothing about who makes veiled threats. Goodbye for the last time, Richard. I hope Hart kicks you off forever.
The great part of Reformed Churches is we get the true believers. The awful part of Reformed Churches is we get the true believers.
LikeLike
Erik: I’m not going to deal with someone online who I know nothing about who makes veiled threats. Goodbye for the last time, Richard. I hope Hart kicks you off forever.
RS: But I didn’t make veiled threats, Erik. You specifically said that you did not think I would go to your elders, which was a statement that had a context as well. In reply to that specific statement you said this: ” No way you will actually do it, though.” I then replied, “By the way, you shouldn’t be so sure of what I will or will not do.” If you would follow the flow of thought in its own context you wouldn’t jump to wild conclusions and make false accusations.
For example, here are some statements you make in a post above. In it you are continuing to make your false accusations about me.
Erik’s pretend phone call from Richard to Erik’s pastor:
E 1 Richard: He is spreading falsehoods about me.
E 2 Pastor: Like what?
E 3 Richard: Like telling people I am a perfectionist, an extreme revivalist, and a hypercalvinist.
E 4 Pastor: Oh. Well why do think I don’t preach the gospel in my sermons?
E 5 Richard: Because I am a perfectionist, an extreme revivalist, and a hypercalvinist.
RS: Let us review the case. 1. I am not a perfectionist and in fact am about as far from one as a person can be. 2. I am not an extreme revivalist and am far from that as well. 3. I am not a hyper-Calvinist and am actually quite far from what that really is. 4. I never said that your pastor does not preach the Gospel in his sermons if by that you mean all, most, or even a majority of semons.
Again, your post there is simply full of false accusations and ones that you have continued to post many times.
Erik: The great part of Reformed Churches is we get the true believers. The awful part of Reformed Churches is we get the true believers.
RS: True believers do not repeatedly make false accusations and continue in them without any repentance at all. Read your Bible and your Confessions on that one.
LikeLike
Guys, why don’t you take some of this to personal email. We all can get amped up and overwrought. Part of being able to do this on-line dialogue is giving ground or last word even when you think the other party is wrong. We all need to remember Paul’s admonition, even if it was in the context of lawsuits, “why not let yourself be wronged….” I’m no sterling example and I’m not passing judgement but maybe just let it go or take it off-line. I don’t like to see this becoming overly personal for either one of you, plus it disturbs my Wa. My chi goes all wonky.
LikeLike
Since I was specifically mentioned, I’ll tell you one of the first things I would say in a conversation with RS and EC/LC: given the history of your conversations, please consider ceasing your dialogues with each other. Neither of you is having fun and a great benefit dialogues – substantive learning – is too often a secondary issue. Whatever you have said is on the record for all to see. Let’s just turn the page. And it you can’t we’ll have OB mediate – that’ll fix your wagons in a hurry!
LikeLike
sean: Guys, why don’t you take some of this to personal email. We all can get amped up and overwrought. Part of being able to do this on-line dialogue is giving ground or last word even when you think the other party is wrong. We all need to remember Paul’s admonition, even if it was in the context of lawsuits, “why not let yourself be wronged….” I’m no sterling example and I’m not passing judgement but maybe just let it go or take it off-line. I don’t like to see this becoming overly personal for either one of you, plus it disturbs my Wa. My chi goes all wonky.
RS: Sorry to read that your chi is going all wonky. If it matters, I am not angry or anything like that. I just want him to stop making these false statements about me. I am more than happy not to attempt to discuss things with him, but he continues to make statements in his posts to others that include his false accusations. As long as his false statements and accusations are put on here in public, then I will try to point them out. If he will stop, I will be happy to refrain from posting to him. One problem of posting in response to his continued accusations is that he goes on and makes more accusations. I am not asking for an apology or anything other than for him to simply stop the false accusations.
LikeLike
mikelmann: Since I was specifically mentioned, I’ll tell you one of the first things I would say in a conversation with RS and EC/LC: given the history of your conversations, please consider ceasing your dialogues with each other. Neither of you is having fun and a great benefit dialogues – substantive learning – is too often a secondary issue. Whatever you have said is on the record for all to see. Let’s just turn the page. And it you can’t we’ll have OB mediate – that’ll fix your wagons in a hurry!
RS: All I am asking is for him to stop making false accusations in his posts.
LikeLike
If Richard will never mention me again or refer to my posts I will do likewise. Is it a deal, Richard? Sean & MM are the referees/witnesses. You need to realize, Richard, that you are in the minority here so it is more of a burden on you than on me.
LikeLike
I don’t think I could survive an Old Bob mediation. He would have me clipping toenails at the Alexian Village as penance.
LikeLike
Richard, I get it. I’m sure Erik feels the same way at points as well. That’s why I cited Paul’s reference to letting yourself be wronged. I’ve wronged others and others have wronged me. I’m sure I will fail to heed my own advice at some point in the future, but as you would surely point out to me the admonition from Paul is still there.
LikeLike
sean: Richard, I get it. I’m sure Erik feels the same way at points as well. That’s why I cited Paul’s reference to letting yourself be wronged. I’ve wronged others and others have wronged me. I’m sure I will fail to heed my own advice at some point in the future, but as you would surely point out to me the admonition from Paul is still there.
RS: Indeed, the admonition is still there. The difference, however, is that this has continued on and on and on. I would think that the admonition would be applied in this case if the false accusations stopped and I continued to make a big deal of them. However, I am simply asking for him to stop calling me the things he has continued to call me. I would be happy for this to be dropped.
LikeLike
The basic problem we have is that what Richard says are “false accusations” I say are true statements about his false criticisms of Old School Presbyterianism. There is really no way of resolving it because we are not in churches that are in relations with one another. If we were both in the URC or the OPC there would be a forum to sort it out, but we’re not. Richard has yet to tell us what his church affililation even is (or if he has one). It wouldn’t be any better if we were Catholics, though, because we know what a big tent that is. Mutual avoidance is probably the best solution this side of heaven.
LikeLike
My pastor used to say at the end of the service: “Greet every saint in Christ Jesus”. He should switch that to: “Greet every saint, except for those you are avoiding over difficult and idiosyncratic theological issues, in Christ Jesus.”
LikeLike
Richard, Erik said:
“If Richard will never mention me again or refer to my posts I will do likewise. Is it a deal, Richard?”
Please say “yes, it’s a deal.”
LikeLike
DGH,
Jed, Trueman is likely correct. Aquinas can’t be pigeonholed. But it is not unfair to think that by introducing Aristotle into Rome’s reflection, Aquinas allowed Aristotle a large influence among Roman Catholics. You see traces of Aristotle’s ethics everywhere in intellectual conservatism.
Agreed. I think the cautionary tale here is how we approach the confluence of philosophy and theology. They are often mutually beneficial, as philosophy can assist in providing linguistic constructs that help to synthesize Scripture into theological and doctrinal systems. But, I tend to think that this is a very delicate balance, because philosophy can cease to be used as a tool that aids in extracting and expounding Biblical truth, and it can become a normative force in theology, so that which is theologically true must coincide with truth as delimited by the philosophical system. Even though I would prefer to see Aristotelian philosophy figure much more in Reformed apologetics than they do, I think there is a careful balance that must be held, and is very hard to achieve.
The way I see it Aristotelian philosophy has been in some ways very useful in the church’s theological reflection, being utilized by medieval theologians and Reformed scholastics alike to wrestle through theistic proofs and matters surrounding theology proper. But, where I think things went wrong, for Rome in particular, is Aristotelian virtue ethics were conflated with biblical soteriology – so much so that Rome’s doctrines of salvation look much more Aristotelian than Pauline. Somehow Rome lost the concept that philosophy is theology’s handmaiden.
LikeLike
mikelmann: Richard, Erik said:
“If Richard will never mention me again or refer to my posts I will do likewise. Is it a deal, Richard?”
Please say “yes, it’s a deal.”
RS: As I was typing my lost post, one of my daughters ran into the room late for practice. The issue is not that you will not mention me or refer to my posts, but simply stop the repeated postings that refer to me as things that are not true of me and that I even consider as non-Christian
beliefs. But, since MM said “Please say “yes, it’s a deal”, I can hardly say no to a gentleman that says “please.” Yes, deal.
LikeLike
Don,
I understand that this is a complicated subject and one that probably cannot be addressed with a simple answer, but do orthodox reformed seminaries and theologians ignore or reject, in part or in whole, Aquinas’ teaching on the being and existence of God and man; and grace perfecting nature
I think that if we look back into our own history, many Reformed theologians have appropriated Aquinas, but they have done so selectively. For instance, Aquinas figures large in Reformed trinitarian formulations, how we do apophatic theology (i.e. via negativa) – which is crucial to our understanding of the incommunicable attributes of God such as divine simplicity and impassibility. He has also been used by Reformed theologians extensively in the more traditional Reformed apologetic – his theistic proofs are basically used unmodified by a good deal of Reformed theologians during the confessional age. His articulations of Natural Law are quite useful to those in the Reformed camp who hold that NL should form the ethical basis of how Christians approach socio-political matters outside the church.
But, like Darryl points out, in his use of WCF to evaluate how useful Thomas is in our Reformed understanding of doctrines of original sin, total depravity, and Reformed soteriology. This, along with Aquinas’ sacramentology, and his views on Mary, are additional areas where Reformed theologians have departed from Aquinas. I would think that a prospective Reformed elder who would self-consciously describe himself as Thomistic should be able to answer to these sort of questions, and have a keen understanding of where Reformed orthodoxy stands firmly in the Thomistic tradition, and where it stands apart from it.
Can you tell I have some Thomistic sympathies? I am afraid my “I dig Aquinas” boxers might be showing.
LikeLike
Reading the interchanges here by scrolling up — in backwards chronological order — is a surreal experience.
LikeLike
Darryl says: Don, this is about ethics and being good in an ultimate as opposed to a proximate sense. I quoted a chapter from the confession on the fall, not about epistemology or ontology. Why are still talking about a different area of philosophy?
Me: I have conceded your point concerning ethics. I really have. I was hoping to get your perspective, as one who has attended and teach at a reformed seminary, on how reformed academia treats Aquinas in this area of philosophy.
LikeLike
Jed,
I appreciate your response and your sympathies with Thomistic thought. I recently posted excerpts from an article by J.A. West and am wondering how you, or anyone else who is interested, would respond to these thoughts from a reformed perspective:
LikeLike
Don,
From the perspective of this Reformed layman I think there is much to commend here, but there is also aspects of Thomistic thought that need to be corrected by a more Biblical, and Reformed anthropology. I’ll start with what is commendable:
In the last paragraph, West’s description of the Thomistic conception of the role of the will in the acquisition of beliefs and in faith, I would agree with Aquinas that “The assent of faith is produced by the will being moved sufficiently by the object of faith [God Himself] and therefore the intellect is brought to assent.”. I agree that faith is the work of God, working upon the human subject and his faculties for belief, in order to bring about faith. But, I am not sure if how I see the truth of Thomas’ statement here lines up with how he would frame it. Reformed and Roman Catholics both have always affirmed that human faith is always owing to the prior work of God – our disagreements are fundamentally over the sufficiency of faith to salvation, and the relationship between faith and works.
But, where I disagree with Aquinas, is on his understanding of how the will and intellect have been marred by depravity. For Aquinas, the will is “an innate positive inclination towards the good. It is that aspect of a rational agent which disposes her to pursue what she considers good.”. And from both West’s summary of him, and Aquinas elsewhere, it is clear that Thomas does not conceive of the will being so wrecked by sin that the “good” to which it is inclined, is merely “good” as perceived through fallen faculties. What is perceived as “good” may range from something hopelessly evil, or a genuine “good” tainted in some respect whether the taint exists in the “good” thing itself, or in the inclination toward the good.
From the very beginning, Scripture presents the depravity of human inclinations, which would include inclinations of the soul in the starkest of language: “The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.”(Genesis 6:5). For the will to be inclined by God, the grace of God must quicken the soul to new life that alone can make it possible for the will to be inclined to faith. Otherwise, the soul, which includes the faculty of the will, continues to be bent by evil, and is incapable of assenting to true faith. This is, as I understand it, part of why Rome and the Reformed have such radically different conceptions of grace and depravity. For Rome, the will needs grace like someone with an infection needs antibiotics – grace’s medicinal properties heal the sick soul enabling it to assent to faith. Yet the Reformed insist that the soul is (in it’s spiritual capacities to relate to God) dead in it’s sinfulness – beyond the aid of any medicine, and needs new life that comes through God’s unmerited favor, which can give the soul a capacity that it never had before, which is to receive from God, and in the newness of life it has been given by God, be inclined to true goods.
Like I stated previously, I think Aquinas is indispensible with respect to his reflections on causation, the existence of God, on orthodox formulations on the doctrine of God and the trinity. I also think his observation of the created order (e.g. Natural Law), and how humans evaluate truth claims are immensely helpful. But when it comes to matters of salvation (which gave rise to the material cause of the Reformation), Aquinas bears little resemblance to his Reformed predecessors. In many ways the Reformers were seeking to reform a church that had been, like no one other than Augustine, shaped by Thomas three centuries prior. They didn’t want to throw out the baby with the bath-water, which is why we see elements of Thomistic theology unmodified in our confessions (e.g. WCF 2.1), and Reformed scholars through the magisterial and confessional age affirming Thomistic Natural Law; but they sought to reform those areas where the church, and Thomas had slipped into error, namely how man was made right with God, and the basis on which church authority rested.
LikeLike
Don,
Don’t waste your time on West if you haven’t read Luther or Calvin on the “bondage of the will”. (Packer’s intro to the first is also outstanding before he went gunnybag on Evang.& Cath. Together.)
It’s called total depravity/original sin.
Neither the intellect or the will are inclined to any spiritual good whatever West/Acquinas opines.
WCF VI.
I. Our first parents, . . . became dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the parts and
faculties of soul and body.
IV. From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled,
and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all
actual transgressions.
Romans 3:10,11 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
None. Nada. Zip. Zero.
Nevertheless both Rome and much of contemporary Prot. evangelicalism/arminianism affirm “free will” or the doctrine that man, dead in his trespasses and sins, can of his own free will, repent and believe in Christ. Then and only then does regeneration take place. Thus Jimmy Carter or Billy Graham, the American apostle of arminianism in his polular (novel?) How To Be Born Again.
But not only is this to put the cart before the horse, why settle for the dessicated evangelical version when the Roman variety has so much more pzazz and tradition, ritual and liturgy?
Romans 9:15,16 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
LikeLike
Bob,
Thanks for jumping in. I found this to be especially helpful:
Neither the intellect or the will are inclined to any spiritual good whatever West/Acquinas opines
One of the hardest issues is the difficulty in discerning the difference of “spiritual good”, and by this I mean a good that is commendable or acceptable to God, and “proximate goods” which have the appearance of good based on human evaluation, and may even have demonstrable external benefits from a human frame of reference. In my reading of Aquinas so far, I think he totally misses the distinction. Are humans capable of proximate good? Of course and in this sense Thomistic virtue ethics may be quite useful in evaluating how one might be virtuous in this world (in a proximate, non-spiritual sense). But, Thomas does not seem to have any place for a kind of goodness that works on the human plane, but it totally useless in commending man to God.
I think there is a limited element in which Aquinas is right – the will is inclined to pursue what it perceives as good. But, because the will, and its perceptive powers are totally depraved, its pursuit of perceived goods will always bear the taints of sin. This is what baffles me most about Thomas, his understanding of theology proper is astoundingly accurate – so how could man, so tainted, commend himself to God in all of his divine perfections? I realize we are all, to a degree products of our own time, and that Aquinas’ soteriology was not unique in the Medieval Church – but I am amazed that he missed on this so badly. What is even more baffling to me, is that once Rome was confronted with the Reformers Biblical, and even Augustinian doctrines of depravity, they doubled down.
I often wonder when reading Thomas, whether or not he would have gone along with Rome when presented with well-orbed Protestant arguments. There are certain aspects in his thought that make me think maybe, and then others that make me less optimistic. But, no matter how sympathetic some in the Reformed camp might be to certain aspects of Aquinas, we simply cannot agree on some very important, very basic issues – sin and depravity being one such matter.
LikeLike
Don, I’ve been out of theological education for almost ten years. My sense is where Van Til reigns, Aquinas doesn’t receive a favorable hearing. Among those who read Calvin without neo-Calvinist glasses, continuities between Aquinas and the Reformers are likely more plausible.
LikeLike
Jed and Bob S.,
Thanks so much for your responses. I am on board with both of you. I think however, I ascribed to Aquinas the understanding that, as Jed puts it the will is inclined to pursue what it perceives as good. But, because the will, and its perceptive powers are totally depraved, its pursuit of perceived goods will always bear the taints of sin. Do we know for sure that Aquinas does not hold to this understanding? Like Jed, I would be amazed if he missed on this so badly.
I also believe that this understanding nicely explains how unbelievers are able to produce works of beauty measured by mastery of a skill learned. Furthermore, since God is the ground of all beauty, it is possible for an unbeliever to unwittingly, and in some sense, produce a work that reflects the beauty of God.
LikeLike
Darryl,
I suspect you are right. So perhaps the better question would be to what degree does Van Til reign in reformed academia?
LikeLike
That was a very interesting discussion between Don, Jed and Bob. The question of grace, and what grace consists of, was heavily debated between the Reformers and Catholic theologians. At least that is my understanding. We are saved BY GRACE and THROUGH FAITH. Is this grace by which we are saved the imputation of Christ’s righteousness or something the Spirit does within the ontological being and makeup of the individual? Or, maybe it is both. Is there any way this can be bibilically proved or by good and necessary consequence be deduced from the Scriptures. And, is this a critical issue that believers should concern themselves with?
Also, can anyone compare and contrast what the Catholics thought grace consisted of compared to how the Reformers described grace?
LikeLike
And grace, however the Scriptures defined it, has to be the cause of faith, right?
LikeLike
John Yeazel: And grace, however the Scriptures defined it, has to be the cause of faith, right?
RS: In the Historical Introduction to Luther’s Bondage of the Will (pp. 58-59), written by Johnson and Packer (1957 edition), they assert that the real moving cause of the Reformation was the modergistic work of God in salvation. “Whoever puts this book down wihtout having realized that evangelical theology stands or falls with the doctrine of the bondage of the will has read it in vain. The doctrine of free justification by faith only, which became the storm-centre of so much controversy during the Reformation period, is often regarded as the heart of the Reformer’s theology, but this is hardly accurate. The truth is that their thinking was really centred upon the contention of Paul, echoed with varying degrees of adequacy by Augustine, and Gottschalk, and Bradwardine, and Wycliffe, that the sinner’s entire salvation is by free and sovereign grace only. The doctrine of justifiction by faith was important to them because it safeguarded the principle of sovereign grace; but it actually expressed for them only one aspect of this principle, and that not its deepest aspect. The sovereignty of grace found expression in their thinking at a profounder level still, in the doctrine of monergistic regeneration–the docrine, that is, that the faith which receives Christ for salvation is itself the free gift of a sovereign God, bestowed by spiritual regeneration in the act of effectual calling. To the Reformers, the crucial question was not simply, whether God justifies believers without works of the law. It was the broader question, whether sinners are wholly helpless in their sin, and whether God is to be thought of as saving them by free, unconditional, inviincible grace, not only justifying them for Christ’s sake when they cam to faith, but also raising them from the death of sin by His quickening Spirit in order to bring them to faith. Here was the crucial issue; whether God is the author, not merely of justification, but also of faith; whether, in the last analysis, Christianity is a religion of utter reliance on God for salvation and all things necessary to it, of of self-reliance and self-effort.”
LikeLike
JY, we are not saved by any reformation or even restoration of the ‘soul’. We are redeemed per the vicarious death and life of Jesus Christ. It’s an incredibly important distinction, and not to be a smart arse, but this is the good and necessary deduction of all redemptive history(scriptures). Here’s the WCF
Chapter XI. Of Justification
Section I.—Those whom God effectually calleth, he also freely justifieth: not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ’s sake alone; not by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them, they receiving and resting on him and his righteousness by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God.
LikeLike
Sean and Richard,
Let us not forget that our being is a most gracious gift of God. I would also remind you:
None of this contradicts WCF XI.
LikeLike
Don, What’s with the hedging your bet on this subject? JY’s question was regarding the interrelation between grace and faith and imputed righteousness for salvation. This is the soteriological ground of the reformation, the material principle if you will. This is what the WCF on justification specifically answers. If we need to condition this principle I’m not sure what the point of protestantism is.
LikeLike
sean: JY, we are not saved by any reformation or even restoration of the ‘soul’. We are redeemed per the vicarious death and life of Jesus Christ. It’s an incredibly important distinction, and not to be a smart arse, but this is the good and necessary deduction of all redemptive history(scriptures).
Here’s the WCF
RS: But before WCF XI, there is WCF X. Perhaps I am misunderstanding your point, but the sovereign pleasure of God in regeneration is not in contrast to the work of Christ or the application of Christ, but is at the heart of it.
WCF: Chapter X Of Effectual Calling
I. All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, He is pleased, in His appointed time, effectually to call,[1] by His Word and Spirit,[2] out of that state of sin and death, in which they are by nature to grace and salvation, by Jesus Christ;[3] enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God,[4] taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them an heart of flesh;[5] renewing their wills, and, by His almighty power, determining them to that which is good,[6] and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ:[7] yet so, as they come most freely, being made willing by His grace.[8]
II. This effectual call is of God’s free and special grace alone, not from anything at all foreseen in man,[9] who is altogether passive therein, until, being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit,[10] he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it.
LikeLike
Richard, who said anything about contrasting X and XI ? We are not SAVED/REDEEMED per restoration or renovation. We are enabled to respond by faith to Christ. I’m amazed by the insistence to qualify justification.
LikeLike
sean: Richard, who said anything about contrasting X and XI ? We are not SAVED/REDEEMED per restoration or renovation. We are enabled to respond by faith to Christ. I’m amazed by the insistence to qualify justification.
RS: Who is trying to qualify justification? John asked this: “And grace, however the Scriptures defined it, has to be the cause of faith, right?” I gave a quote that I thought demonstrated that grace was the cause of faith. I didn’t see anywhere in the quote that it said that we were saved by restoration or renovation, and I still don’t. It just puts the focus on the sovereign grace of God in regeneration which precedes faith. In no way does it quality justification (at least as far as I can see), but is actually in line with WCF X which is certainly in line with XI.
LikeLike
Richard,
Must be a misunderstanding then because I was responding to this;
“Is this grace by which we are saved the imputation of Christ’s righteousness or something the Spirit does within the ontological being and makeup of the individual? Or, maybe it is both.”
And XI says this;………….Those whom God effectually calleth, he also freely justifieth: not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ’s sake alone; not by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them…………
LikeLike
sean: Richard, Must be a misunderstanding then because I was responding to this;
“Is this grace by which we are saved the imputation of Christ’s righteousness or something the Spirit does within the ontological being and makeup of the individual? Or, maybe it is both.”
RS: Ah, I thought you were responding to my quote from the Bondage of the Will and was completely lost as to why. I can now see why you responded the way you did. It makes perfect sense. Thanks for setting me straight.
And XI says this;………….Those whom God effectually calleth, he also freely justifieth: not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ’s sake alone; not by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them…………
LikeLike
Richard no setting straight going on, just clarification. Thanks.
LikeLike
John,
Is this grace by which we are saved the imputation of Christ’s righteousness or something the Spirit does within the ontological being and makeup of the individual? Or, maybe it is both. Is there any way this can be bibilically proved or by good and necessary consequence be deduced from the Scriptures. And, is this a critical issue that believers should concern themselves with?
That is a really good question, and I think it cuts at the heart of the difference of Protestants and Catholics on both human sin, and on how divine grace remedies the matter. I was just digging through Horton’s The Christian Faith to see how he addresses your question, and his subsections “Union With God Through the Soul’s Ascent Versus Union With Christ Through the Son’s Descent” and “Infused Habits” (pp. 605-12) in Chapter 18 “Union With Christ”. Here’s an excerpt that deals with the Thomistic/Roman position:
LikeLike
Don, CVT is still in the saddle at both Westminsters (though one of those seminaries wouldn’t see it that way because there CVT rides a white horse). At other Reformed seminaries, I believe CVT is less prominent and always has been.
LikeLike
Sean,
I am not trying to hedge or qualify what you refer to as the material principle of the reformation. I am only pointing out that it is God Who has given us our being, and He alone that can revive our will, which due to the fall was oriented on our glory, not God’s.
LikeLike
Don, here’s Packer;
“It has been common since Melanchthon to speak of justification by faith as the MATERIAL PRINCIPLE of the Reformation, corresponding to biblical authority as its formal principle. That is right. Of all the Reformers’ many biblical elucidations, the rediscovery of justification as a present reality, and of the nature of the faith which secures it, was undoubtedly the most formative and fundamental. For the doctrine of justification by faith is like Atlas. It bears a whole world on its shoulders, the entire evangelical knowledge of God the Saviour. The doctrines of election, of effectual calling, regeneration, and repentance, of adoption, of prayer, of the Church, the ministry, and the sacraments, are all to be interpreted and understood in the light of justification by faith, for this is how the Bible views them. Thus, we are taught that God elected men from eternity in order that in due time they might be justified through faith in Christ (Rom. 8:29f.). He renews their hearts under the Word, and draws them to Christ by effectual calling, in order that he might justify them upon their believing. Their adoption as God’s sons follows upon their justification; it is, indeed, no more than the positive outworking of God’s justifying sentence. Their practice of prayer, of daily repentance, and of good works springs from their knowledge of justifying grace (cf. Luke 18:9-14; Eph. 2:8-10). The Church is to be thought of as the congregation of the faithful, the fellowship of justified sinners, and the preaching of the Word and ministration of the sacraments are to be understood as means of grace because through them God evokes and sustains the faith that justifies. A right view of these things is possible only where there is a proper grasp of justification; so that, when justification falls, true knowledge of God’s grace in human life falls with it. When Atlas loses his footing, everything that rested on his shoulders collapses too.”
LikeLike
It ain’t me who coined it the ‘material principle of the reformation”, though I agree with it.
LikeLike
Sean,
Me too. Thanks for the quote.
LikeLike